J00J00
Maryland Transportation Authority
Operating Budget Data
($ in Thousands)
FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 08-09 % Change
Actual Amended Budget Change Prior Year
Non-budgeted Fund $233,904 $230,960 $251,231 $20,271 8.8%
Total Funds $233,904 $230,960 $251,231 $20,271 8.8%
• The Maryland Transportation Authority’s (MdTA) fiscal 2009 budget increases by $20.3 million,
or 8.8%, over the fiscal 2008 amended budget. The underlying fiscal 2009 budget change for
this agency, excluding health insurance and Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) funding
which distorts year-over-year spending, is $11.4 million, or 5.3%.
• Several large increases are included in the fiscal 2009 budget, including an increase of
$13.0 million for personnel and $12.4 million for debt service. These changes are offset by a
decrease of $10.7 million for the purchase of new and additional equipment and vehicles.
PAYGO Capital Budget Data
($ in Thousands)
Fiscal 2007 Fiscal 2008 Fiscal 2009
Actual Approved Amended Budget
Non-budgeted $316,376 $832,799 $918,311 $1,141,413
Total $316,376 $832,799 $918,311 $1,141,413
• The fiscal 2009 budget for capital spending is $1.1 billion, an increase of $223.1 million over
fiscal 2008. This increase is largely the result of the construction schedule for the InterCounty
Connector (ICC) and Express Toll Lanes (ETLs) on I-95.
Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding.
For further information contact: Jaclyn D. Dixon Phone: (410) 946-5530
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
1
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Operating and PAYGO Personnel Data
FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 08-09
Actual Amended Budget Change
Regular Operating Budget Positions 1,604.50 1,641.50 1,639.00 -2.50
Regular PAYGO Budget Positions 111.00 116.00 115.00 -1.00
Total Regular Positions 1,715.50 1,757.50 1,754.00 -3.50
Operating Budget Contractual FTEs 28.00 17.50 20.00 2.50
PAYGO Budget Contractual FTEs 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Total Contractual FTEs 30.00 19.50 22.00 2.50
Total Personnel 1,745.50 1,777.00 1,776.00 -1.00
Vacancy Data: Regular Positions
Turnover, Excluding New Positions 56.13 3.20%
Positions Vacant as of 12/31/07 169.50 9.66%
• MdTA’s fiscal 2009 budget for regular positions is 1,754.0. This is a net decrease of
3.5 positions, which is the result of the abolition of 9.5 positions that is offset by 6.0 new
positions.
Analysis in Brief
Major Trends
The Use of Electronic Tolling Continues to Increase: Since the implementation of E-ZPass in
2001, the percentage of tolls collected through electronic tolling has grown steadily from only 15% in
2001 to nearly 55% in 2007. Electronic tolling has many advantages, including reducing congestion
at toll booths and reducing operating costs. Two projects currently under construction, the ICC and
ETLs on I-95, will utilize only electronic tolling and will not have any toll booths.
MdTA Moves Forward on Construction of the ICC and Express Toll Lanes on I-95: MdTA
continues to move forward with two large capital projects which total $3.6 billion. Funding for the
projects relies heavily on debt, and MdTA anticipates bond issuances of $2.8 billion over the next
five years. Both projects are expected to be completed by 2012.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
2
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Issues
Debt to Take a Huge Toll on MdTA: Simultaneous construction of two large capital projects and an
overwhelming reliance on debt to fund the capital program will place a significant financial strain on
MdTA over the next 10 years. Debt outstanding is projected to increase from $245.1 million in
fiscal 2007 to $2.9 billion in fiscal 2013. As a result, debt service will increase from $24.4 million in
fiscal 2008 to a peak of $201.2 million in fiscal 2015. The large increase in debt service, coupled
with operating and maintenance cost increases resulting from two new facilities under MdTA’s
ownership, will mean less money available for the capital program in the future. In several years,
MdTA’s forecast anticipates MdTA reaching the minimum, or near minimum, for its financial
coverage ratios. The Department of Legislative Services (DLS) recommends that MdTA
establish an administrative policy level of 1.25 for its rate covenant compliance ratio and that
MdTA’s statutory debt limit be increased no higher than $2.8 billion. Furthermore, DLS
recommends that MdTA consider adjusting its toll rate policies; eliminating less critical capital
projects; ceasing the issuance of capitalized interest bonds; and constraining growth in its
operating budget. Finally, DLS recommends that the Secretary comment on how the proposed
financial plan will impact MdTA’s capital program and its financial condition now and in the
future.
