In the previous issue of IFQ we provided a table detailing the capitalization

activity of each State Infrastructure

Bank (SIB) as of the end of fiscal year

1997. In contrast, this issue of IFQ

provides a Transaction Update, detailing the nature and extent of project

activity within the nation’s SIBs. First

we present a table (see page 2) that

summarizes pertinent information on

two classes of projects: those for which

one or more loans have been disbursed,

and those for which a loan or credit

agreement has been signed but no

transaction has yet occurred. Second,

we highlight a specific project as a case

study. The recent sale of $159 million

in revenue bonds for the Butler

Regional Highway makes it this issue’s

SIB project of choice.

Butler Regional Highway,

Butler County, Ohio

The Butler Regional Highway involves

new construction of a 10.7-mile, fourlane, limited access toll road. The project is located in the southwest corner

of the state and will connect an intersection in Hamilton, OH to Interstate

75 in Liberty Township, OH. The

project’s expected construction cost is

approximately $150 million. Right-ofway acquisition began in 1996, ground

will be broken in April 1998, and the

project is expected to be complete in

the fall of 2000.

The Butler County Transportation

Improvement District (TID) is financing and building the project, and will

own the project until 2017. On

October 16, 1996, Butler TID became

the first-ever borrower to receive a SIB

loan of $10 million. Since then, the

Ohio SIB has provided two additional

loans to the TID, for a total loan

amount of $35 million for the Butler

Regional Highway. Each of the three

loans carried a 6 percent interest rate.

The term for each loan was three

months following issuance of bonds, or

two years in the event that no bonds

were issued. 

Upon issuance of $158.5 million in

revenue bonds, the TID used a portion

of the bond proceeds to repay the Ohio

SIB $35 million in loan principal, plus

about $1.5 million in interest, in

December 1997. Administrators of the

Ohio SIB are currently planning to lend

these repaid funds to two other projects:

the Fort Washington Way Interstate relocation in Cincinnati, and a project to

widen West 117 in Cleveland. 

The $158.5 million in revenue bonds

were sold in November 1997. The

bonds, which are insured, received ratings of Aaa, AAA, and AAA by

Moody’s, Standard and Poor’s, and

Fitch, respectively. 

The TID will service the debt with

lease payments it receives from Ohio

DOT (ODOT). ODOT will lease the

highway from the TID until 2017, at

which point ownership of the highway

will transfer to ODOT. Until that

time, ODOT’s lease payments will

derive from future Federal highway

apportionments that are appropriated

to ODOT biennially by the Ohio

General Assembly, making the project

an early example of the grant anticipation revenue vehicles (GARVEE)

financing concept described in the 

previous issue of IFQ (Vol. 3, No. 2).

The bonds are also backed by the State

Highway Fund in event of Federal

non-appropriation. Toll revenues will

support operation and maintenance of

the regional highway. Any excess toll

revenues will be directed towards other

connecting segments being constructed

by the TID.

The SIB loans permitted right-of-way

acquisition and design to move forward

prior to the bond sale and approximately one year earlier than would otherwise have been possible. The loan

also freed up $25 million in TID

reserves for construction of an adjoining interchange, now complete.

Quarterly

FHWA's

MIRIAM ROSKIN, EDITOR VOL. 4, NO. 1

MAX INMAN, FHWA MANAGING EDITOR WINTER 1998

Also in this issue ...

In Practice

Applying IF Strategies 

to Special Funding 

Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Conference Spotlight

Credit Roundtable,

Washington, D.C. . . . . . . 4

TRB Finance Sessions,

Washington, D.C. . . . . . . 4

Executive Policy 

Workshop, San Diego . . . . 5

SIB TRANSACTION UPDATE

SIB-Assisted Projects as of February 15, 1998

Contact:

Gary Joseph, Ohio DOT,

614/644-7255.

