Building-Up: How States Utilize Public-Private Partnerships for Social & Vertical Infrastructure

2/16/2017

Introduction

Denver union Station CanopyThe United States is in the midst of a well-documented public infrastructure crisis. Due to a variety of circumstances, states have found themselves facing sizeable budgetary shortfalls amid a stock of aging infrastructure.

The American Society of Civil Engineers’ (ASCE’s) 2013 Infrastructure Report Card gave the country’s infrastructure an overall grade of D+, and estimates the need for additional investment in excess of $3.6 trillion by 2020.

Further, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found, while nominal spending on American infrastructure has increased by 44 percent since 2003, the real purchasing power of that spending has decreased by 9 percent. This is due in large part to the rapidly rising costs of infrastructure-specific materials and services.

According to CBO data, states and localities provide the lion’s share of infrastructure funding in the United States, providing $320 billion as compared to $96 billion from the federal government. As with any area of government spending, it is difficult for lawmakers to find new ways to increasing funding.

Increasingly, states have turned to innovative approaches to help solve their infrastructure dilemma. One such innovative technique is the use of public-private partnerships (P3s), and many states are looking at P3s as one tactic as part of a multifaceted solution.

In the United States, public-private partnerships are commonly associated with large-scale transportation projects. In recent years Virginia,Florida, Colorado, Pennsylvania and others have delivered large transportation projects such as roads, bridges, transit systems and toll facilities via public-private partnerships.

However, transportation is not the only sector in which states have utilized the P3 approach. Examples abound of innovative solutions used by states and localities while capitalizing on the P3 model for a variety of infrastructure needs. Below is a map highlighting a number of the current non-transportation P3s from around the country. NCSL, in coordination with the American Institute of Architects and the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships, has compiled case studies for the projects that have a particularly enhanced or important legislative role.

What is a Public-Private Partnership?

At its core, a public-private partnership is an alternative procurement method in which a public agency partners with a private-sector entity in order to leverage private resources and expertise through the transfer of risk. P3s are agreements that allow private companies to take on traditionally public roles in infrastructure projects, while allowing the public sector to continue to ensure accountability to the public.

The Office of Innovative Program Delivery (OIPD), a division of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), defines public-private partnerships as “contractual agreements formed between a public agency and a private sector entity that allow for greater private sector participation in the delivery and financing of transportation projects.” While this definition is specific to transportation projects, the general definition and the concept of “greater private sector participation” can hold true for P3s for other types of public infrastructure.

A key aspect of P3s is the combination of traditionally separate phases of procurement. The traditional form of U.S. public-sector procurement is design-bid-build, in which a contract is developed over the course of three individual phases. Many states and jurisdictions have begun to move beyond a traditional phased procurement by utilizing design-build methods, an approach to streamline the design, bid and construction phases into a single contract.

P3s take this approach one step further by allowing for the combination of construction, financing and maintenance phases. P3s enable the private sector to engage not only private sector capital/debt to help government pay for the upfront planning, design and construction but also enables the private sector to hold the long-term operations and maintenance responsibilities. 

Public-Private Partnership Project Delivery Models

Common structures of P3s include design-build-maintain (DBM), design-build-operate-maintain (DBOM) or design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM). Each method can offer advantages or disadvantages, depending on the specific project and parties involved. By combining the traditionally separate steps that make up the development and execution of an infrastructure project, efficiencies can be realized and public goals can be aligned with private sector interests.

The chart below is from NCSL’s Public-Private Partnerships for Transportation: A Toolkit for Legislators and demonstrates the continuum of private sector involvement among P3 procurement models.


Source: Figure 2 is drawn largely from Buxbaum and Ortiz, Public Sector Decision Making, 8; NCSL Partners Project, Meeting Summary (April), 26, 65–66; Zhirong (Jerry) Zhao, Understanding Public-Private Partnerships in State Highway Development (Minneapolis: University of Minne­sota, May 2010).

NCSL’s P3 Toolkit discusses many of the variations of P3s and key characteristics, including the mission, method and financial resources of P3s.

Greenfield vs. Brownfield

P3s can be a valuable tool for states looking to build new infrastructure assets (greenfield projects) or for states looking to repair or upgrade existing infrastructure assets (brownfield projects). Alternatively, states may seek to carry out a hybrid of these two approaches in which an existing asset is upgraded alongside the construction of new infrastructure (i.e. adding new capacity to an existing roadway). All three of these approaches to a P3 may involve some combination of design, construction, financing, operations or maintenance; the difference arises in the mission of the public-sector.  A jurisdiction may seek to improve existing infrastructure assets via a brownfield project whereas a greenfield project allows for the creation of new assets.

 

New infrastructure is not always the end-goal for the public-sector, but rather states seek a solution that best meets the needs of the public. 

 

The Legislative Role in Public-Private Partnerships

The primary role for state legislatures in P3s is determining first whether their states wants to pursue P3 procurement. If the intent of the legislature is to provide their state agencies with this procurement tool, creating sound policy is the next step. 

Few states require legislatures to officially approve a P3 project. However, the need for legislative support should not be overlooked. A political champion can go a long way towards helping make a P3 successful. The asset is ultimately still owned by the state and will need to serve the public’s interest and provide public benefit. 

State Public-Private Partnership Legislation: Why is it needed?

Due to the inherent complexity of P3 agreements and the typically large scale of the infrastructure projects involved, the legislature’s role is vital. Creating enabling statutes is the first step a state can take to encourage P3 interest in its state, and is often seen as a pre-requisite by the private sector.

Enabling statutes dictate the ability of existing or newly created state agencies to engage with private industry through P3s. Each state has written its statutes to meet its specific needs and take into account the unique conditions of its economy, infrastructure and public policy context.