Current E-ZPass Appeals Process Begins and Ends at MdTA: An integral part of the toll collection
process is the handling of toll violations. Toll violations are caused by individuals failing to pay a
toll and may take place for many reasons. Violations may be appealed by individuals and follow an
appeals process outlined in statute and regulation. However, the appeals process both begins and
ends at MdTA. This is a concern, as the toll violations can lead to serious consequences, such as
suspension of vehicles’ registrations or referral of the debt to the State’s Central Collection Unit,
which may impact individuals’ credit. DLS recommends a statutory change, either through the
budget reconciliation bill or separate legislation, that would require MdTA to institute an
appeals process through the Office of Administrative Hearings to give individuals the
opportunity to have their cases heard by an independent third party.
Operating Budget Recommended Actions
1. Nonbudgeted.
PAYGO Budget Recommended Actions
1. Nonbudgeted.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
3
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Updates
MdTA Issues $300 Million in Revenue Bonds and $325 Million in Grant Anticipation Revenue
Vehicle Bonds: In May 2007, MdTA issued $325 million in Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle
(GARVEE) bonds. The issuance received ratings of AAA from Standard & Poor’s, AA from Fitch
Ratings, and Aa2 from Moody’s Investors Services. In addition, in September 2007, MdTA issued
$300 million in revenue bonds to fund its capital program and to pay a portion of interest through
fiscal 2011. The underlying ratings of the issuance were AA- from Standard & Poor’s, AA- from
Fitch Ratings, and Aa3 from Moody’s Investors Services. The rating of AA- from Standard & Poor’s
represented an upgrade from the previous ranking of A+.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
4
J00J00
Maryland Transportation Authority
Budget Analysis
Program Description
The Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA), established under Title 4 of the
Transportation Article, has exclusive authority relating to the financing, construction, operation,
maintenance, and repair of Maryland’s toll facilities and any other revenue-generating projects
authorized under that title. MdTA divides its facilities into three regions and has jurisdiction over the
following facilities:
• Northern Region – includes the John F. Kennedy (JFK) Memorial Highway (I-95) and the
Thomas J. Hatem Memorial (Hatem) Bridge;
• Central Region – includes the Baltimore Harbor (I-895) and Fort McHenry (I-95) tunnels and
thruways, the Francis Scott Key (Key) Bridge (I-695), and I-395 leading to Baltimore City; and
• Southern Region – includes the Harry W. Nice Memorial (Nice) Bridge and the William
Preston Lane, Jr. Memorial Bridge (Bay Bridge).
In addition to these toll facilities, MdTA also owns the Seagirt Marine Terminal, which is
leased to the Maryland Port Administration (MPA), and the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility,
which is leased to CSX Railroad.
Most recently, MdTA has been working in partnership with the State Highway Administration
(SHA) to construct the $2.4 billion InterCounty Connector (ICC), a new east-west highway that will
link I-270 and I-95.
Membership of MdTA’s Board is comprised of eight members (increased from six per
Chapter 1 of the 2006 special session) appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the
State Senate. The Secretary of the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) serves as the
chairman of MdTA. MdTA’s revenues are held separately from the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF),
and the agency operates off-budget.
MdTA’s police force is responsible for security and law enforcement services at all of MdTA’s
toll facilities, except JFK Memorial Highway, which is patrolled by the State Police. MdTA is also
under contract with the Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA) and MPA to provide law
enforcement services at the Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI
Marshall Airport) and MPA-operated facilities at the Helen Delich Bentley Port of Baltimore (Port).
