Survey Of State Funding Practices For Coastal Port .

2y ago
17 Views
2 Downloads
1.26 MB
68 Pages
Last View : 20d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Maleah Dent
Transcription

Survey of State Funding Practicesfor Coastal Port InfrastructureFinal ReportPRC 15-51-F

Survey of State Funding Practicesfor Coastal Port InfrastructureTexas A&M Transportation InstitutePRC 15-51-FMay 2015AuthorC. James Kruse

Table of ContentsList of Figures . 6List of Tables . 6Executive Summary . 7Introduction/Background. 11Nature of Capital Investment at Ports . 11Status of Texas Ports . 11Purpose of Report . 11Report Content . 12Texas. 13Texas Port System . 13Texas Ship Channel Projects . 13Direct Port Funding in Texas . 15Port Access Account Fund . 15Indirect Port Funding in Texas . 16Port Transportation Reinvestment Zone . 16Texas Mobility Fund . 17Legislative Links for Texas . 17Louisiana. 19Louisiana Port System . 19Louisiana Ship Channel Projects . 20Direct Port Funding in Louisiana . 20Port Construction and Development Priority Program . 20LADOTD Capital Outlay Plan . 23Indirect Port Funding in Louisiana . 24Ports of Louisiana Tax Credits Program . 24LaDOTD Marine and Rail Program . 26Legislative Links for Louisiana. 26Mississippi. 27Mississippi Port System . 27Mississippi Ship Channel Projects . 27Direct Port Funding in Mississippi. 27Port Revitalization Revolving Loan Program . 27Multimodal Transportation Capital Improvement Program Fund . 28Indirect Port Funding in Mississippi . 30Export Port Charges Tax Credit . 30Import Port Charges Tax Credit . 31Legislative Links for Mississippi . 31Alabama . 32Alabama Port System . 32Alabama Ship Channel Projects . 32Direct Port Funding in Alabama . 323

Alabama Constitutional Amendment 666 (2000 Amendment One) and Amendment 796 (2007) . 32Indirect Port Funding in Alabama . 34Alabama State Docks Capital Credit Project . 34Legislative Links for Alabama . 34Florida . 36Florida Port System . 36Florida Ship Channel Projects . 36Direct Port Funding in Florida . 38Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Program . 38Strategic Port Investment Initiative . 39Florida Ports Financing Commission . 40Seaport Investment Program . 40State Infrastructure Bank . 40Strategic Intermodal System Program . 41Indirect Port Funding in Florida . 41Intermodal Logistics Center Infrastructure Support Program . 41Legislative Links for Florida . 42Georgia . 43Georgia Port System. 43Georgia Ship Channel Projects . 43Direct Port Funding in Georgia . 43Indirect Port Funding in Georgia . 44Port Tax Credit Bonus . 44Legislative Links for Georgia. 44South Carolina . 45South Carolina Port System . 45South Carolina Ship Channel Projects . 45Direct Port Funding in South Carolina . 45Indirect Port Funding in South Carolina . 45Port Volume Increase Credit . 45Legislative Links for South Carolina . 46North Carolina . 47North Carolina Port System . 47North Carolina Ship Channel Projects . 47Direct Port Funding in North Carolina . 47Indirect Port Funding in North Carolina . 48Water Resources Development Project Grant . 48Port Enhancement Zones . 48North Carolina Ports Tax Credits . 48Site and Infrastructure Grant Fund . 49Legislative Links for North Carolina . 49Virginia . 50Virginia Port System . 504

Virginia Ship Channel Projects . 50Direct Port Funding in Virginia . 50Commonwealth Port Fund . 50Indirect Port Funding in Virginia . 51Port Volume Increase Tax Credit . 51Barge and Rail Usage Tax Credit . 51International Trade Facility Tax Credit . 52Port of Virginia Economic and Infrastructure Development Zone Grant Program . 52Legislative Links for Virginia . 54Pennsylvania . 56Pennsylvania Port System . 56Pennsylvania Ship Channel Projects . 56Direct Port Funding in Pennsylvania . 57Direct Appropriations . 57Pennsylvania Intermodal Cargo Growth Incentive Program . 57Legislative Links for Pennsylvania . 58Massachusetts . 59Massachusetts Port System . 59Massachusetts Ship Channel Projects . 59Direct Port Funding in Massachusetts . 59Seaport Advisory Council (Environmental Bond Funds) . 59Rivers and Harbors Grant Program. 62Indirect Port Funding in Massachusetts . 62Harbor Maintenance Tax Credit . 62Investment Tax Credit . 63Legislative Links for Massachusetts . 63References . 655