Butler Regional Highway

75

71

70

Butler Regional Highway
STATE PROJECT

PROJECT COST 

($000)

LOAN 

AMOUNT 

($000)

INTEREST 

RATE

DRAW 

DATE REPAYMENT SOURCE

Loans

1 Missouri Springfield Transportation Projects 33,000 1,180 3.70% 4/01/97 Local dedicated sales tax increment 

financing and State Highway Fund

2 Missouri Cape Girardeau Bridge 96,400 28,000 5.30% 2/01/98 State and future Federal funds

3 Ohio Butler Regional Highway 150,000 10,000 6.00% 10/16/96 Bond proceeds

4 10,000 6.00% 1/13/97 Bond proceeds

5 15,000 6.00% 5/19/97 Bond proceeds

6 Ohio Great Lakes Science Center Parking Facility 7,825 7,825 6.00% 5/01/97 Parking fees

7 Texas State Route 190 - Bush Turnpike* 1,000,000 20,000 4.20% 10/01/97 Toll revenues

SUBTOTAL 1,287,225 92,005

Loan Agreements

1 Arizona Price Corridor Segments 56,600 26,000 3.67% 3/00/99 Earmarked sales tax revenues

2 Arizona Red Mountain Freeway Segments 60,400 13,700 3.67% 7/00/98 Earmarked sales tax revenues

3 Florida Branan Field Road Construction - Clay Cty. 27,046 4,980 0.00% 1999 State DOT District funds (deriving 

mainly from gas tax receipts)

4 Florida Branan Field Road Construction - Duval Cty. 36,255 13,406 0.00% 1999 State DOT District funds

5 Florida Congress/Australian Connector 11,529 8,365 0.00% tbd State DOT District funds

6 Florida I-275 Widening 11,801 2,327 0.00% 1999 Future Federal highway funds

7 Florida SR77 Reconstruction 27,046 5,598 0.00% 2000 State DOT District funds

8 Florida SR80 Improvements 20,448 4,366 0.00% tbd State DOT District funds

9 Florida SR540 Improvements 18,727 2,590 0.00% 1999 State DOT District funds

10 Florida SR655 Construction 14,948 6,953 0.00% 1999 State DOT District funds

11 Missouri Cole County Highway 179 31,400 6,000 3.50% 11/01/02 Earmarked local capital improvement 

sales tax revenues, State Highway Fund

12 Missouri Springfield Transportation Projects** see above 1,690 3.50% 4/01/99 Local dedicated sales tax increment 

financing and State Highway Fund

13 Ohio Fort Washington Way Relocation 120,000 20,000 5.00% 3/01/98 Future city income and sales tax

14 Ohio Cleveland Transit Viaduct 25,000 6,900 4.25% 4/01/98 County sales tax

15 Ohio Project Monaco (Marion, OH) 2,025 2,025 4.00% 4/01/98 Payment in lieu of property taxes (TIF)

16 Ohio Market Street Improvements (Canton, OH) 12,469 1,200 4.25% 7/01/98 City-pledged excess revenues 

(primarily income tax)

17 Ohio Cincinnati Industrial Park Access Road Improvements 645 645 4.00% 4/01/98 City's capital improvement fund 

(primarily income tax)

18 Texas State Route 190 - Bush Turnpike* see above 40,000 4.20% 10/01/98 Toll revenues

19 see above 20,000 4.20% 10/01/99 Toll revenues

SUBTOTAL 476,339 186,745

GRAND TOTAL 1,763,564 278,750

* SR 190 received two loan disbursements under 23 USC 129, prior to establishment of the Texas SIB. Those obligations were subsequently adopted by the SIB. 

The two previous loan disbursements were made on 1/1/96 in the amounts of $20 million and on 10/1/96 for $35 million. It is anticipated that the full $135 

million from all prior and future loan disbursements will be repaid to the Texas SIB. 

** This line item represents a second loan for the Springfield Transportation Projects.

2

Quarterly

FHWA's

Summary Table: SIB Loan Transactions and Loan Agreements

as of February 15, 1998

As this issue of IFQ goes to press, three states had disbursed seven loans from their State Infrastructure Banks. These loans, totaling $92 million, were provided to five projects (note that one project received three separate loans). In addition, five states had

signed loan agreements for 18 projects. The table appearing below provides a summary of all loans and loan agreements completed as of February 15, 1998. 

The information displayed in the following table derives from a three-page form that FHWA is currently circulating to FHWA

division offices and SIB contacts within each state DOT. As this survey instrument is refined, the information it produces will set

the stage for further exchange of information among the states on SIB-assisted projects and their financing arrangements.

