Presentation on theme: "Public – Private Partnerships (“P3s”) FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FINANCE."— Presentation transcript:
Public – Private Partnerships (“P3s”) FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FINANCE
John Peracchio Education: Brown University and Columbia University Law School Practiced Law in New York City CEO of 2 Family-owned Automotive Suppliers Harman International Industries Senior Operating Executive Peracchio & Co.: Consulting Services to Investors/Financial Institutions (Guggenheim Securities) and Intelligent Transportation System Integrators…and The State of Minnesota’s TFAC! Intelligent Transportation Society of America and the World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems
Examples of P3s in Transportation (Risk Management) “Adopt-a-Highway” Design and Build Projects Transportation and Community Development Concession Arrangements to Operate Publicly- Owned Transportation Infrastructure Privately-Owned or Leased Bridges and Tunnels Privately-Leased Toll Roads
Privately-Owned or Leased Bridges and Tunnels Success: Detroit to Windsor Tunnel – Owned and Operated by Multiple Investors – Consistently Upgraded and Maintained in Excellent Condition Failure: Detroit to Windsor Ambassador Bridge – Owned by One Investor – Arguably Poorly Maintained and Operated – Mired in Political Turmoil
Privately-Leased Toll Roads Chicago Skyway (99 Year Lease) Indiana Toll Road (75 Year Lease)
One Key for Success in Any PPP: Deploy Intelligent Transportation Systems (“ITS”) Reality: Public Opposition to Tolling Selling Point: Privatization Will Provide More Mobility, Safety, and Sustainability Through the Use of Technology Investment in ITS is “Layered-Into” the Transaction Upfront Investors Understand the Benefits, and so, Hopefully will the Public
Another Key for Success: Public Participation or Joint Venture Ownership No Matter What Legal Entity Structure is Chosen: the Public Should Participate in any “Upside” Potential Alignment of Public Interests with Investor Interests Transparency for the Public and Investors about Financial and Operating Expectations No “Suicide Pacts”!
Debt v. Equity Debt – Historically Low Interest Rates Permit Lower Cost Financing in Public Debt Markets – If Special Purpose Entity is Chosen, Does Not Burden the Balance Sheet of the Higher Level Public Authority – Inherently Allows the Public to Participate in “Upside” after Debt Service is Covered on Bonds Equity – Typically Higher Rates of Return Demanded by Investors (Net Present Value & Internal Rates of Return on a Discounted Cash Flow Basis) – No Burden on the Balance Sheet of the Public Authority – Can be Structured to Provide Public with “Sweat Equity”
CONCLUSION Financing Public Transportation Infrastructure – Taxation (Income, Sales, Property, Gas, etc.) – Private Capital (Debt or Equity) For Private Investment: Any Identifiable and Separable Revenue Stream If Private Investment is Chosen, Public Interest Must be Served – Clear Agreement between Investors and the Public – Social Equity Issues Must be Examined and Resolved
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.