List of FiguresFigure 1. Louisiana Port Funding Sources. . 19Figure 2. Approved Mississippi Multimodal Projects by Type for 2005–2013. . 30Figure 3. Port of Virginia Grant Zones. . 53List of TablesTable 1. Summary of Active Ship Channel Projects. . 8Table 2. Summary of Direct Assistance Mechanisms. . 9Table 3. Summary of Indirect Assistance Mechanisms. . 10Table 4. Ship Channel Improvement Projects in Texas. . 14Table 5. Projects Funded by the Port Construction and Development Priority Program, byPort. . 22Table 6. Project Authorizations of the Port Construction and Development Priority Programfor 2010–2015. . 22Table 7. Port-Related Projects Funded via Capital Outlay. . 24Table 8. Port Multimodal Funding by Fiscal Year . 30Table 9. Royalties Received by the ACITF. . 33Table 10. Florida Ship Channel Projects. . 37Table 11. Representative Massachusetts Seaport Bond Grants in 2007–2012. . 61Table 12. 2013 Massachusetts Seaport Advisory Council Grant Awards. . 626

Executive SummaryThis report summarizes what Texas and 10 other states are doing to directly or indirectly fundport-related infrastructure in their state. The geographical range begins with Texas and movesalong the Gulf and East Coasts up to Massachusetts. The focus is on coastal deep-draft ports.They tend to have the highest capital investment needs and the greatest impact on surroundingcommunities. However, since most programs do not target only coastal ports, the data presentedin this report often include references to both inland and coastal ports.There is a wide range in the level of ongoing funding support provided to port authorities bystate governments. They range from Florida, which has the most active and structured program,to several states that provide little or no ongoing direct support (Texas, Georgia, South Carolina,and North Carolina). Maryland’s port authority is part of the state government, so there is nodistinction between port authority funds and state funds. Pennsylvania makes directappropriations to partially fund the operations of the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority. Allother states have separate port authorities that are expected to operate in a stand-alone mode.This report presents detailed information on a state-by-state basis. The information is groupedinto three categories for each state: channel improvement project state funding, direct statefunding to port authorities, and indirect funding and incentive programs designed to encourageport development.Channel projects are a federal responsibility, but they require a non-federal sponsor1 to pay partof the cost of the project (usually in the 35–50 percent range). Typically, a state agency or portauthority arranges for the non-federal portion, although in the case where two or more portsshare a waterway, a separate non-federal sponsoring entity may be established as the coordinator(e.g., the Sabine-Neches Navigation District in Texas, which coordinates on behalf of Beaumont,Orange, and Port Arthur). Such projects are usually very costly and require a lengthy permittingprocess. There are 17 channel projects in the 11 states, 8 of which are actually being constructedat this time. Table 1 summarizes the cost of each project, the direct state contribution to theproject (apart from the port authority’s contribution), and the source of the funds.1A non-federal sponsor may be a state, a political sub-part of a state or group of states, a Native American (Indian)nation, quasi-public organizations chartered under state laws (e.g., a port authority, flood control district, orconservation district), an interstate agency, or non-profit organizations. In the case of channel projects, they aretypically states and port authorities (which in turn are usually political subdivisions of the state).7

Table 1. Summary of Active Ship Channel Projects.StateTexasMississippiFloridaGeorgiaSouth CarolinaNorth t ProjectSabine-NechesWaterwayBrownsville ShipChannelCorpus Christi ShipChannelFreeport Ship ChannelPort of Houston ShipChannelBayou CasotteChannel Widening(Pascagoula)Tampa Ship ChannelWideningJacksonville ShipChannelJacksonville Mile PointPort Everglades ShipChannelPort CanaveralEstimatedTotal Cost(Millions) 1,114StateSource of StateContributionFunds(Millions)0 N/A 2510 N/A 3530 N/A 239 800 N/A0 N/A 400 N/A 360 N/A 601N/A 37 3200 N/A0 N/A 41Port of Miami 206Savannah HarborExpansionCharleston HarborDeepeningCape Fear RiverWidening andRealignmentDelaware RiverDeepeningBoston HarborDeepening 706 24 Strategic PortInvestmentInitiative 112 Florida Departmentof Transportationbudget 266 Bonds 510 300 General revenues 158 4 334 15 General revenues 311 65 Environmental BondProgram

