Skip to main content



FHWA's Innovative Finance Quarterly

VOL.5, NO.1


In This Issue...

Federal Credit Program

Final Rule Published on TIFIA Program

On June 2, 1999, the final rule (49 CFR 80) for the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 (TIFIA) was published in the Federal Register. As reported in the Summer 1998 issue of IFQ, TIFIA is a new Federal credit program for large surface transportation projects, included as part of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) reauthorization bill last year. Under TIFIA, USDOT may provide direct Federal loans, Federal loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit to large projects meeting certain eligibility criteria. The complete text of the rule, as well as the program guideline booklet and application forms, may be accessed at the TIFIA website: (

Flow chart summarizing the TIFIA Application Process

Accompanying the rule was a Notice of Funding Availability setting forth the key dates for FY 1999 program activity. Applications for TIFIA assistance this year may be submitted between July 7, 1999 and August 2, 1999. USDOT anticipates selecting projects in August and negotiating term sheets and/or credit agreements with project sponsors by September 30, 1999. At the beginning of each fiscal year through 2003, USDOT will publish a notice in the Federal Register indicating the key dates for applying for funds for that year.

For the current fiscal year, USDOT has available $70.6 million of net budget authority to support the subsidy costs of up to $1.6 billion face amount of credit assistance. An additional $450 million of budget authority and $9 billion face amount of credit instruments is authorized over the next four fiscal years, through FY 2003.

The final rule responded to questions that had been submitted to USDOT from a dozen commenters, following the publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for TIFIA on February 8, 1999. Summarized below are several of the key issues that the final rule addressed.

Application Process

The final rule, program guidelines, and accompanying application forms indicate the type of information to be submitted at the time of applying for TIFIA assistance. A preliminary opinion letter from a rating agency (or an actual rating) indicating that the project's senior debt obligations have the potential of being investment grade is required at the time of application. ("Investment grade" is a bond rating of BBB-, Baa3, or higher.) For projects that are selected, the preliminary rating letter can be sufficient to obligate funds. However, no funds may be disbursed until an actual credit agreement has been executed and the project's senior obligations have obtained a formal investment-grade rating.

Eligible Costs

The total amount of credit assistance may not exceed one-third of eligible project costs, as measured on a nominal or "year-of-expenditure" basis. Developmental and right-of-way costs incurred up to three years prior to a project sponsor's submission of an application may be included, with the approval of the Secretary of Transportation. USDOT may assess various fees, including an Application Initiation Charge ($5,000 in FY 1999) and a Credit Processing Fee ($0 in FY 1999); USDOT may adjust these amounts in future years. In addition, if there is insufficient budget authority available to cover the subsidy cost of a TIFIA credit instrument, the project sponsor may contribute such amounts from other sources. However, none of these costs may be included in calculating eligible project costs.

Threshold Criteria

The rule clarifies several of the threshold eligibility criteria for projects. First, both general obligation and general corporate promissory pledges can satisfy the legislative requirement that projects be secured at least in part by "dedicated revenue streams." However, Federal grants, regardless of funding source, are not eligible to serve as pledged security of the TIFIA instrument. The Secretary may also take into account other forms of security and collateral pledged to secure a TIFIA instrument. Second, projects extending across state lines (like a bridge) would determine the threshold size criterion against the state with the smaller level of Federal-aid. Finally, the requirement that the project be included in the public transportation planning process can be demonstrated if the project is consistent with the transportation plan of a state (or metropolitan planning organization, if applicable) at the time of application, and if it is included in the fiscally constrained State Transportation Improvement Program at the time funds are obligated.

Fiscal Year Subsidy Spending Authority
(Budget Authority)
Maximum Credit Assistance
FY 1999 $80 M 1 $1,600 M
FY 2000 $90 M $1,800 M
FY 2001 $110 M $2,200 M
FY 2002 $120 M $2,400 M
FY 2003 $130 M $2,600 M
Total $530 M $10,600 M

1 FY 1999 obligation limitation reduced TIFIA budget authority to $70.6 million

Rating Requirement

The rule clarifies that the statutory requirement for an investment-grade rating on the project's senior debt should not reflect the presence of bond insurance, unless such credit enhancement also extends to the TIFIA component. The rating should reflect the underlying credit-worthiness of the senior debt. No funds may be disbursed until the formal rating is issued.