To achieve its vision of “creating EZ passage throughout Maryland,” MdTA has identified the
following key goals:
• move people and goods efficiently and effectively;
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
5
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
• safety and security;
• strategic financing and financial stewardship; and
• improve external and internal customer service and performance.
Performance Analysis: Managing for Results
In order to achieve its vision of “creating EZ passage throughout Maryland,” MdTA’s first goal
is to efficiently and effectively move people and goods across the State. To exemplify the movement of
people and goods, Exhibit 1 shows the annual tolled traffic and toll revenue at all MdTA facilities from
fiscal 1994 through 2009. Total tolled traffic in fiscal 2007 was 119.8 million vehicles, an increase of
1.1 million, or 0.9%, over fiscal 2006. Toll revenue in fiscal 2007 was $278.6 million, an increase of
$4.3 million, or 1.6%, from fiscal 2006.
Exhibit 1
Annual Tolled Traffic and Toll Revenue
Actual Fiscal 1994-2007 and Estimated Fiscal 2008-2009
$350 300
$300
250
$250
200
($ in Millions)
Toll Revenue
(In Millions)
Total Traffic
$200
150
$150
100
$100
50
$50
$0 0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Est.
Toll Revenue Total Traffic
Source: Maryland Transportation Authority
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
6
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Electronic Tolling
Electronic toll transactions expedite the toll collection process, reduce delays at toll plazas, and
allow for the efficient movement of goods and people. MdTA continues to aggressively market its
E-ZPass program to increase customer awareness and usage. Other initiatives meant to increase usage
of E-ZPass include dedicated E-ZPass lanes, the implementation of higher speed E-ZPass lanes (speeds
of 30 miles per hour at the Key Bridge, also under construction at the Fort McHenry Tunnel), and the
availability of “E-ZPass on the Go.” The E-ZPass on the Go program aims to create greater access to
E-ZPass transponders by allowing the purchase of transponders at select retail locations, such as certain
supermarkets and Motor Vehicle Administration branches. The strategy appears to be working, as the
total number of E-ZPass active accounts increased by 21.3% from fiscal 2006 to 2007.
E-ZPass electronic toll collection is available at all seven toll facilities, as well as throughout the
northeastern part of the United States. E-ZPass was implemented at the Baltimore and Fort McHenry
tunnels and the Key Bridge in 2001 (its predecessor, M-TAG was implemented in 1999). E-ZPass
installation took place at the other four toll facilities in 2001 and early 2002. Electronic toll collection
will be the only method of toll collection available on the ICC and the Express Toll Lanes (ETLs)
currently being constructed on I-95 north of Baltimore. These facilities will utilize open road tolling,
whereby an overhead gantry system collects tolls at highway speeds. These projects will also be the
first to utilize congestion toll pricing, which allows for varying toll rates based on traffic, time of day,
and other factors to aid in congestion-free travel.
The use of electronic tolling continues to increase. Exhibit 2 shows the percentage of E-ZPass
toll transactions at all toll facilities. This exhibit does not include the use of automatic vehicle
identification (AVI) decals at the Hatem Bridge, which could also be considered as an electronic tolling
method.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
7
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Exhibit 2
Percentage of Tolls Collected via E-ZPass
Actual Fiscal 2001-2007, Estimated Fiscal 2008-2009
100%
% of Electronic Toll Transactions
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Est. Est.
Electronic Toll Transactions Goal
Note: MdTA’s goal is to reach 58% by 2009.
Source: Maryland Transportation Authority
Commuter Plans
As a means of lessening the impact of tolls on commuters, MdTA has established commuter
plans. Commuter plans are available for the Baltimore Region, the Bay Bridge, and the Nice Bridge.
The plans provide for a set number of trips at a discounted price, to be used within 60 days.
Exhibit 3 shows the facilities that each plan may be used for, the cost, and the number of trips for
each type of plan.
