A new report by the Louisville Courier-Journal focuses on another aspect of the departure from the norm in financing of the the east-end bridge at Utica through tolls that should cause concern. In traditional public-private partnerships involving transportation projects, the private operator assumes the risk that toll revenues will be sufficient to cover the costs of the project. Indeed, that's the financing approach Kentucky is using for its share of the bridge costs. Not so with Indiana. Indiana is backing bonds it will issue to cover its share of the costs with state appropriations. In fact, it didn't even conduct a toll revenue forecast to determine that tolls collected will be sufficient to cover payments on the bonds. Indiana is also utilizing an available funding approach to repay the bonds. No payments will be made until the bridge is open, and those payments will escalate annually starting at $36.9 million annually once the bridge is open, which will total at least $2 billion.
This funding approach is a shift away from traditional state projects in which private operators assumed the risk of toll revenues, said Robert Poole, transportation policy director at the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank. Overall, according to the Public Works Financing trade journal, the Indiana deal is the fourth partnership in the United States in which those payments are backed by state appropriations instead of toll revenue.
And that’s a risk, he said.
“The taxpayers are still the ones left holding the bag,” Poole said. “Some new toll facilities — bridges or toll roads — do end up in hindsight to have been based on overly optimistic projections of traffic or revenue.”
In another departure from other toll roads, Indiana didn’t conduct a toll revenue forecast typically performed when projects are financed with bonds that are repaid directly with toll proceeds. Those forecasts, which Kentucky has undertaken, are done to assure investors buying bonds that toll revenues are expected to be sufficient. But Indiana chose not to conduct such a forecast because the state’s availability payments — not toll revenue — are backing the bonds.Indiana officials haven't even shared any toll revenue estimates with state lawmakers according to the Courier-Journal. Yet Indiana lawmakers and Gov. Mike Pence aren't concerned.
"Rep. Tim Brown, a Crawfordsville Republican and budget committee chair, said he is comfortable with the finance authority’s approach even though he hasn’t seen the agency’s internal calculations." "I think everybody feels confident that since both bridges will be tolled that, long term, over the length of this project, that it will pay for itself," Brown said.
Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, asked York during the December meeting if the finance authority’s research took into account whether there would be enough toll revenue to cover the state’s obligations. York replied that was “absolutely correct,” a tape of the meeting indicates.
“We asked every question we could think of in terms of trying to extract that information to draw a conclusion,” Kenley said in an interview.
For his part, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence said in an interview that he supports the contracting and oversight method that was developed under the administration of his predecessor, Mitch Daniels.
Asked whether he is concerned that the state’s transportation funds — instead of toll revenue — are being pledged to meet the availability payments, Pence said, “We really believe that the approach the Indiana Finance Authority has taken to the issuance of these bonds ... is the appropriate approach.”According to bond documents, the bridge is expected to cost Indiana $1.18 billion and open in late 2016. Indiana will start making payments in 2017 through the year 2051 totaling $2 billion. The private operator will provide $78.1 million of its own funding for the project, while the state will rely on $700 million in bond revenues and $392 million in state transportation dollars to tap the balance of its upfront costs. All told, the $1.18 billion bridge will cost Indiana at least $2.7 billion.
Did transportation experts Tully and Smith at The Star not catch this???
Leucadia, and who knows else what Mitch has left us with.
The East Side of Louisville is thriving and vibrant. The East Side of the Indiana metro area is dead. Indiana needs this bridge far more than Kentucky does.
I heard the bridge costs would have been split more equitably between the states and that it could have been untolled, but Daniels wanted Indiana to pay the greater percentage of it so he could be solely in control of selling it off and collecting its revenues.
It's a shame the bridge will have a toll. Some Hoosiers might pay it to go to work in Louisville, but it won't do a thing to pique Louisvillans' curiosity about the Indiana side. People who know Louisville will still cross the river free of charge.
What a disaster.
Bridge over the river why?
Your perspective on this is naive.
Let me explain it simply.
This is a bridge that Indiana needs, and Kentucky does not. If we attempt to make Kentucky pay half or more, guess what will happen? The same thing that has been happening for the last 20 years.
If we want a bridge, we're going to have to pay to build it. Kentucky has us over a barrel here. And they know it. And Daniels knew it too.
Daniels did many things wrong while in office. This wasn't one of them.
Move on to something that matters.
Wow. That reminds me of the meme we always hear from the people negotiating trade deals with other countries on behalf of our government. The costs were deliberately run up on the Kentucky side for an unneeded deep tunnel and spaghetti bowl. Indiana paid for those unnecessary costs. Daniels could have insisted on a different configuration. He was only interested in big payoffs for the contractors, investment firms and lawyers set to do all the work associated with the construction and bond work. That's entirely what drove his decisions.
Post a Comment