Conditional Commitments

It is expected that, in many cases, project sponsors and USDOT will first execute a term sheet to allow the obligation of funds and credit amounts, and thereafter draft the formal credit agreement for a loan, loan guarantee, or line of credit. For those projects lacking certain prerequisites at the time of application (such as a final environmental Record of Decision) or for large projects with extended construction periods, the Secretary may elect to make a contingent commitment in the form of a Conditional Term Sheet. This conditional agreement would not formally obligate funds at the time of execution. However, it would reflect the Secretary's intention to obligate funds in a subsequent fiscal year, provided specified conditions were satisfied by designated dates. The Secretary can administratively reserve, or set-aside, up to one-half of a future year's budget authority pursuant to such contingent term sheets. Each year's obligation of funds would be tied to distinct, clearly identified project segments, stages, or milestones set forth in the term sheet. Generally, projects will have to be sufficiently advanced at the time of application to have at least published their draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Over the next four years, USDOT expects to receive applications for TIFIA assistance from project sponsors of highway, mass transit, passenger rail, and intermodal facilities. The statute requires USDOT to report to Congress by June of 2002 regarding the financial performance of the TIFIA projects, along with a recommendation as to whether the program should be continued in its current form or not.

telephone Contact:   David Seltzer, FHWA, 202/366-0397.

[Top of Article, In This Issue...]

GARVEE Roundup

New Financing Mechanism Gains Momentum

Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEEs) have been test-driven by several states, and a notable number of other states are considering taking them for a spin.

As described in IFQ's Fall 1997 issue (Volume 3, Number 2), GARVEEs are debt financing instruments that are secured with a pledge of Federal-aid highway funds. Prior to the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (the NHS Act), these transactions were difficult because of limitations on the eligibility of bond issuance and interest costs for reimbursement. The NHS Act revised Section 122 of Title 23, making interest and issuance costs eligible for Federal-aid reimbursement. The passage of TEA-21 removed other hurdles to issuing debt against future Federal-aid, by guaranteeing funding levels through FY 2003 and including an "equity" provision which ensures that each state receives a share of highway funding equivalent to 90.5 percent of its percentage contribution to the Highway Trust Fund.

As reported in IFQ's Summer 1998 issue (Volume 4, Number 3), three states - New Mexico, Ohio, and Massachusetts - have already taken advantage of this flexible mechanism by issuing debt backed by pledges of Federal aid. Although they are all considered GARVEEs, the structure of each is as varied as the geography and landscape of the states involved. (Mississippi sold its first issue of GARVEE bonds on June 17, 1999. See "Late-Breaking GARVEE News")

Of significance is the flexibility provided by the GARVEE concept which enables each issuer to tailor the financing to accommodate state fiscal and legal conditions. New Mexico issued direct, insured GARVEEs for a single project, with no recourse to alternative sources of funding. Massachusetts issued indirect GARVEEs, securing the notes that were issued with Federal-aid reimbursements from other non-debt financed projects. In addition, the state agreed to pay the interest and, under certain limited circumstances, provided a backstop of gas tax revenues for principal repayment. Finally, Ohio's issue, also intended to fund multiple projects, included a triple-barreled structure that provides several alternative sources of funding in the event of a shortfall.

Differences in the structure and security provisions of the three financings have influenced the ratings for the issues. The table above shows a comparison of the ratings for the three GARVEE transactions.

Emerging GARVEE Programs

In the wake of these successful issues, more states are examining GARVEEs' potential. In addition to Mississippi, enabling legislation has been passed in Arkansas, Florida, and Colorado (voter approval is still required in Colorado.) In California, legislators are currently evaluating the potential of GARVEEs. Arizona, which is positioned to bring its first GARVEE-type issue to market in late summer, had authorizing legislation in place, but amended its statutes this year to strengthen the security for this financing mechanism. Based on market reception and the growing interest among states in advancing projects using this new financing mechanism, GARVEEs appear to fulfill an important niche in the states' "toolbox" of innovative approaches to maximizing Federal transportation dollars.

First Transit GARVEEs

In another application of the GARVEE tool, the New Jersey Transit Corporation issued $151.5 million in debt backed solely by a pledge of future Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding. The debt, which was sold in March 1999, and insured by AMBAC Corporation, will be used to purchase 500 new buses for the mass transit agency. The issue obtained underlying credit ratings of A1, A, and A from Moody's, Standard and Poor's, and Fitch, respectively.

