UCI Center for Urban Infrastructure The New Generation of Transportation Financing in California Karen J. Hedlund, Esq. Nossaman Guthner Knox & Elliott LLP March 7, 2003 Tax-Exempt Financing for Public-Private Transportation Projects
Few Equity Projects in the U.S. Have Gone Forward Virginia Greenway SR 91 Express Lanes Acquired by OCTA SR 57 Franchise terminated SR 125 AB Macquarie investment
Few Asset Sales in U.S. Privatizations mostly in water/wastewater sector Airport demonstration program – a dud Chicago Skyway auction expected in April 2003
Equity Investments in Tollroad Projects Source: Macquarie Infrastructure Group US v. World (Macquarie Infrastructure)
Cause: Federal tax code discourages private investment in highway and transit projects!
Tax-Exempt Bonds Preclude Private Investment—With Exceptions Since 1969 interest on “private activity bonds” subject to federal income tax Except: “exempt facilities” Most “exempt facilities” bonds subject to statewide volume caps not airports, ports
Long-term Management Contracts Constitute “Private Use” Safe harbor for “fixed fee” contracts 15-year max term No compensation based on net revenues “One-time” incentive compensation payment allowed
No “Private Activity Bond” Exception for Highway/Transit Airport Terminals – No volume cap Port Facilities – No volume cap Water/Wastewater – Subject to cap Solid Waste – Leases exempt High Speed Rail – Special provision Rationale: no private involvement in highways in 1970s when PAB exceptions legislated
Result: “Private” Deals Convert to “63-20” Non-profit Structures Non-profit Pocahontas Parkway S.C. Southern Connector Las Vegas Monorail Private to non-profit converted to fully public financing: Tacoma Narrows
Do We Need Private Equity? “Equity Is More Expensive!” Equity supports higher risk Equity cushions debt – makes debt cheaper or more saleable Projects selected on feasibility/need v. politics Attracts world-wide experienced owner/operators
Advantages of Tax-Exempt Debt 20% lower interest cost – millions over the life of the project More favorable market Longer maturities Less stringent covenants General comfort level with governmental issuers
Solution: Congress must create a level playing field for private investment
1997/99 – “HICSA” “Highway Innovation and Cost Savings Act” first introduced by Sen. Chafee in 1997 Reintroduced in 1999 $15 b in bonds for up to 15 highway demonstration projects Budget “scoring” only $102m – Included in Tax Bill that passed House and Senate –vetoed by Pres Clinton
2001/2002 – S. 870 “Multitrans” Multimodal Transportation Financing Act – introduced by Chrm. Bob Smith (NH) May 2001 Highways and transit Multimodal facilities Air/rail Truck/rail Volume cap exemption Permits second advance refunding to reduce financing costs upon completion of construction and end of ramp up Attempts to attach Davis-Bacon requirements could cost Republican support – would be only tax-exempt bond category subject to federal prevailing wage requirement
Multitrans – Future Prospects?
Contact Karen J. Hedlund Partner Nossaman Guthner Knox & Elliott LLP Phone: (213) Fax: (213)