Contact:

Lucinda Eagle, FHWA, 202/366-5057.
3

Quarterly

FHWA's

You, the Director of Finance, just got a call from the CEO of

your state DOT. She read an issue of IFQ and wants to know

how your state can use these innovative tools she’s been hearing about. She expects a full report in one week on how you

plan to use innovative finance techniques to help solve the particular transportation financing challenges of your state.

Aghast, you flip through the six-pound notebooks you collected at the innovative finance workshops your boss asked you to

attend. Why did they all take their examples from high-population density, high-income, urbanized states? Why does every

example seem linked to a toll road? Isn’t there any article or

presentation that describes what a real DOT goes through? 

The example situations below are drawn from real states, and

demonstrate a few ways that these techniques might be applied

to specific funding situations.

Example Situation #1: There’s Many a Slip ’Twixt TIP

and STIP 

The Problem

The State of Babel has six metropolitan planning organizations

(MPOs) that create local Transportation Improvement

Programs (TIPs). As with most states, projects from the local

TIPs are selected for inclusion in the three-year, financially

constrained State Transportation Improvement Program

(STIP). Yet many projects never make the cut, and wind up

appearing on the local TIPs year after year. You now have a

twelve-year planning horizon for many projects, and the year

2010 is showing up with appalling regularity under the column “Expected Completion Date” on your long-range plan. 

Your DOT already went to the governor and asked him to

support a gas tax increase to get some of these local projects done.

“No way,” said the governor. “Read my lips: no tax increases.”

Your Congressional delegation is trying to get demonstration

funds, with equal lack of success. 

You call your finance department colleagues into the office for

a brainstorming session. 

Ideas

“Listen, we’ve got to accelerate the local projects, and without

any new money.”

One of your colleagues steps forward. “What if we work with

our FHWA Division office to see if there are any funds still

obligated on expired or stalled projects? I’ve heard that some

states have done project funds management reviews and found

money they didn’t know they had.”

“Not exactly innovative finance,” you say, “but worth a shot.”

You set up an appointment with your Division’s financial manager to look for funds tied up in outdated or stalled projects.

Another associate chimes in. “You know, Coal County representatives were here the other day, wondering when we can get

started on the Blue Highway retrofit. They need another

$200,000 to make up the total cost of $400,000. They’d even

be willing to take a loan and use county tax funds to repay

it, if we could come up with some more grant money for

them soon.”

“Hmmn.” You consider the idea briefly. “How can we come

up with loan and grant funds on the project when we’re

already stretched as it is? I can’t afford to delay any more projects in order to make that happen.” 

“Well,” your assistant points out. “What about borrowing

from four or five of our smaller counties? You know they only

get sub-allocated about $40,000 per year in Federal funds.

Most of them won’t even start a Federal project until they’ve

accumulated at least $160,000 or $200,000 together in

Federal funds.” 

“Maybe we could convince them to let us use that money to

lend Coal County $200,000 for the projects, through a

Section 129 loan, or SIB loan. Coal County could repay that

loan through a combination of future grant funds, or its own

revenues, over a three-year period. If we pick five counties

that aren’t planning to use their allocation of $40,000 in a

given fiscal year, that would be enough to make up the loan to

Coal County. Then the repayments would go back to those

counties, with maybe some interest for their trouble. It

wouldn’t change their project programming at all – just a different source of funding.” 

“Good idea!” You put a meeting with Coal County and

Beetler County on your schedule.

Then a thought occurs to you. “How are we going to make

sure it doesn’t happen next year? You know the legislative

committee is going to ask us how we are going to avoid this

problem in the future.”

Your deputy (whose background is in planning) pipes up.

“What if we asked everyone about potential revenue sources

before putting projects on the STIP? We could use a point system to incorporate financial considerations – like degree of local

contribution, willingness to accept a partial loan, availability of

revenue generators, etc., into our STIP evaluation process.”

“You planners are so unrealistic,” you say. Still, it’s worth

thinking about. 

IN PRACTICE

Applying IF Strategies to Special Funding Problems

This issue of IFQ introduces a new feature, in which we

present a set of hypothetical cases that give the reader a

chance to devise his or her own response to a special

highway financing problem. We also present some

thoughts on how the problems might be addressed.

continued on page 6
Quarterly

FHWA's

4

A number of important conference sessions on transportation finance

occurred during late 1997 and early

1998. These included a policy workshop for senior state transportation

officials; a series of sessions within the

Transportation Research Board’s

(TRB) annual meeting; and an

FHWA-sponsored “Searching for

Solutions” roundtable on the role and

implications of direct Federal credit

assistance. The following three summaries were prepared, in sequence, by

Patrick Balducci, Dane Ismart, and

David Seltzer.