The agency will repay the debt with FTA formula funds, which it is slated to receive at a level of approximately $200 million each year through 2003. Although the bonds mature in 2008, five years beyond the current transportation funding authorization bill, the issue relies on anticipated future transit funding at levels equal to or higher than current ones.

In the future, more states may explore financing transit projects either through GARVEEs repaid with FTA formula or grant funds, or through Federal-aid apportionments available to transit projects.

Looking Ahead

In response to the widespread interest in GARVEE bonds, FHWA and the American Road and Transportation Builders' Association (ARTBA) are coordinating a workshop on GARVEEs; the workshop will also include sessions on TIFIA. The workshop will be held in Washington D.C. on November 2, 1999 in conjunction with the ARTBA Public-Private Ventures Conference.

States that are interested in this new financing mechanism may wish to contact the rating agencies for copies of the credit reports on GARVEE issues. These reports include key information related to the rating agency considerations. The FHWA Resource Centers and the Innovative Finance Team in Washington are available to work with states in advancing this new financing approach. Also FHWA plans to issue new guidelines on GARVEE financings in July 1999.

GARVEE Rating Scorecard

State Initial Issuance Size Bond Insurance Underlying Ratings
Standard and Poor's Moody's Investors Service Fitch IBCA Duff & Phelps
Ohio $70 million None AA- Aa3 AA- -
Massachusetts $600 million MBIA ($45 million) - Aa3 AA AAA
New Mexico $100.23 million AMBAC AAA (insured) A- A3 - -

telephone Contact: Jennifer Mayer, FHWA, 415/744-2634.

[Top of Article, In This Issue...]

New Legislative Initiatives

Highway Innovation and Cost Savings Act

New legislation under consideration in both the Senate and House may create a pilot program establishing a new class of tax-exempt, private activity bonds issued to finance certain qualified highways. Senator John Chafee (R-Rhode Island) and Representative Jennifer Dunn (R-Washington) introduced identical versions of the Highway Innovation and Cost Savings Act (HICSA) in the House (H.R.859) and Senate (S.470) in February 1999. The legislation would provide Congress and the transportation community with an opportunity to evaluate the potential benefits of increased private sector participation in the provision, maintenance, and operation of highway infrastructure.

Under HICSA, the Secretary of Transportation may select fifteen projects to participate in the pilot. The project sponsors could then issue tax exempt bonds up to $15 billion in aggregate. The projects would involve private entities that develop, finance, operate, and maintain highways, bridges, and tunnels.

To participate in the pilot, projects would have to be part of a state approved transportation plan, serve the general public, and be located on publicly owned right-of-way. In addition, the projects must be publicly owned or revert to public ownership upon retirement of the project's financing. Projects may be either toll or non-toll facilities.

Even with increased grant funding under TEA-21, transportation needs still outstrip available resources. Existing tax law discourages private investment in highway infrastructure by prohibiting lower cost tax-exempt financing for projects involving private equity investment and private sector operating contracts. Because issuance of fully taxable debt results in higher interest payments, private entities typically find the increased cost of capital makes public-private partnerships less attractive to public sector sponsors than conventional approaches.

Passage of HICSA would provide the opportunity to evaluate whether the removal of this financing disincentive attracts more private investment and ultimately benefits the traveling public. Pilot projects will be selected based on the degree to which they use new technologies, construction techniques, and/or innovative cost controls.

HICSA follows on the heels of a similar proposal, the Highway Infrastructure Privatization Act (HIPA). Although the Senate Finance Committee favorably reported out HIPA in 1997, it was not included in the final version of TEA-21. (See the Fall 1997 issue of IFQ for more information.)

Most recently, HICSA has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee and to the House Committee on Ways and Means for further consideration. It is anticipated that the measure will be considered by the full Congress as part of broader tax legislation.

telephone Contact: David Seltzer, FHWA 202/366-0397.

[Top of Article, In This Issue...]