Exhibit 3
E-ZPass Commuter Plans
Plan Name Facilities Plan May Be Used At Cost Trips
Baltimore Region Fort McHenry Tunnel, Harbor Tunnel, Key Bridge, JFK Memorial $20 50
Highway, and Hatem Bridge
Bay Bridge Bay Bridge 25 25
Nice Bridge Nice Bridge 15 25
Source: Maryland Transportation Authority
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
8
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Commuter plans provide a significant cost savings for frequent travelers. Savings at the JFK
Memorial Highway and Hatem Bridge amount to $4.20 per trip, a savings of 84.0%. Exhibit 4
shows the total cost per trip by facility for commuters and for those paying the full two-axle rate. It
also includes the percentage of two-axle vehicles that utilize commuter discounts by facility. The
largest percentage of commuter discount usage is seen at the Hatem Bridge, where the use of E-ZPass
commuter discounts and AVI decals combine for a 95.5% commuter usage. The next largest
percentage of commuter usage is at the Key Bridge, where nearly 60% of two-axle vehicles utilize
commuter plans.
Exhibit 4
Commuter Savings Per Trip and Commuter Usage by Facility
Fiscal 2007
$6 120%
$5 100%
Toll Rate (In Dollars)
% of Commuters
$4 80%
$3 60%
$2 40%
$1 20%
$0 0%
JFK Memorial Nice Bay Ft. McHenry Harbor Key Hatem
Highway Bridge Bridge Tunnel Tunnel Bridge Bridge
Full Fare Toll Facility
Commuter Rate
% of Two-axle Vehicles Utilizing Commuter Discounts
Note: Tolls collected on the JFK Memorial Highway, Hatem Bridge, Nice Bridge, and Bay Bridge are collected one-way
only.
Source: Reznick Group Auditor’s Report and Financial Statements of MdTA, Fiscal 2007
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
9
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Fiscal 2008 Actions
Impact of Cost Containment
In an effort to reduce operating expenditures, MdTA has taken a number of cost containment
actions in fiscal 2008. In total, these actions reduce fiscal 2008 spending by $12.9 million. These
cost containment actions are not reflected in the fiscal 2008 budget as shown throughout this
document since the amended budget has not yet been approved by MdTA’s board members. Cost
containment actions of $100,000 or more are listed below:
• $4.6 million to delete all new vehicles in recognition of the Governor’s directive to reduce the
size of fleets statewide;
• $3.3 million to delete funding for all replacement patrol cars;
• $1.8 million to increase the turnover rate to reflect actual spending;
• $1.3 million for publicity and advertising costs based on fiscal 2007 actual spending;
• $304,000 for snow removal costs based on fiscal 2007 actual spending;
• $250,000 to delete funding for the annual Bay Bridge Walk, which has been cancelled for the
next two years due to construction on the bridge;
• $236,812 for training to reflect a 25% reduction in discretionary training;
• $163,500 for police operations supplies to reflect fiscal 2006 actual spending;
• $135,000 for telephone expenses to reflect fiscal 2006 actual spending;
• $123,231 to delete funding for employee awards ceremonies; and
• $101,000 for maintenance materials to reflect fiscal 2006 actual spending.
