Special Public-Private Partnership
Infrastructure Oversight Commission
October 15, 2013, 2:00 p.m.
MassDOT Boardroom, 3rd floor
Ten Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116
Members:
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chairman Alan Macdonald, Valerie Mosley, John Olver,
Joseph Dorant, John Vitagliano, David Luberoff, David Saltiel
Present:
Chairman Macdonald, Commissioner Mosley, Commissioner Olver,
Commissioner Dorant, Commissioner Vitagliano and Commissioner
Luberoff
Quorum Present:
Yes
Other Participants:
Quentin Palfrey, Dana Levenson, Owen Kane
Others Present:
Paula Fallon
PROCEEDINGS:
Call to Order by Chairman Macdonald
Chairman Macdonald called the meeting to order.
I.
PROCEDURAL ITEMS
Chairman Macdonald opened up with a vote to adopt the use of remote participation.
On motion duly made and seconded; it was
1
VOTED: adoption of the policy to use remote participation.
Commissioner Dorant participated via telephone.
Next Chairman Macdonald nominated Commissioner Olver to serve as Vice-Chair for the
Commission.
On motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously;
VOTED: John Olver as Vice Chair for the Special Public-Private Partnership Infrastructure
Oversight Commission.
The next item on the agenda was the discussion of the responsibilities of the
Commission. KPMG went through the responsibilities of the Commission as referenced in
Massachusetts General Laws Anno. Ch. 6C § 63 and 73. The Commission is required to approve
all P3 RFP’s. The RFP’s must contain form of a P3 agreement/contract. The Commission must
approve the form and content of the P3 agreement/contract. The Commission then must issue
its finding to the Secretary of Administration and Finance, House and Senate Committees on
Ways and Means, to the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Transportation and to the State
Auditor. The Inspector General and the Attorney General must provide the Commission with
written notification of material objections to the P3 contract within 30 days. The Commission
must provide written responses on draft RFP to MassDOT within 15days of receipt. MassDOT
must provide the Commission with written response regarding reason for any substantial
divergence from recommendations. The Commission then must issue a report within 30 days of
approval. There will be no material changes made by MassDOT or the preferred bidder. The
State Auditor may issue a report concluding that the RFP is financially detrimental to the
Commonwealth. The areas the Commission must report on in an RFP are current employees,
2
policy, legislative and regulatory structure, taxation, profit sharing and revenue generation,
advertising and marketing, new technology, financial evaluation, advantages of using a P3,
lease and termination terms and allocation of responsibility. KPMG went through an overview
of the P3 programs around the country. The Commission asked about projects that have gone
through multiple governors. They also would like more information on what is successful and
what are the best practices for the Commission.
The next presentation was on the three key projects the Commission asked KPMG more
information. The three projects were Route 3 South, Highway Real Estate Assets, and South
Station Expansion. The Commission was looking to understand what potential transaction
structures may look like, what further information is needed to make a decision to move
forward, and what are the necessary questions to consider when deciding whether to advance
a project for P3 delivery. KPMG found various potential P3 delivery structures have been
identified for the three projects. The three projects will need further information, including
revenue studies and cost refinements, in order to develop a detailed report to support the
decision-making process. The Commission would like for more information on getting more
information on the Highway Real Estate Assets on if there are more profitable areas and what
ones those are. The Chair is going to meet with MassDOT on what their priorities are for these
projects.
3
The final project presented by Jody Ray is the discussion on the Housatonic Rail Project.
The Housatonic did a full business plan on what it will cost to run the Berkshire line from
Pittsfield to New York City with various options. The line is owned by the Housatonic. The line
once crossed into Connecticut is owned by the state and then the line once crossed into New
Milford and Danbury is owned by Housatonic. The Housatonic only wants to run the service and
in the business plan they believe they can do this for $200 million. Currently freight trains are
running on the line in Massachusetts and through Connecticut. The Commission asked what the
value for the State is. Mr. Ray noted that he did sit down with the Housatonic party and let
them know if the state is to put that amount of money into a project it really needs to be state
owned land. The interest is to have passenger service to Manhattan. The Commission discussed
the risk that would be taken for that amount of money if we didn’t own the property. MassDOT
talked to Connecticut DOT where they have expressed interest in the project but nothing
significant.
Chairman Macdonald asked if there was any other business. Commissioner Vitagliano
asked the Commission to request KPMG to do a preliminary feasibility study to construct an
underground garage at Mass Eye and Ear as a potential P3 project.
Motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously
Voted: Adjourn.
Documents
KPMG Presentation on P3 Program Comparison
KPMG Presentation on Potential next steps
4