Surface Transportation Act of 1999

On May 27, 1999, Senator George Voinovich (R-OH), Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee Chairman, introduced the Surface Transportation Act of 1999 (S. 1144). Co-sponsoring the legislation are Senators John Chafee (R-RI), Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman, and Jim Jeffords (R-VT), Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), John Warner (RVA), Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), Harry Reid (D-NV), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT). The bill provides additional flexibility to states and localities in implementing the Federal transportation programs. TEA-21 funding levels and formulas are not affected by the bill. S. 1144 includes several key provisions:

  • Authorizes all 50 states to participate in the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) program, restoring the program as it existed prior to TEA-21 and extending it through FY 2003 (Section 2);
  • Allows states to accelerate construction of their "high priority" projects by borrowing funds from other categories such as NHS, STP, and CMAQ (Section 3);
  • Provides funding flexibility for High Speed Rail Corridors (Section 4);
  • Eliminates a spending cap on Historic Bridge demolition costs (Section 5); and
  • Simplifies accounting for the minimum guarantee program by making all obligation authority available as multi-year funding (Section 6).

[Top of Article, In This Issue...]

SIB Update

Alaska $ - $ 2,490,000 $ 2,490,000
Arizona 33,996,663 6,700,000 40,696,663
Arkansas - 1,500,00 1,500,000
California - 3,000,000 3,000,000
Colorado 3,200,000 1,500,000 4,700,000
Delaware 3,300,000 1,500,000 4,800,000
Florida 38,815,438 8,650,000 47,465,438
Indiana - 3,390,000 3,390,000
Iowa - 870,000 870,000
Maine - 2,540,000 2,540,000
Michigan - 11,050,000 11,050,000
Minnesota - - -
Missouri 33,000,000 - 33,000,000
Nebraska -


New Jersey - 1,500,000 1,500,000
New Mexico 4,827,348 8,140,000 12,967,348
New York - 12,000,000 12,000,000
North Carolina - 480,000 480,000
North Dakota - 2,540,000 2,540,000
Ohio 75,000,000 5,100,000 80,100,000
Oklahoma - 4,700,000 4,700,000
Oregon 8,973,000 2,589,700 11,562,700
Pennsylvania 4,000,000 2,090,000 6,090,000
Rhode Island - 1,500,000 1,500,000
South Carolina - 3,000,000 3,000,000
South Dakota 8,322,719 2,830,000 11,152,719
Tennessee - 1,500,000 1,500,000
Texas 159,288,804 12,000,000 171,288,804
Utah - 2,310,000 2,310,000
Vermont 560,000 1,500,000 2,060,000
Virginia 18,000,000 3,000,000 21,000,000
Washington - 1,500,000 1,500,000
Wisconsin - 1,500,000 1,500,000
Wyoming 14,301,720 2,510,000 16,811,720
Puerto Rico 10,748,588 1,500,000 12,248,588
Total $416,334,280 $119,809,700 $536,143,980
Alaska $- $ 2,091,600 $ 2,091,600
Arizona 33,996,663 5,628,000 39,624,663
Arkansas - 1,260,000 1,260,000
California - - -
Colorado - - -
Delaware 3,300,000 1,500,000 4,800,000
Florida 38,815,437 7,266,000 46,081,437
Indiana - - -
Iowa - 591,600 591,600
Maine - 2,133,600 2,133,600
Michigan - 9,282,000 9,282,000
Minnesota   -  
Missouri 25,000,000 - 25,000,000
Nebraska - - -
New Jersey - - -
New Mexico 4,827,348 6,837,600 11,664,948
New York - 100,000 -
North Carolina - - -
North Dakota - 2,133,600 2,133,600
Ohio 75,000,000 3,180,000 78,180,000
Oklahoma - - -
Oregon 8,973,000 826,500 9,799,500
Pennsylvania - 1,755,600 1,755,600
Rhode Island - 1,020,000 1,020,000
South Carolina - 2,040,000 2,040,000
South Dakota 8,322,719 2,377,200 10,699,919
Tennessee - 1,260,000 1,260,000
Texas 159,288,804 10,080,000 169,368,804
Utah - - -
Vermont 560,000 1,020,000 1,580,000
Virginia 18,000,000 - 18,000,000
Washington - - -
Wisconsin - 1,260,000 1,260,000
Wyoming 14,301,720 1,706,800 16,008,520
Puerto Rico 10,748,588 1,260,000 12,008,588
Total $401,134,279 $66,610,100 $467,744,379
Alaska $ - $ -
Arizona - -
Arkansas - -
California - -
Colorado - -
Delaware - -
Florida - -
Indiana - -
Iowa 630,000 428,400
Maine - -
Michigan - -
Minnesota 3,960,000 2,692,800
Missouri 7,410,000 6,224,400
Nebraska - -
New Jersey - -
New Mexico - -
New York - -
North Carolina 1,020,000 1,020,000
North Dakota - -
Ohio 6,900,000 6,900,000
Oklahoma - -
Oregon 2,920,300 2,920,300
Pennsylvania 1,300,000 1,092,000
Rhode Island - -
South Carolina - -
South Dakota - -
Tennessee - -
Texas - -
Utah - -
Vermont - -
Virginia - -
Washington - -
Wisconsin - -
Wyoming - -
Puerto Rico - -
Total $24,140,300 $21,277,900