However, some general trends can be identified with regards to many aspects of P3 legislation. In an analysis of enabling statutes for transportation P3s (the sector most widely authorized for P3s in state statute), NCSL found many legislatures chose to address similar issues in their enabling statute.

Commonly Addressed Provisions in P3 Enabling Statutes
General Goverance
Public Entities Authorized to use P3s Legislative Involvement
Design Build Authorization Other Governmental Involvement
Any broad limitations on P3 use P3 Advisory Bodies
Project types  
Proposals Funding and Finance
Solicited vs. Unsolicited Bids Tolls (for transportation P3s)
Bidder Confidentially and Fees Revenue Sharing
Publicly Hired Consultants Combination of State/Local/Federal Funding
Public Comments/Hearings Exemption for certain taxes
Other
Specific Provisions in P3 Agreements
Cost-Benefit Analysis

Labor Issues

Material Default/Bankruptcy

 

State P3 legislation creates the framework within which public agencies can accomplish the governmental role of protecting the public’s interest while leveraging the expertise and resources of private industry. Sound public policy will help protect the public’s interest, establish the conditions in which agreements can be made and allow for both public and private goals to be satisfied.

As the P3 market in the U.S. expands and jurisdictions look to use the model in additional sectors, new questions and policy issues arise. While many aspects of sound policy are important for every jurisdiction, lawmakers tailor their legislation to fit the specific needs and desires of their state. 

As the legislation below demonstrates, some states choose to enable P3s across multiple sectors under one section of code while others provide statutory authority sector by sector. 

When is a Public-Private Partnership Appropriate?

One of the fundamental decisions to be made regarding P3s is whether or not a project is well-suited for P3 procurement. The process of making this determination typically starts with the public sector agency responsible for an infrastructure asset.

Legislatures may or may not play a role in this process, and states have chosen to handle legislative participation in a variety of ways. While a handful of enabling statutes place limitations on the type, size and price of P3 projects, the majority of states have broad enabling legislation with few project specific limitations. The majority of enabling statutes provide for some form of legislative review or involvement, but very few states require legislative approval for specific projects; leaving the procurement decision up to the appropriate state agency.

Transportation P3 Toolkit
  • NCSL’s report, Public-Private Partnerships for Transportation: A Toolkit for Legislators, provides expert guidance, dependable counsel and a compilation of best practices to assist state legislatures as they consider whether and how to pursue transportation P3s in their states.  
  • Similar to the P3 market in America, NCSL’s P3 research began with a focus on the transportation section. As the P3 market expands, so does the need for continuing the policy discussion.
  • Building off the foundational research in the P3 Toolkit, this web brief provides additional analysis and guidance for P3s outside of the transportation sector.

 

A variety of circumstances can make a project a potential good fit for P3 procurement. Key aspects of a project that will help determine the suitability for a P3 include opportunities for available revenue streams, risk transfer scalability, proper statutory authority, public vs. private cost of financing and the long-term performance strategy for asset owners.

Revenue Streams

For many years the P3 market in the United States focused heavily on large-scale transportation projects, especially projects with an associated revenue stream. Many of the early U.S. P3s involved adding toll lanes as new capacity to existing roadways. A dedicated revenue stream in the form of tolls may be attractive to the private sector in order to pay back their investment and provide a financial rate of return for their acceptance of project risk. Revenue streams also can be used to subsidize long-term operations and maintenance payments to the private sector in the case of design-build-operate-maintain (DBOM) or design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM) models.

More recently, states have begun to move towards an availability payment structure for transportation projects, rather than relying on future revenue streams associated with the project.

Essentially, in exchange for design, construction, long-term maintenance and/or operations of an infrastructure project, the state will pay the private partner an “availability payment,” backed by future public funding, dependent on the private sector meeting predefined benchmarks of performance. Florida’s I-4 Ultimate P3 and Pennsylvania’s Rapid Bridge Replacement P3 are both examples of an availability payment approach, both of which are lauded among the P3 community. 

The availability payment model may help expand the feasibility of P3s in non-transportation infrastructure projects. Many infrastructure projects are associated with a revenue stream, including energy production projects, micro-grids, water systems or buildings with commercial rental space. However, for any number of reasons the public sector may decide against dedicating those future revenues to repay the private-sector financing of a P3.

Some jurisdictions have found that “user risk”, or the uncertainty of a future user-based revenue stream, can be expensive to transfer to the private entity. It generally will require a greater rate of return than a more certain revenue stream such as availability payments which is associated with an “appropriations risk.”

Risk Transfer

A key selling point for P3s is the ability for the public to transfer risk to the private sector and the subsequent enhancement of the public interest. While this can provide great benefit to the public sector, any time the private sector accepts additional risk they will require additional financial incentives to do so.

Certain types of risk are better managed by the private sector while others are more appropriate for the public sector to retain. Common risk transfers to the private sector include operations risk, maintenance risk, construction risk, finance risks and more. Conversely, risks commonly retained by the public sector include ridership (when appropriate) or user risk, force majeure and revenue risk.

As previously discussed, the determination of risk transfer surrounding revenue risk or user risk can be alleviated with the introduction of availability payments. In the absence of a user-based revenue stream, when the revenue stream is not appropriate to be accessed by the private sector, or when the risk of future use is too prohibitive for the private sector to accept, the public sector partner can build a P3 agreement around payments from future public sector funding.

Scalability

P3s are complex legal agreements that often involve sophisticated financial analysis and legal consultation. The barriers to entry for P3 agreements may preclude small municipalities or public agencies with small-scale projects from utilizing P3s.