States have created a variety of mechanisms to provide state funds directly to port authorities forthe purposes of capital improvements. Florida has by far the most aggressive direct fundingprograms, followed by Louisiana. There is a wide range of funding levels, which are explained inthe detailed state sections. Table 2 summarizes the direct funding assistance mechanisms that aredescribed in this report.Table 2. Summary of Direct Assistance l Amendments 666and 796Florida Seaport Transportation andEconomic Development ProgramStrategic Port Investment InitiativeFlorida Ports Financing CommissionSeaport Investment ProgramState Infrastructure BankSouth CarolinaTexasStrategic Intermodal SystemProgramNonePort Construction and DevelopmentPriority ProgramCapital Outlay PlanSeaport Advisory CouncilRivers and Harbors Grant ProgramPort Revitalization Revolving LoanProgramMarine Transportation CapitalImprovement Program FundNoneDirect appropriationsPennsylvania Intermodal CargoGrowth Incentive ProgramNonePort Access Account FundVirginiaCommonwealth Port FundGeorgiaLouisianaMassachusettsMississippiNorth CarolinaPennsylvania9Source of FundsOil and gas capital payments andstate general obligation bondsGeneral revenuesState Transportation Trust FundRevenue bondsState Transportation Trust FundFederal with state-matchedfunds; bond proceeds; generalrevenuesNot yet definedAppropriations to TransportationTrust FundState general obligation bondsEnvironmental bond fundsGeneral revenuesState general obligation andlimited obligation bondsGeneral revenuesGeneral revenuesMultimodal Transportation FundGeneral revenues (no moneyappropriated to date)Transportation Trust Fund

The indirect funding mechanisms are heavily dominated by tax credit programs. Notableexceptions include Texas’s Port Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs) and the TexasMobility Fund, North Carolina’s Water Resources Development Project Grants and Site andInfrastructure Grant Fund, and the Port of Virginia Economic and Infrastructure DevelopmentGrant Program. Table 3 summarizes the mechanisms included in this report.Table 3. Summary of Indirect Assistance achusettsMississippiNorth CarolinaProgramAlabama State Docks Capital CreditProjectIntermodal Logistics CenterInfrastructure Support ProgramPort Tax Credit BonusPorts of Louisiana Tax Credits ProgramLouisiana Department ofTransportation and Development(LaDOTD) Marine and Rail ProgramHarbor Maintenance Tax CreditInvestment Tax CreditExport Port Charges Tax CreditImport Port Charges Tax CreditWater Resources DevelopmentProject GrantsPort Enhancement ZonesNorth Carolina Ports Tax CreditsSite and Infrastructure Grant FundPennsylvaniaSouth CarolinaTexasNonePort Volume Increase CreditPort TRZTexas Mobility FundVirginiaPort Volume Increase Tax CreditBarge and Rail Usage Tax CreditInternational Trade Facility Tax CreditPort of Virginia Economic andInfrastructure Development GrantProgram2Source of FundsN/AState Transportation TrustFundN/AN/ALaDOTD budgetN/AN/AN/AN/AGeneral revenuesN/AN/ANorth Carolina Department ofCommerce2N/AN/AIncrease in tax base3Bonds secured by futurerevenues4N/AN/AN/AGeneral revenuesThe program has not been funded in several years. Last activity was 10 years ago.Authorized in 2013. No projects defined yet.4One navigation district has submitted an application.310

Introduction/BackgroundNature of Capital Investment at PortsPorts, by nature, are very capital-intensive operations. They are required to look into the future30 to 50 years and build costly infrastructure they believe will be of value for that length of time.According to a recent report by the Journal of Commerce:Individual ports and seaport associations have become some of the nation’sforemost advocates for planning, prioritization, and funding across all modes.They understand that their global supply chains are only as strong as their weakestlink. Those ports and their private sector partners are currently investing roughly 9 billion each year in U.S. port infrastructure, reports the American Associationof Port Authorities. Even with close to 100 billion of financing planned by portsover the next decade, the U.S. port system’s competitive position in worldmarkets is not necessarily improving (1).Status of Texas PortsThe Texas Port Report, published by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) in 2014,states that during 2012, Texas ports spent in excess of 300 million of their own funds (throughtheir revenues or bonding authority) on capital expenditures (2). There is no source of direct stateinvestment in deep or shallow-draft ports in Texas. In 2001, the Port Access Account Fund(PAAF) was created by the 77th Texas Legislature to provide funds for Texas ports to financesecurity improvements, port infrastructure projects, and related studies.5 However, since 2001,the Texas Legislature has not made any appropriations to the fund. Many stakeholders in themarine industry assert that this lack of support by the state places the Texas port system at acompetitive disadvantage compared to other states, especially in the Gulf of Mexico region.Purpose of ReportThis report summarizes what Texas and 10 other states are doing to directly or indirectly fundport-related infrastructure in their state. The geographical range begins with Texas and movesalong the Gulf and East Coasts up to Massachusetts. West Coast ports are heavily orientedtoward containerized imports from Asia and agricultural exports from the Northwest Pacificregion, whereas in the study region the ports tend to have a much more diverse set of cargotypes. Additionally, California ports are typically municipal departments; in Oregon andWashington, deep-draft port authorities manage operations unrelated to maritime transportation(e.g., airports and transit agencies). Ports on the Gulf and East Coasts for the most part focus onmaritime transportation, and they rarely compete directly with West Coast ports (although theexpansion of the Panama Canal may enable them to do so in certain narrowly defined cases).5The fund is described in detail in the chapter on Texas.11