SIB Highlights

State DOTs are continuing to make notable progress in advancing projects through the SIB financing mechanism. As of May 31, 1999, $560.2 million in Federal funds had been deposited into the highway and transit accounts of state banks as shown in the table above. Twenty-six states have loaned a total of $372.5 million to assist in the financing of 93 projects. These loans have supported over $2.8 billion in construction, a leveraging factor of 7.6. Since the last report on loan activity in the Fall 1998 issue of IFQ, loan disbursements have doubled, increasing from $184.7 million to $372.5 million. The table on page 5 details the status of SIB loan agreements and disbursements as of May 31, 1999.

In this issue of IFQ, we are showcasing SIB programs in two states: Texas and Missouri. Both states have demonstrated leadership in implementing the SIB financing mechanism to fund critical transportation projects. Special thanks are extended to the Texas DOT and Missouri DOT staff for their contributions to this article.


The Texas SIB, one of the first 10 SIB pilot programs approved in 1996, is under the authority of the Texas Transportation Commission. Since launching the program in 1997, following passage of enabling legislation, the Texas DOT has received applications from 18 sponsors for loans totaling over $48 million. The size of loan requests has ranged from $30,000 to $29.4 million.

As of April 30, 1999, the Texas Transportation Commission had approved eight loans, totaling $33.2 million. This article spotlights three Texas SIB loans which exemplify the spectrum of projects and loan parameters which can be employed under the umbrella of a state SIB.

Laredo Toll Bridge

The largest loan awarded to date by the Texas Transportation Commission in the amount of $29.4 million is helping to finance the Laredo Northwest International Bridge. This facility, estimated to cost $66.5 million, will be an eight-lane vehicular and pedestrian toll bridge between Laredo, Texas and Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico. The bridge will be owned and operated by the City of Laredo and consists of a toll plaza, export lot, a customs station, import lot, and related roadways. The project will alleviate congestion on the existing toll bridge system and within the City of Laredo. It also supports increased trade and traffic resulting from the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The loan carries an interest rate of 4.1 percent, compounded annually. Repayments are scheduled to begin in October 2005. The total payback on the loan is over $43 million structured with two maturity periods. Of the loan total, $4.2 million has a five-year term and $25.2 million has a 23-year term.

SH-35 Utilities Relocation

The second Texas SIB loan illustrates how a relatively small loan can be leveraged to facilitate completion of a large construction project. In May 1998, the Texas Transportation Commission approved a $600,000 loan to finance the relocation of utilities on State Highway 35 within the city limits of West Columbia, Texas. The loan facilitates advancement of major improvements on SH-35. This project, estimated to cost $32.2 million, is on the National Highway System designated as a Federal Demonstration Project as well as a Congressional High Priority. When completed, this project will provide consistent pavement life, increased safety, improved traffic flow, and greater efficiency of the state's highway system.

The borrowing rate for this loan is three percent for the first five years, escalating to 4.5 percent for the next 10 years. Repayments begin in February 2004. The City of West Columbia has pledged ad valorem taxes for repayment of the loan.

US 59 Expansion

The third loan is an example of a partnership project between the City of Sugar Land, Texas and TXDOT. In order to finance their $3.9 million share of the $44 million cost of expanding US 59 from South Kirkwood Drive to Sugar Creek Boulevard, the city applied and received approval for a $2.7 million SIB loan. This regionally significant project will improve not only the mobility of the Sugar Land area, but also the segment of the US 59 corridor that serves the Houston area.

This short-term loan of three years carries an interest rate of 4.5 percent compounded annually. Repayments are scheduled to begin in July 2000.