Federal Credit Roundtable

Washington, D.C.

January 13, 1998

More than 100 experts from both the

public and private sectors attended a

one-day conference on Federal credit

concepts for surface transportation. The

conference attracted representatives 

from a wide range of organizations and

sectors, including the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of

Treasury, the Congressional Budget

Office, the General Accounting Office,

key Congressional committees, state

DOTs, project sponsors, construction

firms, and the financial community.

The purpose of the conference was to

explore the implications of using

Federal credit (e.g., direct loans, loan

guarantees, and lines of credit) to help

finance major surface transportation

projects. The conference was one in a

series of periodic policy discussions that

FHWA has sponsored called “Searching

for Solutions,” in which experts are

invited to help FHWA examine key

transportation policy issues.

Conference participants were greeted by

FHWA Deputy Administrator Gloria

Jeff. In her introductory remarks, Ms.

Jeff stated that strategies to facilitate

interaction between the capital markets and traditional transportation

financing mechanisms figured prominently in the Administration’s debates

on highway financing.

Interspersed throughout the day were

three panels that gave participants the

opportunity to explore Federal credit

and its application to the surface transportation sector. The first panel focused

on Federal credit legislation pending in

both the House and Senate (respectively,

the Transportation Infrastructure Credit

Act of 1997, H.R. 2330, and the

Transportation Infrastructure Finance

and Innovation Act of 1997, Subtitle C,

Chapter 2, of S. 1173, as profiled in

IFQ Vol. 3, No. 1). The second panel

examined how Federal credit concepts

could be applied to real projects. This

session considered how two standby

lines of credit to the San Joaquin Hills

and Foothill/Eastern Transportation

Corridors and a direct Federal loan to

the Alameda Corridor assisted these projects in obtaining financing and moving

ahead. The third panel reviewed potential methodologies for assessing payment

risk and estimating the budgetary costs

associated with the provision of Federal

credit assistance.

In addition to the panels, Mitchell

Rapaport, Esq., of Nixon, Hargrave,

Devans & Doyle LLP led a discussion

on Federal tax law matters. The discussion focused on the tax implications of

Federal credit, with special focus on

those circumstances in which such assistance could be construed as an indirect

guarantee of a tax-exempt obligation.

The day closed with a keynote presentation delivered by Jack Basso, USDOT’s

Acting Assistant Secretary for Budget

and Programs. In his presentation, Mr.

Basso discussed key policy issues relating to credit and administrative procedures for executing and monitoring

loans under a Federal credit program.

The roundtable was a follow-up to a preliminary draft research paper entitled

Federal Credit for Surface Transportation:

Exploring Concepts and Issues. This paper

is now being publicly circulated. In

addition, major conference findings will

be reflected in a Policy Discussion Series

report, due for release in late spring.

Financing the Bridge to the 21st

Century: An Executive Policy

Workshop

San Diego, California

December 3-5, 1997

Approximately 110 senior transportation officials from 34 states participated

in a rigorous two-day workshop sponsored by FHWA and the Institute of the

Americas. The purpose of the conference was to explore the state policy

issues associated with financing major

surface transportation investments

through public-private partnerships.

The workshop, structured as a hands-on

interactive program, was divided into

four elements: Core Courses, Transaction Reviews, Team Case Studies, and

Group Presentations. A combination of

Institute faculty members, public and

private sector practitioners, and

FHWA staff helped conduct the participatory sessions.

FHWA Deputy Administrator Gloria

Jeff opened the program with an

overview of FHWA’s interest in promoting innovative finance alternatives. The

Core Courses were designed to impart

the informational building blocks needed to evaluate which financing techniques would be most appropriate in

the context of a state’s objectives and a

particular project’s characteristics. Core

sessions included a pre-Conference

workshop on the Federal Budget

process (“The Wonderful World of

CONFERENCE SPOTLIGHT

Notes on Three Recent Finance Sessions

Contact:

Bryan Grote, FHWA,

202/336-0673.

continued on page 5
Quarterly

FHWA's

5

Scoring”), an overview of state and

Federal legal issues, and an analysis of

investment potential from the perspective of the institutional investor.

