Public Private Partnerships (P3s) in Transportation: Trends from the States (remarks)
(click here to view slides of the presentation)
It is a great honor to be here this morning and I thank Senator McGee for extending this invitation to me and to The Council of State Governments. Established in 1933, The Council works primarily with state legislatures in tracking trends, carrying out research and analysis and promoting state interests. While I work for The Council's Southern Office, the Southern Legislative Conference (SLC) in Atlanta, The Council is headquartered in Lexington, Kentucky and also has regional offices in New York, California, Illinois and Washington, DC.
My presentation this morning covers an important trend surfacing in almost every state in the country: transportation-driven public private partnerships or P3s. Broadly, my presentation comprises four parts. Part 1, after a quick overview of national and state finances, details the impetus for this growing trend while Part 2 describes its pros and cons. Part 3 illustrates several best practices recommended by states and finally, Part 4, explores some specific P3 strategies either currently in place or being explored.
Although the idea of a transportation-related public private partnership is not new, what is different now is that states are increasingly creating legislation that allow for these partnerships to gel. Specifically, P3s refer to contractual agreements formed between a public agency and a private sector entity allowing for greater private sector participation in the delivery of transportation projects. Given that the option of raising taxes to fund an increasing number of transportation projects remains politically radioactive, policymakers continue to pursue a range of alternate funding mechanisms and P3s are a critical trend here.
According to the Federal Highway Administration, 22 states have now passed legislation permitting deals between public entities and private enterprise to finance transportation projects. The federal government, under the leadership of U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, is actively encouraging states to incorporate P3s into their future transportation calculations.
What states in the region have air quality policies for schools?
Seven state in the SLC have some policy concerning indoor air quality for schools. The table below provides details:
State-by-State Air Quality Policies
|Alabama||No state policy.|
|Arkansas||No state policy.|
|Florida||Statute 1001.42(16)(a) (2004) requires the district school board to maintain a system of school improvement and education accountability. This system shall be consistent with, and implemented through, the district's continuing system of planning and budgeting and requires the board to annually approve and require implementation of a school improvement plan for each school in the district. Plans must address certain state educational priorities and student performance standards and be based on an analysis of student achievement and other school performance data. This statute was amended by Chapter 2004-255, Laws of Florida, to require school improvement plans to address other issues including indoor environmental air quality.Statute 235.06 (1999) requires the Commissioner of Education to adopt and administer rules prescribing safety and health standards for occupants of educational and ancillary plants as part of the State Uniform Building Code for Public Educational Facilities. Each board shall prescribe policies and procedures establishing a comprehensive program of safety and sanitation for the protection of occupants in the educational and ancillary plants. The requirements include annual fiscal year inspection of each facility to determine compliance with standards of casualty safety as prescribed in the rules of the commissioner. Furthermore, a provision provides for annual fire safety inspections by a Certified Fire Marshall with the subsequent report outlining a plan of action as well as the schedule for corrective action. In addition to each board, the statute also allows safety or sanitation inspections to be conducted at any time by the Department of Education or any other state or local agency of any educational or ancillary plant. Statute 235.26 (1999) further emphasizes that all public educational or ancillary plants must conform to the State Uniform Building Code for Public Educational Facilities Construction and such educational plants are exempt from all other state, county, district, municipal and local building codes. Each board is required to provide for periodic inspection during the construction phase of educational plants. It is the responsibility of each district school board and community college district board of trustees to ensure all plans and educational and ancillary plants meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code and to provide enforcement of this code. Inspectors are required to be certified under chapter 468 to administer and enforce the provisions of the code. Deviations from the adopted standards require the district school board to conduct a public hearing to quantify and demonstrate comparative costs as well as provide an explanation for the proposed deviations from the adopted standards.Before a contract has been let for construction, the department and the board must approve the phase II construction documents. The board may not occupy a facility until the project has been inspected to verify compliance with statutes, rules and codes affecting the health and safety of the occupants. The board shall maintain a record of the project completion and permanently archive of phase III construction documents. The Commissioner of Education has final review of all documentation involving the Uniform Building Code and any objections by the inspector or department must be submitted in writing.|
Regional summary and comparisons
to view state reports, click on a state from the map or list below
Part I (3.9MB)
summary and comparisons
to view state reports, click on a state from the map or list below
The Drive to Move South: The Growing Role of the Automobile Industry in the South (remarks)
It is a great honor to be here this morning and I thank Commissioner Kisber for extending this invitation to me and to The Council of State Governments. Established in 1933, The Council works primarily with state legislatures in tracking trends, carrying out research and analysis and promoting state interests. While I work for The Council's Southern Office, the Southern Legislative Conference (SLC) in Atlanta, The Council is headquartered in Lexington, Kentucky and also has regional offices in New York, California, Illinois and Washington, D.C.
My remarks this morning are based on a detailed report I completed in 2004 entitled The Drive to Move South: The Growing Role of the Automobile Industry in the SLC States and my ongoing research on this topic. My presentation comprises three broad areas. Part I contrasts the recent record of domestic and foreign automakers in the U.S.; Part II provides a sampling of the latest news regarding foreign automaker operations in the South; and Part III, identifies why the South has become such an attraction to foreign automobile assembly plants.
The current state of America's automobile industry is a study in stark contrasts. On the one hand, you have the Big Three (General Motors, Chrysler and Ford), the major domestic automakers – domiciled mostly in the Midwest – hemorrhaging vast amounts of cash and battling a range of structural problems. On the other, you have an increasing roster of foreign automakers – located mostly in the South – thriving financially and generating a panoply of positive economic benefits, locally and regionally. The fundamental transformation of the American automobile industry, a process that has been in play for several decades now, continues primarily at two levels: one, the shrinking percentage of vehicles manufactured and sold by the Big Three as a proportion of total vehicles and two, the emergence of the South as the locus of automotive activity in the United States with a host of foreign automakers establishing manufacturing plants in several Southern states.
Taxes and Budgets: Key Trends from the States (remarks)
It is wonderful to be here in Philadelphia and my thanks to ACRE for inviting me again to present at the session on state finances. I work for The Council of State Governments, an organization established in 1933 that works primarily with state legislatures in tracking trends, carrying out research and analysis and promoting state interests through continuing education. While I work for The Council's Southern Office, the Southern Legislative Conference (SLC) in Atlanta, the Council is headquartered in Lexington, Kentucky with regional offices in New York, California, Illinois and Washington, DC.
My presentation this morning will quickly cover five broad areas. Part I focuses on where states stand on the fiscal front while Part II highlights some structural issues confronting state finances. Part III explores some of the major expenditure categories looming on the horizon for states while Part IV demonstrates some of the strategies being deployed or being proposed by states to fund these sizable expenses. Finally, Part V presents some of the bright sparks on the state economic front that will contribute towards bolstering state finances.
State finances have recovered from the depths to which they were plunged to in the early years of this decade when cumulative state budget shortfalls amounted to several hundred billions dollars and states endured their worst fiscal downturn in decades. According to the June 2007 NGA/NASBO report, in fiscal 2007, total revenue exceeded original budget projections in 27 states; they were on target in 14 states and below budget projections in 9 states. For the current fiscal year, 2008, total revenues in Governors' recommended budgets are forecasted to surpass fiscal 2007 levels by 3.3 percent. The boost to state coffers has resulted in states enacting tax cuts, expanding health coverage for children, initiating long overdue maintenance work on highways, schools and public buildings and replenishing rainy day funds.