An image of a telephone Contact: Dorn Smith, TXDOT, 512/463-8684.


Missouri, one of the first 10 states to be approved as a SIB pilot, has been very progressive in the implementation of the program. The Missouri SIB is distinguished among the 39 SIB programs in its institutional structure. To implement the program in 1996, the Missouri Highway Commission used existing legislation to establish the Missouri Transportation Finance Corporation (MTFC) as a non-profit lending entity. The MTFC has the authority to lend funds, issue revenue bonds, and offer other assistance to support transportation projects. The Missouri DOT provides administrative support to the MTFC.

Since 1996, four major projects have been advanced with SIB loans: the Springfield Transportation Project, the Cape Girard Bridge, the Cole County Highway 179, and the Gateway Multimodal Center in St. Louis - a joint FHWA/FTA project. The total cost of these four projects is approximately $207 million, and SIB-assisted financing totals $48 million.

With its designation as one of the four new pilot states under TEA-21, Missouri is well-positioned to build on its successes. An amended State Infrastructure Bank Cooperative Agreement with FHWA, FTA, and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has been signed by the USDOT Secretary. The Missouri SIB has been capitalized with $8 million of new TEA-21 funds.

Acceleration of the I-55 overpass will be the first project financed with the TEA-21 SIB capitalization monies. The City of Festus, Missouri requested this SIB loan to accelerate the replacement of an existing overpass at I-55 and Route A with a new five-lane structure. This project was originally programmed for construction in FY 2001, but under the city's proposal, construction will be advanced two years through the SIB loan. The city will finance the project construction costs, estimated to be $6.3 million, through a short-term MTFC SIB construction loan. The city will contribute two percent of the project costs (one percent for each year the project is accelerated), and will be responsible for the interest costs. The balance of the repayment will come from highway funds allocated to the region. The loan interest rate of 4.8 percent was established, based on a comparable U.S. Treasury rate. The loan repayment will be a lump sum repayment in FY 2001.

telephone Contact: Patty Purves, MODOT 573/526-2412.

[Top of Article, In This Issue...]

State Infrastruction Bank Loans and Loan Agreements (as of May 31, 1999)

Alaska Whitier Access Project 65,000 $ 4,600 $ 0 $  
Arizona Price Corridor Segments 56,600 26,000 7,033 Earmarked sales tax revenues

Red Mountain Freeway Segments




Earmarked sales tax revenues

Arkansas Hackett Creek Str. & Apprs. (S) 20 20 0 State funds
Florida Branan Field Road Construction - Clay Cty. 24,394 5,028 0 State DOT District funds (deriving mainly from gas tax receipts)
Branan Field Road Construction - Duval Cty. 36,255 13,406 0 State DOT District funds
SR77 Reconstruction 27,046 5,598 0 State DOT District funds
SR80 Improvements 20,448 4,366 0 State DOT District funds
SR44 Widening and Rehabilitation 20,523 9,782 1,521 State DOT District funds
Recker Hwy, US17 to Winterlake Construction 14,888 6,953 318 State DOT District funds

Lee County Trolley Purchase





Future federal transit funds

Indiana Jeffersonville/Clarksville Inter-City Road   3,000 0  
Iowa Roadway Weather Information System 989 739 592 State funds
Maine Route 32 Road Improvement 80 20 20 Local Road Assistance payments
Route 24 Road Improvement 440 110 0 Local Road Assistance payments
Route 104 Road Improvement 345 86 0 Local Road Assistance payments
Route 104 Road Improvement 345   64 Local Road Assistance payments
Route 91 Road Improvement 350 88 0 Local Road Assistance payments
Route 5 Road Improvement 290 73 0 Local Road Assistance payments

Route 3 Road Improvement

300 75 63 Local Road Assistance payments
Route 148 Road Improvement 160 38 6 Local Road Assistance payments
Hermon Center Bridge Road Improvement 427 107 107 Local Road Assistance payments
Route 222 Road Improvement 400 100 67 Local Road Assistance payments
High Street Road Improvement 302 123 0 Local Road Assistance payments
Allen Avenue Road Improvement 525 195 0 Local Road Assistance payments
Route 164 Road Improvement 590 148 0 Local Road Assistance payments