The Transaction Reviews offered candid

assessments of both successes and failures in recent years in the area of transportation project finance. Presenters

described various institutional models

for developing and operating new

transportation facilities, ranging from

purely private project financings (SR

91, Dulles Greenway), to public-private

partnerships (Denver E-470, Alameda

Corridor), to publicly-sponsored system financings (Dallas North Tollway).

Break-out sessions then canvassed the

relative merits of these alternate formats and the varying role the states

could play.

The Team Case Studies formed the crux

of the Workshop. Attendees were divided into six groups. Two teams each

were assigned to determine how best to

finance a new airport access tollroad, a

non-toll highway expansion, and a new

toll bridge competing against a free

alternative. The groups spent the better

part of a day working through political,

financial, and mobility considerations

in devising the “right” solution.

Afterwards, DOT Deputy Secretary

Mortimer Downey gave a dinner

address outlining reauthorization

prospects and possibilities.

On the final morning, participants presented their teams’ recommendations at

a Presentation and Review. The workshop concluded with an address by

Dean Dunphy, Secretary of the State of

California Business, Transportation,

and Housing Agency, on California’s

uniquely devolutionary S.B. 45 state

funding initiative.

TRB Workshop on Financial Planning

for Surface Transportation

Washington, D.C.

January 11, 1998

On the basis of widespread interest in a

follow-up to an April 1997 conference

on transportation finance held in

Dallas, Texas (see Innovative Finance,

Vol. 2, No. 3 from June 1997), TRB

added an all-day financial planning

workshop to this year’s annual meeting.

The workshop included two separate

training sessions that were attended by

well over 100 TRB attendees from the

public and private sectors.

The first session focused on the capital

markets and debt financing. Ms.

Priscilla Hancock of Lehman Brothers,

Inc., presented an overview of municipal bond markets, including a primer

on the factors that influence bond

prices, ratings, and yields. Ms. Hancock

also provided recommendations on best

practices for debt issuance.

The second session included a series of

presentations on innovative financing

strategies and statewide financial planning. The session began with a detailed

discussion of individual financing

strategies such as advance construction,

tolls, toll credits, flexible match, state

loans of Federal funds, and infrastructure banks. ISTEA’s financial planning

requirements were also reviewed, followed by a discussion of methods for

incorporating current and proposed

techniques into an effective statewide

financially constrained transportation

plan. The instructor and moderator

for this session was Mr. Dane Ismart

of Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.

After the presentation on innovative

financing, Mr. Gary Joseph of Ohio DOT

discussed the state’s recent infrastructure

bank experience. The presentation

included information on how the bank is

structured, how projects are selected to

receive assistance, and how the state works

with project sponsors to identify the revenue sources used to repay loans.

Following Mr. Joseph’s discussion of

Ohio’s SIB experience, Messrs. David

Seltzer and Bryan Grote of FHWA 

presented overviews of two key bills

introduced during the 1997 session of

Congress: the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act

and the Highway Infrastructure

Privatization Act. These two proposals,

respectively, would permit direct Federal

credit assistance to specific projects (see

the summary of the Federal Credit

Roundtable, above) and allow greater

private participation in tax-exempt

financing of toll facilities. 

The entire workshop was recorded.

Videotapes are available from TRB for

$50.00. 

Contacts:

Jon Williams or 

Mary DeMinter, TRB,

202/334-3205.

Contributing Authors

Contributers to Vol. 4, No. 1 

of IFQ include:

Patrick Balducci,

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Dane Ismart,

Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.

Jennifer Mayer, FHWA

Western Finance Center

Miriam Roskin,

Porter & Associates, Inc.

David Seltzer, FHWA

FINANCE SESSIONS, continued from page 4

A review of innovative highway

finance strategies has recently been

published by the Congressional

Budget Office. The report, entitled

Innovative Financing of Highways: An

Analysis of Proposals, was published in

January 1998. It is available from the

CBO Publications Office (202/226-

2809), or at the CBO’s web site

(http://www.cbo.gov/).