An idea that has garnered increased attention recently is bundling together multiple similar small-scale projects. Pennsylvania recently entered into an agreement to replace and maintain more than 500 small to medium-sized bridges. Each bridge being too small a project on its own, bundling the projects has created an opportunity to leverage the private sector and transfer maintenance risk into a long-term contract.

Many possibilities abound for states to facilitate the bundling of small-scale municipal or county projects into larger regional P3s, particularly in the water/wastewater sector. In 2015, the EPA successfully worked with the state of Maryland and localities to pursue what is called community based public-private partnerships (CBP3s).

Other Considerations

Other determinations to be made concerning whether to employ a P3 for a certain project include the financing costs, especially the cost of public vs. private financing, and the long-term goals of performance management for infrastructure assets. One factor that is currently up for debate is the relatively cheap price of private financing compared to historical trends due to current low federal interest rates. 

Finding of Public Interest

In 2015, the Virginia Legislature enacted legislation to tweak the state’s long-standing and well-respected P3 laws. VA HB 1886 requires the public agency to produce a finding of public interest, and the Virginia Transportation Public-Private Partnership Committee (created by the bill) is required to ensure a P3 project meets the finding of public interest throughout the P3 process.

 

Public-Private Partnership Potential Benefits and Concerns

P3s do not act as a funding source; rather, they can provide additional financing opportunities and create efficiencies leading to cost savings. Nor are P3s a cure-all for infrastructure funding needs. Every project is different, and may or may not benefit from innovative delivery methods.

Asset owners (public sector agencies) must ensure the appropriate conditions exist before pursuing a P3. This may include an assessment of the public sector goals and mission in order to determine if the private sector can be leveraged to reach the desired outcome.

Key benefits of the P3 project delivery method arise from the leveraging of the private sector’s expertise and resources. Private sector partners can bring to the table tools to achieve efficiencies, provide financing and enhance quality. However, ultimately the public asset will need to serve the public interest and public goals should be considered before private sector interests.

Any new and innovative technique naturally will create concerns over protecting the public’s needs, goals and quality of life. Difficult questions have arisen around P3s in general, and each individual project often will include its own unique considerations and controversies.

Some common potential benefits and concerns associated with P3s are listed in the table below.

Potential Benefits and Concerns Associated with P3s
Potential Benefits Potential Concerns
Private Financing and Project Acceleration Loss of Public Control and Flexibility
Monetization of Existing Assets Private Profits at the Public’s Expense
Cost and Time Savings Loss of Future Public Revenues
Lifecycle Efficiencies Risk of Bankruptcy or Default
Improved Project Quality Accountability and Transparency
Risk Transfer Environmental Issues
Public Control and Accountability Labor Concerns
Access to cutting-edge technology Risk Negotiation
Enhanced operations and maintenance Increased Consulting Needs/Costs
  Limited government oversight
  Foreign Companies
  Specific Contract Terms

 

These benefits and concerns need to be addressed at the outset of any P3 agreement. The partnership’s concessionaire agreement is considered by many P3 experts to be the most appropriate place to alleviate any potential issues associated with specific projects. Ideological and project-neutral concerns may be addressed in the legislature when debating the creation of P3 enabling laws.

Sound public policy through state law is the primary and most authoritative tool state legislatures have to alleviate any issue. Many state legislatures have enacted statutory provisions to address potential concerns about P3s and enhance the benefits such models can provide. Depending on the goals of the legislature and all parties involved, these benefits and concerns are handled differently and therefore enabling laws will vary from state to state.

Public-Private Partnership State Statutes

As of February 2016, NCSL is aware of 38 states which have some form of P3 enabling legislation on the books. The list of statues below provides a general analysis of each law and allows for a rough comparison among states. This NCSL analysis:

  • Categorizes each law as comprehensive or limited based on the specific language in code.
  • Notes which jurisdictions (state/local/regional) are permitted to enter into P3 agreements. As discussed earlier, some states choose to enable P3s across multiple sectors under one section of code while others take a more piecemeal approach.
  • Details which state agencies that have authority to engage in P3s.
  • Highlights any additional language relevant to P3s.

States With P3 Enabling Legislation

       
Transportation Only Transportation + Additional Sectors Non-Transportation Sectors Only No Legislation

* Limited or project-specific legislation

Alabama

Ala. Code §23-1-81

Year of Enactment |

1996

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT and County Commissions

Additional Info |

State DOT and county commissions may license any legal entity to establish or operate toll roads, toll bridges, ferries or causeways.

Ala. Code §§23-2-140 to 163

Year of Enactment |

2009

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Alabama Toll Road, Bridge and Tunnel Authority

Additional Info |

Design-build, design-build-operate, design-build-own-operate or design-build-own-operate-maintain, or similar arrangements; leases, licenses, franchises, concessions or other agreements for development, operation, management or undertaking of a toll road, bridge or tunnel project; does not apply to existing roadway capacity.


Alaska                                             

Alaska Stat. §§19.75.111 to 990

Year of Enactment |

2006

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

Specific Instrumentality of the State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority

Additional Info |

P3s or service contracts in any form for financing, design, construction, maintenance, improvement or operation of facilities, properties or projects of the authority.


Arizona                                           

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§28-7701 to 7710

Year of Enactment |

2009

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT; other units of government (by approval of DOT)

Additional Info |

P3 agreements can provide for development or operation of an eligible facility through any delivery method the DOT approves, including design-build.


Arkansas                                        

Ark. Stat. Ann. §§27-86-201 to 211

Year of Enactment |

1927

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

Local

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

County Courts

Additional Info |

Franchises for private entities to build bridges, turnpikes or causeways along any watercourse, lake, bay or swamp; prohibits a franchise from operating a toll bridge on the state highway system.