Route 9 Road Improvement




Local Road Assistance payments

Michigan Center Street Reconstruction 2,100 700 700 Local funds
Village of Holly, Phase 1 Major Street Impv. 776 504 0 Local funds
City of Taylor, Rancho Road 890 260 0 Local funds
Manistee Co. Road Comm, Coates Hwy 1,200 800 0 Act 51 Funds
Village of Suttons Bay Elm & Broad Streets 185 133 0 TEA-21 High Priority Funds
Delta County Road Commission Highway Re-Route 1,772 1,300 0 TEA-21 High Priority Funds, Local Funds
Village of New Lothrop Genesee Street Improvement 540 486 0 Local Funds
City of Mackinac Island Grand Avenue and Hoban Road 1,200 559 0 TEA-21 High Priority Funds
Cass County Road Commission 2,100 360 0 Local funds
Eastern Upper Peninsula Transportation Authority Ferry 2,606 381 0 Local funds
Otter Lake Road Project 1,019 140 0 Local funds
Clarksville Main Street 784 249 0 Local funds
Lake Erie Transportation Commission New Transit Facility 413 2,135 0 Local funds
Alcona County Road Commission Hubbard Lake Improvements 1,360 1,000 0 Local funds, Federal STP
Isabella County Transportation Commission New Facility 2,100 1,000 0 Local funds
City of Jackson Fourth St./S. West Ave. Connector 2,025 841 0 Local funds

City of Utica Van Dyke Road Reconstruction




TEA-21 High Priority Funds

Missouri Springfield Transportation Projects 39,360 2,870 2,870 Local dedicated sales tax incr. financing and State Highway Fund
Cape Girardeau Bridge 102,198 28,000 28,000 State and future federal funds
Gateway Multimodal Center, St. Louis 27,900 10,900 10,900 Local sales tax

Cole County Highway 179




Earmarked local sales tax revenues and State Highway Funds

Nebraska Northern Plains Project (EACNH-26-2(107) 5,112 15,000 0 Nebraska Department of Roads
New Mexico City of Moriarty Intersection Signal 541 541 541  
New York Sterling Forest Interchange Feasibility Study 125 125 125 NYSTWY
North Dakota Pembins County Surface Reconstruction 1,891 1,891 1,565 State funds

Butler Regional Highway




Bond proceeds

Great Lakes Science Center Parking Facility

7,825 7,825


Parking fees
Fort Washington Way Relocation 150,000 20,000 20,000 Future city income and sales tax
Cleveland Transit Viaduct 25,000 6,945


County sales tax
(Marion, OH) LTV Steel 3,225 2,025 2,025 Payment in lieu of property taxes (TIF)
Cincinnati Industrial Park Access Rd Improvements 833 335 335 City's capital improvement fund (primarily income tax)

Brower Road Improvements, Lima MPO

950 20 20 Loan was canceled
Eastlake Industrial Park 2,647 2,425 2,425 TIF
Putnam Street Bridge, Washington County 11,030 1,530 1,530 Local sales tax
Steubenville SR 43 widening, Sunset Blvd. 4,457 2,303 2,303 TIF, MPO funds

Jefferson County Airport Improvements

370 370 370 Airport revenues

Market Street Improvements (Canton, OH)

12,469 1,200 1,200


City-pledged excess revenues (primarily income tax)

Ann Arbor Intermodal Facility 6,000 2,425 2,425 Private revenues
Trimor/Maple Heights Industrial Park Road  


0 Land sales
Clark County (Leffel Lane & Mitchell Blvd. ROW)   2,000 0 MPO Funds
Clark County (Mitchell Blvd. Construction)   1,000 0 MPO Funds
Oregon Ash Creek Bridge Replacement 850 735 735 Future federal highway funds, city revenues
Pennsylvania Pittsburgh Intl. Airport Cagro Interchange 26,945 3,910 0 Special Tax District
Potter Co. Local Bridge Replacement 730 124 124 Township Tax Revenue
Huntingdon Co. Local Bridge Replacement 174 174 174 Township Tax Revenue/State Funds