Contact:

Max Inman, FHWA,

202/336-0673.
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:

• National Association of Regional 

Council’s (NARC’s) Association 

of MPOs (AMPO)

• ITS America

• American Public Transit 

Association (APTA)

• Surface Transportation Policy 

Project (STPP)

• State & Territorial Air Pollution 

Program Administrators/

Association of Local Air Pollution

Control Officials 

(STAPPA/ALAPCO)

• Association for Commuter 

Transportation (ACT)

• International Bridge, Tunnel, 

and Turnpike Association

MIRIAM A. ROSKIN, EDITOR

PORTER & ASSOCIATES, INC.

206/441-9808

FAX: 206/441-9852

MROSKIN@PORTER-INC.COM

LAURIE L. HUSSEY, CS MANAGING EDITOR

CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS, INC.

617/354-0167

FAX: 617/354-1542

LLH@CAMSYS.COM

MAX INMAN, FHWA MANAGING EDITOR

202/366-0673

FAX: 202/366-7493

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.

Quarterly

FHWA's

Quarterly

FHWA's

6

Example Situation #2: Cash Flow

Crunch

The Problem

The State of Good Intentions has an

ambitious, multi-year highway construction program. One large project – the I99 Olympus Highway – is running

ahead of schedule, and using more cash,

much more quickly, than initially was

planned in your cash flow projections.

As a result, even though the cost of the

larger project has not changed, many of

the smaller, local projects in the program are being delayed because of the

cash shortage.

The legislature is not happy! Part of the

way you got the funding for I-99 in the

first place was to guarantee that you’d be

able to do these smaller projects (which

happen to be in each legislator’s district)

at the same time. You can’t go back and

ask for more money. Besides, it’s not

that you need more money. You just

need it now! You convene an emergency meeting with the rest of your

finance staff.

Ideas

Your intern waves a recent issue of the

Bond Buyer in front of the meeting.

“Have you heard about these new

GARVEEs? What if we issued GARVEE

bonds, and backed them with future

Federal-aid for the I-99 Olympus

Highway? We could use the proceeds to

cover our cash needs on the Olympus

project, and still start on those local projects right away.” 

“Good idea...but I’ll have to check with

the general counsel to see how we might

do this. In the meantime, what if we

worked with the local governments

(that’s what the State of Babel is doing)

and offer Section 129 loans or SIB loans

for preconstruction costs, if they want to

speed up the projects?”

“Yeah,” says another colleague. “Another

thing we could do – ask the local

governments if any of them have the

money to construct the projects now,

if we can reimburse them later. We

could use advance construction to frontload our use of Federal-aid funds. We

could sweeten the deal by offering

more Federal funds later if they’ll help

us out now.” 

Example Situation #3: Match It or

Scratch It!

The Problem

The State of Paradise sub-allocates its

funding to local areas, and requires

them to come up with the non-Federal

share for funds they receive. If an area

cannot fund the share, the Federal

funds are re-allocated to other areas. A

new governor has been elected, and he

is not happy to learn that his county

will lose its share of Federal-aid funding

for the fifth year in a row. You and the

county leadership quickly meet to

determine how they can come up with

the match.

Ideas

“What about third party donations

(a.k.a., flexible match)?” You ask the

county manager. “Do you have any projects planned that will or could receive

donations from outside sources?”

“A developer did offer to contribute

towards funding the interchange that

runs near his property. If we accept

the offer, can we apply it to the nonFederal share?”

“Absolutely. As long as you don’t accept

it before project authorization, of

course.” Another thought occurs to you.

“Do you have any kind of ferry system?”

The county manager says “We’ve had a

ferry system in operation for a couple of

years – we charge ferry tolls and use

them for capital construction of the ferry

facilities.” 

“That’s eligible for a Section 1044 toll

credit. We’ll have to calculate how much

– probably enough to cover at least some

of this project. I also heard that a cellular company had approached you about

putting a tower on the bridge that you’re

reconstructing as part of the project?”

“Yes, that’s true. We haven’t decided if

we’re going to permit it, though.”

“If you lease them the cellular tower on

an annual basis, that’s called a shared

resources arrangement – you could use

the income to come up with your nonFederal match.”

APPLYING IF STRATEGIES, continued from page 3

Contact:

Jennifer Mayer, FHWA

Western Finance Center,

415/744-2634.