Ark. Stat. Ann. §§27-76-402 and 403

Year of Enactment |

2007

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

Regional

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Regional Mobility Authorities

Additional Info |

Rail, waterway or trail projects; prohibits P3s for, or privatization of, toll facilities.


California                                       

Cal. Streets & Highways Code §143

Year of Enactment |

1989

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State and Regional

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT (Caltrans) and regional transportation agencies

Additional Info |

Planning, design, development, finance, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, improvement, acquisition, lease, operation or maintenance of highway, public street, rail or related facilities; may include lease of rights-of-way in and airspace over facilities.

Cal. Gov. Code §§5956 to 5956.10

Year of Enactment |

1996

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

Local

Sector |

Multi-Sector

Public Entities Authorized |

Local Governmental Agencies

Additional Info |

Design, construction, reconstruction or lease of a wide range of fee-producing infrastructure projects, including commuter and light rail, highways or bridges, tunnels, airports and runways; may include lease of rights-of-way in and airspace over facilities; prohibits using authority for state projects (including toll roads on state highways) or state-financed projects.

Cal. Gov. Code §§5975 et seq.

Year of Enactment |

2016

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

Local

Sector |

Public Buildings

Public Entities Authorized |

City of Long Beach

Additional Info |

The city may enter into a public-private partnership through a concession agreement, design-build agreement, design-build-finance agreement, project agreement, lease-leaseback, or other appropriate agreements combining one or more major elements of the foregoing agreements, with one or more private entities for delivery of the Long Beach Civic Center.

Cal. Educ. Code §81004

Year of Enactment |

1997

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

Local

Sector |

Education

Public Entities Authorized |

Community Colleges

Additional Info |

A community college may develop a public-private partnership for the purposes of constructing education buildings or education centers.


Colorado                                        

Colo. Rev. Stat. §§44-3-202 to 202.5

Year of Enactment |

1996

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

Contracts or agreements to design, finance, construct, operate, maintain, improve and reconstruct turnpike projects by public-private initiative.

Colo. Rev. Stat. §§43-1-1201 to 1209

Year of Enactment |

1995

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

Contracts or agreements to design, finance, construct, operate, maintain, improve and reconstruct turnpike projects by public-private initiative.

Colo. Rev. Stat. §§43-4-801 to 812

Year of Enactment |

2009

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State Bridge Enterprise; High Performance Transportation Enterprise

Additional Info |

Public-private initiatives to design, develop, construct, reconstruct, repair, operate or maintain bridge projects; to seek out and enter into P3s and other innovative means of completing surface transportation infrastructure projects.

Colo. Rev. Stat. §§43-3-301 to 304

Year of Enactment |

2006

Statute Type |

Toll Requirements

Jurisdiction |

N/A

Sector |

N/A

Public Entities Authorized |

Transportation Commission is authorized to review toll schedules as part of the statewide transportation plan

Additional Info |

N/A

Colo. Rev. Stat. §§43-3-401 to 414

Year of Enactment |

1991

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Transportation Commissions

Additional Info |

Agreements for construction, maintenance and operation of one or more toll or free tunnels (tunnels must be between the east and west slopes of the state of Colorado).

Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-2-219

Year of Enactment |

1998

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

Local

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Board of County Commissioners

Additional Info |

Public-private initiatives for tolls on county highways and bridges; to privatize any county highway or bridge; or to construct, operate or maintain such bridge or highway.


Connecticut                                   

Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§4-255 to 263

Year of Enactment |

2011

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Multi-Sector

Public Entities Authorized |

Any state agency or quasi-public agency

Additional Info |

Not more than five P3 projects for the design, development, operation or maintenance of revenue-generating facilities, including but not limited to, early childcare, educational, health or housing facilities; and transportation systems, including ports, transit-oriented development and related infrastructure.  Allows only projects that will result in job creation and economic growth. 


Delaware                                       

Del. Code Ann. tit. 2, §§2001 to 2012

Year of Enactment |

1995

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

P3s for the study, planning, design, construction, leasing, financing, operation, maintenance, repair or expansion of transportation systems, or any combination of the above.


Florida                                            

Fla. Stat. Ann. §287.05712

Year of Enactment |

2013

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Multi-Sector

Public Entities Authorized |

Responsible Public Entity

Additional Info |

A responsible public entity may receive unsolicited proposals or may solicit proposals for qualifying projects and may thereafter enter into an agreement with a private entity, or a consortium of private entities, for the building, upgrading, operating, ownership, or financing of facilities.

Fla. Stat. Ann. §334.30

Year of Enactment |

1991

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

Agreements for building, operation, ownership or financing of a transportation facility.

Fla. Stat. Ann. §337.251

Year of Enactment |

1990

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

Leases of DOT property for joint public-private transportation purposes to further economic development and generate revenue for transportation.

Fla. Stat. Ann. §338.22 to 251

Year of Enactment |

2002

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Florida Turnpike Enterprise

Additional Info |

Enterprise may cooperate, coordinate, partner and contract with private entities in order to plan, develop, own, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire, demolish, construct, improve, relocate, equip, repair, maintain, operate and manage the Florida Turnpike System.

Fla. Stat. Ann. §343.875

Year of Enactment |

2005

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

Regional

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Northwest Florida Transportation Corridor Authority

Additional Info |

Agreements for building, operation, ownership or financing of transportation facilities, within the jurisdiction of the authority.

Fla. Stat. Ann. §348.0004

Year of Enactment |

2004

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State, Regional and Local

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Any expressway, bridge or toll authority

Additional Info |

Agreements for building, operation, ownership or financing of transportation facilities, within the respective jurisdiction of the authority.

Fla. Stat. Ann. §§153.90 et seq.