In order to keep the sample size meaningful, some of the smaller states were excluded,specifically Delaware and Rhode Island. New York and New Jersey were excluded because theonly major port within their boundaries, the Port of New York/New Jersey, is a bi-state agency.Such an agency has a unique set of funding and governance issues that do not apply to thesituation in Texas. Additionally, Maryland’s port authority is part of the state government, sothere is no distinction between port authority funds and state funds; therefore, it was notincluded.The focus of this report is on coastal deep-draft ports. They tend to have the highest capitalinvestment needs and the greatest impact on surrounding communities. However, since mostprograms do not target only coastal ports, the data presented in this report often includereferences to both inland and coastal ports.Report ContentThe remainder of this report presents information on a state-by-state basis. Each state summaryincludes: A brief summary of the state’s port system. Ship channel improvement projects active in the state, including:o The nature of the projects.o Funding for the project (port authority versus direct state investment). Direct state funding (funding provided directly to a port authority or made specificallyavailable to ports) for port infrastructure other than channel projects. Indirect funding and incentive mechanisms specifically designed to encourage businessactivity or investment at a port. Internet links to relevant statutes and codes mentioned in the narrative.12

TexasTexas Port SystemTexas’s Maritime Transportation System consists of waterways, ports, and intermodal landsideconnectors. Eleven commercial ports are served by channels with a draft of more than 30 ft(deep-draft ports). There are six other ports that handle commercial cargoes with channel depthsless than a 30-ft draft (shallow-draft ports). There are additional shallow-draft ports that are usedfor commercial fishing and recreational purposes and do not handle commercial cargoes.Texas’s ports are connected by an extensive shallow-draft channel called the Gulf IntracoastalWaterway (GIWW) in Texas, an integral component of the state’s vast petrochemical andmanufacturing supply chains. The GIWW, in contrast

Port Everglades Ship Channel 320 0 N/A Port Canaveral 41 24 Strategic Port Investment Initiative Port of Miami 206 112 Florida Department of Transportation budget Georgia Savannah Harbor Expansion 706 266 Bonds South Carolina Charleston Harbor Deepening 510 300 General

Related Documents:

allocations (SBA), fair student funding (FSF), weighted student funding (WSF), or student-centered funding (SCF). Regardless of the name, at its core SBB is a funding system whereby dollars follow students based on student need. More specifically, it describes any district funding model that: Allocates dollars instead of staff or materials

Survey as a health service research method Study designs & surveys Survey sampling strategies Survey errors Survey modes/techniques . Part II (preliminary) Design and implementation of survey tools Survey planning and monitoring Analyzing survey da

new survey. Select one of those options to apply to your new survey form. 1)Create a new survey from scratch - will create a blank survey form that you can use to add your own questions 2)Copy an existing survey - can be used to create a copy of a survey form you have already created 3)Use a Survey Template - will allow you to select

1. A recruitment survey (public survey) will be used to recruit subjects in the study. Public survey link. 2. If a participant agrees to participate, a demographic survey (private survey) will be sent to the participant to fill out. Automatic survey invitation. 3. Based on the answer in the demographic survey, the

PRACTICES SURVEY RESULTS The Brewers Association (BA) conducted a comprehensive survey of America's craft brewers to establish and share industry benchmarks and best . 2012 survey questions were revised slightly from the 2010 edition; importantly, the 2012 survey now includes the BA salary survey as well. Results were compiled and .

services pilot programs in Houston and Dallas; funding for academic and vocational programs for state jail felons; and funding to expand vocational training programs. Also, 160 million was provided above FY 2018-19 base funding for offender health care in FY 2020-21, additional funding for medical capital equipment, funding for an

Transit Funding (SANDAG) Transit Funding Overview State Federal Transit Asset Management and Safety Section 5309 Capital Investment Program Overview Types of Capital Investment Grants Funding Rating Requirements Full Funding Grant Agreement Multimodal Project Participation I-5 North Coast Corridor FRA

Our survey tool queried on 18 management practices grouped into 4 primary dimensions: standardizing care (“Lean”, 6 practices), performance monitoring (5 practices), targets (3 practices), and employee incentives (4 practices). Table 1 provides a brief description of these 4 groupings and 18 practices.