Westmoreland Co. Traffic Signal Installation




Township Tax Revenue

Puerto Rico Highway Improvements 60,000 15,000 15,000 (Loan to reserve fund for bond issue)
Rhode Island Resurfacing Route 136 fr. Bristol/Warren 1,311 1,311 1,311 Rhode Island Bridge Authority Revenue
South Dakota Northern Plains project (Hell Canyon) 19,125 992 992 Future Federal Funds
Tennessee SR 104 Construction   1,875   State DOT District funds
Texas Laredo Bridge #4 61,400 29,400 27,000 Toll revenues
Motley County Off-system Bridge 482 47 33 Future federal highway funds and state road and bridge funds
W. Columbia utility re-location/SH35 605 600 600 Ad valorem taxes
Sugar Land road construction/US 59 40,000 2,700 2,700 Sales tax revenue
Hall Co. - 3 off system bridges 957 47 47 General Fund Revenue
Spur 6 ROW purchase 1,500 77 77 Sales and property taxes
Dawson utility re-location/improvement/SH31 114 114 114 Utility revenue

Utility re-location/FM 1960




Utility revenue

Utah I-15: 10800 South. To 600 North 1,327,175 2,888 2,888 State Funds
Vermont Town of Holland 200 180 0 Property Taxes
McIntyre Fuels 625 500 0 Charge of Fuel put through facility

Green Mtn. Railroad




Freight transport fees

Virginia Route 895 Connector, Richmond 323,000 18,000 18,000 Gross Revenue Pledge on toll collections
Wisconsin LaCrosse Co. Trunk Highway 838 388 388 County Appropriations
Wyoming Cody to Yellowstone Park Improvement 15,000 15,000 15,000 Future federal highway funds and state highway funds
  TOTAL 2,844,728$ 372,528$ 223,140$  

[Top of Article, In This Issue...]

A New Team Member

Suzanne H. Sale has joined the FHWA Innovative Finance Team. Ms. Sale will serve as Senior Financial Advisor to FHWA and will assist in developing new project finance techniques as well as providing expertise with existing programs such as State Infrastructure Banks (SIBs), Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds, and the Quality Program. Prior to joining the team, Ms. Sale served as the Chief Financial Officer for the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). Over her 23-year career at ADOT which she began as an Economist, Ms. Sale held increasingly responsible positions and served as CFO since August 1988. Ms. Sale led the Department's bond financing activities and she was instrumental in establishing Arizona's SIB program and advancing the GANS (i.e., GARVEE) financing mechanism. Her degrees include a Bachelor's in Chemistry from Manhattanville College, a Master of Science in Teaching from Boston College, and a MBA from Arizona State University. She is an active member of a number of national transportation groups, including the Transportation Research Board's Taxation and Finance Committee, and the AASHTO Subcommittee on Transportation Finance.

[Top of Article, In This Issue...]

Late-Breaking GARVEE News

Arkansas Voters Pass Bond Issue

On June 15, 1999, Arkansas voters approved, by a 4 to 1 margin, a plan to issue $575 million in GARVEE bonds for repairs to 372 miles of interstate routes. It was the first time in 50 years for Arkansas to approve going into debt for high-ways. The state will be paying off the bonds over 10 to 12 years with the authorizations from TEA-21 and future highway bills and dedicated revenues from a 4 cent diesel tax passed earlier in the year. The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department anticipates that the first interstate repair contract under this program should start in early 2000.

Mississippi Sells First GARVEE Bonds

Mississippi accepted bids on June 17, 1999 for $200 million of GARVEE bonds to accelerate a four-lane road building program. The goal of this program is to provide every resident in the state access to four-lane facilities within a 30-minute drive and with increased mobility to enhance rural economic development. Proceeds of the GARVEE issue will pay off short-term notes issued earlier in the year. The Mississippi GARVEE bonds are secured by both Federal highway reimbursements and dedicated state taxes.

[Top of Article, In This Issue...]

Contributors to Vol. 5, No. 1 of IFQ include:

Roger Berg, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Max Inman, FHWA

Phyllis Jones, FHWA

Jennifer Mayer, FHWA, Western Resource Center

Suzanne H. Sale, FHWA

David Seltzer, FHWA

Esther Strawder, FHWA

FHWA's Innovative Finance Quarterly

Suzanne H. Sale, FHWA
Co-Managing, Editor
FAX: 602/379-3608

Max Inman, FHWA
Co-Managing Editor
FAX: 202/366-7493

Laurie L. Hussey, CS Managing Editor
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
FAX: 617/354-1542

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.




  • 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)

[Top of Newsletter, In This Issue...]

Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000
To view PDF files download the Adobe Acrobat Reader®