Year of Enactment |

1996

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Wastewater

Public Entities Authorized |

Public entities

Additional Info |

Agreements to provide for the operation, maintenance, repair, management and administration, or any combination thereof, of a wastewater facility for a term of more than five years, but not more than 40 years in duration, and which may also provide for the planning, design, construction, improvement, acquisition, financing, ownership, sale and leasing, or any combination thereof, of the wastewater facility.

Fla. Stat. Ann. §373.085

Year of Enactment |

2010

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Water

Public Entities Authorized |

District and governmental agencies

Additional Info |

In order to promote water quantity and water resource development, projects that improve flood control and conservation of lands, the District and other governmental agencies shall encourage public-private partnerships by collaborating with those partnerships when procuring materials for infrastructure and restoration work projects.


Georgia                                          

Ga. Code Ann. §32-2-41(b)(6); Ga. Code Ann. §§32-2-78 to 80; Ga. Code Ann. §48-5-41; Ga. Code Ann. §48-5-421.1

Year of Enactment |

2009; 2009; 2011; 2011

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

Projects funded or financed by the private sector; design-build contracts

Ga. Code Ann. §§36-91-110 et seq.; §§50-5C-1 et seq.

Year of Enactment |

2015

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Multi-Sector

Public Entities Authorized |

Local authorities and governments; instrumentalities of the State of Georgia

Additional Info |

Projects selected by a local government in response to a proposal that meets the public need; not to include a project involving generation of power, communication services, cable and video services, or water reservoir projects


Illinois                                             

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 20, §2705/2705-450

Year of Enactment |

1992

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

Agreements with any public or private entity for the purpose of promoting and developing high-speed rail and magnetic levitation transportation.

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 605, §5/10-802; Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 605, §5/10-602(4)(1)

Year of Enactment |

2011

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

Local

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Municipalities

Additional Info |

Contracts of every kind and nature to acquire, construct, reconstruct, improve, enlarge, better, operate, maintain and repair any bridge within five miles of the corporate limits of the municipality.

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 605, §§130/1 to 130/135

Year of Enactment |

1997

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

One or more public-private agreements to develop, finance, construct, manage and operate the Illiana Expressway.

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 630, §§5/1 to 5/90

Year of Enactment |

2011

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT and the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority

Additional Info |

Transportation agencies may enter into public-private agreements for the development, financing, and/or operation of any part of a transportation project, except for projects for the Illiana Expressway.


Indiana                                           

Ind. Code Ann. §§5-23-1-1 to 5-23-7-2

Year of Enactment |

1997

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Multi-Sector

Public Entities Authorized |

Governmental bodies; applies to the state or to a political subdivision in a county if it contains a consolidated city or adopts the provisions of this article by resolution or ordinance

Additional Info |

BOT (build-operate-transfer) agreements for  acquisition, planning, design, development, reconstruction, repair, maintenance or financing of public facilities, including any public building, highway, street, alley, bridge, sewer, drain or any other public facility that is paid for out of public funds; or operating agreements for the operation, maintenance, repair or management of any public facility for any public service.  Public-private agreements are defined only as BOT or operating agreements.

Ind. Code Ann. §§8-15-1-1 to 8-15-3-35; §§8-15.5-1-1 to 8-15.5-13-8; §§8-15.7-1-1 to 8-15.7-16-8; §§8-23-7-22 to 25

Year of Enactment |

Unknown; 2006; 2006; 1990

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Multi-Sector

Public Entities Authorized |

Indiana Finance Authority, state DOT, and any state or local government entity

Additional Info |

P3s for planning, design, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, extension, expansion, operation, repair, management, maintenance or financing of a toll road; and for development, planning, design, construction, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, expansion, financing or operation of a transportation facility, including some rail projects, and a “facility project” relating to state parks, communications or certain hospitals.


Kentucky                                        

Year of Enactment |

2016

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Multi-sector

Public Entities Authorized |

Any deparrtment, commission, council, board, bureau, committee, institution, legislative body, agency, government corporation, or other establishment of the executive or legislative branch of the state government; or a city, county, charter county, urban-county government, consolidated local government, or unified local government of the Commonwealth.

Additional Info |

"Public-private partnership" means a project delivery method for construction or financing of capital projects, as defined in KRS 45.750, or procurement of services, pursuant to a written public-private partnership agreement entered into pursuant to Section 3 of this Act.


Louisiana                                        

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§48:1251 to 1281

Year of Enactment |

1954; amended 1977

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Louisiana Expressway Authority

Additional Info |

Contracts with any person, partnership, association or corporation desiring the use of any part of toll revenues for the purpose of providing an expressway project.

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§48:2020 to 2037

Year of Enactment |

1997

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

Regional and Local

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Transportation authorities created by parishes or municipalities for the purpose of entering into P3s

Additional Info |

Contracts with public or private entities to construct, maintain, repair and/or operate transportation projects.

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§48:2071 to 2074; §48:2077; §§48:2084 to 2084.15

Year of Enactment |

2001; 2001; 2006

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Louisiana Transportation Authority

Additional Info |

Contracts with public or private entities to construct, maintain, repair or operate authority transportation projects/facilities or for transportation services.

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §39:3321.1 & La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §51:3135

Additional Info |

Along with other various sections of code, reference the use of public-private partnerships for non-transportation projects. However, NCSL does not view these as enabling statutes as they do not provide framework for the execution or authority of implementing a P3. NCSL is unaware of any section of Louisiana Code enabling non-transportation P3s.


Maine                                             

Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §4521

Year of Enactment |

2009

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

An agreement may allow for private sector participation in financing, development, operation, management, ownership, leasing or maintenance for a transportation facility.

Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 30-a, §2203 & Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 35-a, §9211-A

Additional Info |

These two sections of code reference and encourage the use of public-private partnerships for broadband purposes but do not provide a framework for enabling P3s.


Maryland                                       

Md. State Finance and Procurement Code Ann. §§10A-101 to 403

Year of Enactment |

2013

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Multi-Sector

Public Entities Authorized |

State Department of General Services, State DOT, Maryland Transportation Authority, the University System of Maryland, Morgan State University, St. Mary's College of Maryland and the Baltimore City Community College

Additional Info |

P3s to develop and strengthen a public infrastructure asset in which a private entity performs functions normally undertaken by the government and the state retains ownership in and ultimately responsibility for the public infrastructure. Decision-making rights in determining financing, developing, construction, operation and maintenance may be given to the private entity.


Massachusetts                              

Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch 6C, §§62 to 73

Year of Enactment |

2009

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

Design-build-finance-operate-maintain and design--build-operate-maintain contracts through the sale, lease, operation and maintenance of a transportation facility.


Michigan                                        

Mich. Comp. Laws §§125.1871 to 152.1883

Year of Enactment |

2010

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

Local

Sector |

Multi-Sector

Public Entities Authorized |

Municipalities

Additional Info |

A municipality may enter into and establish multiple negotiating partnerships to develop and finance public facilities and infrastructure.


Minnesota                                     

Minn. Stat. Ann. §§160.84 to 98

Year of Enactment |

1993

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Road authorities

Additional Info |

Toll facilities that are a bridge, causeway, or tunnel, and its approaches; a road, street or highway; an appurtenant building, structure or other improvement; land lying within applicable rights-of-way; and other appurtenant rights or hereditaments that together comprise a project for which a road authority or private operator is authorized to develop, finance, design, operate and impose tolls.

Minn. Stat. Ann. §116J.39 & Minn. Stat. Ann. §473J-11

Additional Info |

These sections of code reference the use of public-private partnerships for broadband and sports stadiums respectively. However, neither provides a framework for enabling P3s.


Mississippi                                      

Miss. Code Ann. §§65-43-1 to 85

Year of Enactment |

2007

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Mississippi Transportation Commission, county boards of supervisors and/or the governing authorities of municipalities

Additional Info |

Design, finance, construction, operate and/or maintenance contracts for one or more toll roads or toll bridges, including toll booths and related facilities.


Missouri                                         

Mo. Rev. Stat. §§227.600 to 669

Year of Enactment |

2006

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Highways and Transportation Commission; a federal agency, agencies of the state, a local or regional transportation authority

Additional Info |

P3s for financing, development and/or operation of any pipeline, ferry, river port, airport, railroad, light rail or other mass transit facility.

Mo. Rev. Stat. §§238.300 to 367

Year of Enactment |

1990

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Highways and Transportation Commission; a transportation corporation; a federal agency, agencies of the state or a local transportation authority

Additional Info |

Agreements to fund, promote, plan, design, construct, maintain and operate one or more bridge, street, road, highway, access road, interchange, intersection, signing, signalization, parking lot, bus stop, station, garage, terminal, hangar, shelter, rest area, dock, wharf, lake or river port, airport, railroad, light rail, or other mass transit and any similar or related improvement or infrastructure.


Nebraska

Additional Info |

Public-private partnerships are referenced in various sections of code, and, in certain circumstances, the legislature encourages the use of public-private partnerships. However, NCSL is not aware of a section of Nebraska Code enabling the use of the P3s.


Nevada

Nev. Rev. Stat. §§338.161 to 168

Year of Enactment |

2003

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State, county, city, town, school district or any public agency of this state or its political subdivisions sponsoring or financing a public work

Additional Info |

Develop, construct, improve, maintain or operate, or any combination thereof, a transportation facility.


New Hampshire

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §33:3 and 33:3-g

Year of Enactment |

2006

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

Local

Sector |

Broadband

Public Entities Authorized |

Municipalities and counties

Additional Info |

A municipality or county may issue its bond or notes for the acquisition of land, for planning relative to public facilities, for the construction, reconstruction, alteration, enlargement, or purchase of public buildings, for other public works, or improvements of a permanent nature including broadband infrastructure. Broadband may be the subject of public-private partnerships.


New Jersey

N.J. Stat. Ann. §18A:64-85

Year of Enactment |

2013

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Education

Public Entities Authorized |

State or county colleges

Additional Info |

A state or county college may enter into a public-private partnership agreement with a private entity that permits the private entity to assume full financial and administrative responsibility for the on-campus construction, reconstruction, repair, alteration, improvement, extension, management, operation of a building, structure, or facility of or for the benefit of the institution.

N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1A-5, 27:1D-3

Year of Enactment |

1997 (expired)

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

This section of code permitted the commissioner of the DOT to enter into public-private partnerships demonstration projects for the four subsequent years after enacted of the public act. This authority has subsequently expired, and the DOT no longer has authority to enter into public-private partnerships.

N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:25-5(v)

Year of Enactment |

Unknown

Statute Type |

N/A

Jurisdiction |

NJ Transit Authority

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

NJ Transit Authority

Additional Info |

The authority is permitted enter into any and all agreements or contracts, execute any and all instruments, and do and perform any and all acts or things necessary, convenient or desirable for the purposes of the corporation, or to carry out any power expressly or implicitly given in this act. This section of code has been interpreted by the state to allow for public-private partnerships by NJ Transit.

N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:23-5(L)

Year of Enactment |

Unknown

Statute Type |

N/A

Jurisdiction |

NJ Toll Authority

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

NJ Toll Authority

Additional Info |

The authority is permitted to make and enter into all contracts and agreements necessary or incidental to the performance of its duties and the execution of its powers under this act and to enter into contracts with federal, State and local governments and private entities for the financing, administration, operation, management and construction of transportation projects. This section of code has been interpreted by the state to allow for public-private partnerships by the NJ Toll Authority.


North Carolina

N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-28.6; §6A

Year of Enactment |

2009

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT, counties and municipalities

Additional Info |

Transportation projects on the DOT's Transportation Improvement Plan or other mutually adopted transportation plan. Contracts for engineering, design or construction. The DOT's participation is limited to $250,000.


N.C. Gen. Stat. §§136-89.180 to 198

Year of Enactment |

2002

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

North Carolina Turnpike Authority

Additional Info |

Partnership agreements with the DOT, political subdivisions of the state and private entities for the purpose of financing the cost of acquiring, constructing, equipping, operating or maintaining any turnpike project. The authority is permitted to study, plan, develop and undertake preliminary design work on up to nine projects and then to design, establish, purchase, construct, operate and maintain four projects identified in §136-89.183(a)(2). Additional projects require consultation with the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations.

N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-128.1c

Year of Enactment |

2013

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Mutli-Sector

Public Entities Authorized |

Every officer, board, department, commission charged with responsibility of awarding contracts for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of any building for the State or for any county, municipality or other public body

Additional Info |

The State, a county, municipality, or other public entity may accept bids to erect, construct, alter, or repair a building under both a single-prime and separate-prime contracting system and shall award the contract to the lowest responsible, responsive bidder taking into consideration quality, performance, compliance, and time specified in the bids to perform the contract.


North Dakota                                

N.D. Cent. Code §§48-02.1-01 to 13

Year of Enactment |

1993

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Multi-Sector

Public Entities Authorized |

Public authorities, which include the state (subject to legislative authority), a county, township or city

Additional Info |

Construction, improvement, rehabilitation, operation, management and ownership of a fee-based facility.


Ohio                                               

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§5501.70 to 83

Year of Enactment |

2011

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

Development, financing, maintenance or operation of a transportation facility, including a tunnel, ferry, port facility, intermodal facility or similar facility open to the public and used for transportation.


Oregon                                           

Or. Rev. Stat. §§367.800 to 826; §§383.001 to 075

Year of Enactment |

2003; 1995

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

P3s for planning, acquisition, financing, development, design, construction, reconstruction, replacement, improvement, maintenance, management, repair, leasing and operation of transportation projects in any mode.  Also design-build contracts; lease agreements; licenses, franchises, or other agreements for operation or maintenance; or financing arrangements for tollway projects.


Pennsylvania                                  

Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 74, §§9101 to 9124

Year of Enactment |

2012

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Any state agency, commission or authority with transportation facilities; all projects must be approved prior to procurement by the Public-Private Transportation Partnership Board

Additional Info |

Predevelopment, design-build, design-build-operate, design-build-maintain, design-build-finance-operate, design-build-operate-maintain, design-build-finance-operate-maintain and operate-maintain agreements for transportation facilities; a concession for a development entity to design, build, operate, maintain, manage or lease a transportation facility; and any other innovative or nontraditional project delivery method.


South Carolina                              

S.C. Code Ann. §57-3-200

Year of Enactment |

1994

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

Partnership agreements with political subdivisions and private entities to finance, by tolls and other financing methods, the cost of acquiring, constructing, equipping, maintaining and operating highways, roads, streets and bridges.

S.C. Code Ann. §§57-5-1310 to 1495

Year of Enactment |

1962

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

Contracts for designating, establishing, planning, improving, constructing, maintaining and regulating turnpike facilities. The DOT is allowed to use any authorizations from other state law to carry out such contracts, including the provisions of §57-3-200 permitting P3s.


Tennessee                                      

Tenn. Code Ann. §54-1-119

Year of Enactment |

2007

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

Contracts for design, right-of-way acquisition, or utility relocation, or all of those, along with e construction of a project by a single entity.

Limited to 15 projects per year under $1 million and five projects per year in excess of $1 million.

Tenn. Code Ann. §§54-3-101 to 113

Year of Enactment |

2007

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

Design-build contracts with private entities pursuant to which all or part of the design, right-of-way acquisition, relocation of utilities and construction of a tollway or toll facility is accomplished by a private entity or entities on behalf of the department; service agreements for operation of a tollway, toll facility, or appurtenant facility; and agreements with the federal government or other governmental agencies for the purpose of undertaking all or any part of a tollway or toll facility project. P3 legislation is limited to a pilot program that can consist of up to two highway or bridge projects.


Texas                                              

Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §§222.001 to 107

Year of Enactment |

 

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

Regional and Local

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT, regional tollway authorities, regional mobility authorities, counties and municipalities

Additional Info |

Agreements with private entities for design, financing, maintenance, operation or construction—including oversight and inspection—of a toll or non-toll facility on the state highway system, where the private or public entity is paid pass-through tolls.

Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §91.054; §§223.201 to 210; chap. 228; §§371.001 to 153

Year of Enactment |

2005

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

Comprehensive development agreements with private entities to design, develop, finance, construct, maintain, repair, operate, extend or expand a toll project or a state highway improvement project that either includes both tolled and untolled lanes, is financed by private activity bonds, or in which the private entity has an interest.  Also allows agreements for financing, design, acquisition, construction, maintenance or operation of a rail facility or system.  Authorization applies only to a limited number of named projects.

Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §§366.401 to 409 (similar in many respects to chap. 223); §§371.001 to 153

Year of Enactment |

2007

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

Regional

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Regional tollway authorities

Additional Info |

Comprehensive development agreements with private entities for at least the design, construction, rehabilitation, expansion or improvement of a turnpike project; also may include financing, acquisition, maintenance or operation of a turnpike project. 

Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §§370.305 to 317 (similar in many respects to chap. 223); §§371.001 to 153

Year of Enactment |

2003

Statute Type |

Limited (Expired)

Jurisdiction |

Regional

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Regional mobility authorities

Additional Info |

Comprehensive development agreements with private entities for at least the design and construction of a transportation project; also may include financing, acquisition, maintenance or operation of a transportation project.  Projects may not be part of the state highway system unless agreed to by the authority and the DOT.

Tex. Transportation Code Ann. chap. 284 (subject to chap. 223 and chap. 366); §§371.001 to 153

Year of Enactment |

2007

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

Local

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Counties

Additional Info |

Comprehensive development agreements with private entities to design, develop, finance, construct, maintain, repair, operate, extend or expand a proposed or existing causeway, bridge, tunnel, turnpike, highway or ferry project, to the extent and in the manner applicable to the DOT under Chapter 223 and to regional tollway authorities under Chapter 366. Projects may not be part of the state highway system unless agreed to by the DOT.

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§2267.001 et seq.

Year of Enactment |

2015

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Multi-Sector

Public Entities Authorized |

A board, commission, department, other state agency, including an institution of higher education, or a political subdivision of the state that elects to operate by adoption of resolution by the governing body

Additional Info |

This section of code declares existing procurement methods insufficient in satisfying public need and authorizes public agencies to allow private entities to develop or operate qualifying projects. Qualifying projects include power generation facilities, fuel supply facilities, oil/gas pipelines, water supply facilities, public work, waste treatment facilities, hospital/school/medical or nursing care facilities, recreational facilities, public buildings, technology facilities, or other similar facility currently available or to be made available to a governmental entity for public use, including any property required to operate the structure or facility and any technology infrastructure installed that is essential to the project's purpose.

Does not apply to: financing, design, construction, maintenance, or operation of a highway, a transportation authority, any telecomm, cable, video, or broadband infrastructure.


Utah                                               

Utah Code Ann. §63G-6-503; Utah Code Ann. §§72-6-201 to 206

Year of Enactment |

2006

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT; Transportation Commission

Additional Info |

Agreement providing for predevelopment activities, design, construction, reconstruction, financing, acquisition, maintenance and/or operation of a tollway.

Utah Code Ann. §72-6-118; Utah Code Ann. 72-2-120

Year of Enactment |

2006

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

Toll projects for funding design, contraction, reconstruction, operation, enforcement and maintenance of transportation routes.


Virginia                                           

Va. Code §§33.2-1800 to 1824

Year of Enactment |

1995

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Any commonwealth agency or authority, county, city or town

Additional Info |

Agreements in which a private entity will provide transportation-related services, including, but not limited to, operation and maintenance, revenue collection and enforcement, design, and construction for a qualified transportation facility.

Va. Code §§56-575.1 et seq.

Year of Enactment |

2009

Statute Type |

Limited

Jurisdiction |

State and Local

Sector |

Education, Utility, and Telecommunication

Public Entities Authorized |

State agency or any county, city, town, and any other political subdivision, any public body politic and corporate, or regional entity that serves a public purpose

Additional Info |

This section of code declares existing procurement methods insufficient in satisfying public need and authorizes public agencies to allow private entities to develop or operate qualifying projects. Qualifying projects include education facilities, building or facility for the benefit of public interest, improvements to buildings, utility and telecom infrastructure, recreational facilities, technology infrastructure, improvements to locally or state-owned real estate and solid waste facilities. Additionally Va. Code §67-1503 authorizes the Virginia Solar Energy Development Authority to establish, pursuant to this act, public-private partnerships for the purpose of increasing the number of solar energy generation systems.


Washington                                   

Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§47.29.010 to 290

Year of Enactment |

2005

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Commission of Transportation (state DOT)

Additional Info |

Contracts for planning, acquisition, design, financing, management, development, construction, reconstruction, replacement, improvement, maintenance, preservation, repair and operation of transportation projects where the state's primary purpose is to facilitate safe transport.


West Virginia                                 

W. Va. Code §§17-27-1 to 18

Year of Enactment |

2008

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Division of Highways

Additional Info |

Acquisition, construction or improvement of a transportation facility, including any waterway port facility, road, bridge, tunnel, overpass or existing airport.


Wisconsin                                      

Wis. Stat. Ann. §84.01(30)

Year of Enactment |

1998

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

State

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

State DOT

Additional Info |

Build-operate-lease or transfer agreements


District of Columbia

DC. Code Ann. §§2-271.01 to 2-275.01

Year of Enactment |

2015

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

District

Sector |

Multi-Sector

Public Entities Authorized |

District government agency, department, board, commission or instrumentality

Additional Info |

The Office of Public-Private Partnerships may enter into agreements to design, construct, maintain, operate or finance transportation, education facilities, cultural or recreational facilities, building or other facility for the benefit of public interest, utility facilities, improvements to District-owned real estate, and any other facility for the benefit of public interest


Puerto Rico                                    

9 L.R.P.A. §§2001 to 2021

Year of Enactment |

1965

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

Territory

Sector |

Transportation

Public Entities Authorized |

Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority

Additional Info |

Contracts with private entities for final design, construction, operation and maintenance of new highways, bridges, avenues, expressways and ancillary transit facilities.

27 L.R.P.A. §§2601 to 2623

Year of Enactment |

2009

Statute Type |

Comprehensive

Jurisdiction |

Territory

Sector |

Multi-Sector

Public Entities Authorized |

The Public-Private Partnership Authority

Additional Info |

P3s for construction, operation or maintenance of transportation systems of any kind.