Governor’s Proposed Budget
MdTA’s fiscal 2009 budget increases by $20.3 million, or 8.8%, over the fiscal 2008
amended budget. The underlying fiscal 2009 budget change for this agency, excluding health
insurance and Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) funding which distorts year-over-year
spending, is $11.4 million, or 5.3%. Exhibit 5 provides a summary of the changes taking place from
the fiscal 2008 amended budget to the fiscal 2009 budget.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
10
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Exhibit 5
Proposed Budget
Maryland Transportation Authority
($ in Thousands)
Nonbudgeted
How Much It Grows: Fund Total
2008 Amended Budget $230,960 $230,960
2009 Budget 251,231 251,231
Amount Change $20,271 $20,271
Percent Change 8.8% 8.8%
Where It Goes:
Personnel Expenses
Health insurance – pay-as-you-go costs .......................................................................... $5,719
Health insurance – reduce long-term Other Post Employment Benefits liability............ 3,121
Salaries............................................................................................................................. 2,292
Retirement........................................................................................................................ 1,695
Social Security ................................................................................................................. 143
Deferred Compensation Match ........................................................................................ 82
Other Changes
Debt service ..................................................................................................................... 12,340
Trust Agreement Expenses .............................................................................................. 2,936
Gas and electric................................................................................................................ 1,957
Vehicle expenses.............................................................................................................. 591
Reciprocity fees ............................................................................................................... 397
Uniforms .......................................................................................................................... 337
Insurance ......................................................................................................................... 243
Maryland State Police non-payroll costs ......................................................................... 188
Office equipment rental and service ................................................................................ 110
Maintenance service and equipment rental...................................................................... 96
Authority-wide training ................................................................................................... 69
E-ZPass Transponders ..................................................................................................... 65
Snow removal .................................................................................................................. 50
Recruit training ................................................................................................................ -50
Travel ............................................................................................................................... -51
Employee recognition ...................................................................................................... -62
Telephone expenses ......................................................................................................... -83
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
11
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Where It Goes:
Professional service contracts.......................................................................................... -90
E-ZPass Service Center costs........................................................................................... -157
Police operations supplies................................................................................................ -182
Publicity and advertising ................................................................................................. -800
Purchase of new and replacement equipment .................................................................. -1,137
Purchase of new and replacement information technology equipment ........................... -1,271
Purchase of replacement vehicles .................................................................................... -4,034
Purchase of new vehicles................................................................................................. -4,235
Other changes .................................................................................................................. -8
Total $20,271
Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding.
Personnel costs increase by $13.1 million. The largest increase, $8.8 million, took place in
health insurance, including both costs for current employees and retirees, as well as the long term
OPEB liability. The large increase at MdTA mirrors large increases for this purpose across all State
agencies. Another large increase took place in salaries, which increased by $2.3 million, or 2.9%.
This increase is due to a one step increase for all personnel and a one grade increase for maintenance
staff (approximately $1.0 million). SHA performed a study which found that the salaries of MdTA
and SHA maintenance personnel were lower than their local government counterparts. Therefore, a
one grade increase is included, but it is contingent upon legislative approval of a similar increase for
SHA personnel. The increase in personnel costs also includes a $1.7 million increase for retirement,
which is the result of an increase in the employer’s contribution rate for both regular employees and
police personnel.
Outside of personnel, the largest increase took place in debt service. Debt service increased
from $24.4 million in fiscal 2008 to $36.8 million in fiscal 2009. This increase is largely the result of
the interest-only payments that begin in fiscal 2009 for the Series 2007 revenue bond issuance of
$300 million.
In addition, other large increases took place for trust agreement expenses ($2.9 million) and
electricity ($2.0 million). The increase in trust agreement expenses took place as a result of an
increase in the engineer’s estimate for the annual facility inspections contract. The new contract will
require the contractor to supply maintenance of traffic and equipment to perform the inspections.
Previously, MdTA supplied these. The increase in electricity is based on the Department of Budget
and Management’s instructions to all State agencies to include funding in fiscal 2009 of 50% over
actual fiscal 2007 costs.
These increases were offset by a $10.7 million decrease for additional and replacement
vehicles and equipment. This is primarily due to a reduction in the personal patrol vehicle program
and capitalizing some equipment.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
12
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Revenue Bonds
MdTA has the statutory authority to issue revenue bonds backed by toll revenues. Statute
allows for maturities of up to 40 years, although MdTA typically issues its bonds with a 30-year
maturity. In fiscal 2008 through 2011, MdTA also plans to issue capitalized interest bonds, which
will have a 33-year maturity.
The basic premise of capitalized interest bonds is that the amount of bonds issued is slightly
higher than what is needed, and the additional money is used to pay interest payments for the first
three years. This additional principal is capitalized over the life of the bonds, so that MdTA will be
paying interest over 30 years on the interest it chose not to pay in the first three years. MdTA’s
Series 2007 revenue bonds, issued in September 2007, included $10.2 million in capitalized interest
that will be used to pay a portion of interest payments through fiscal 2011. In March 2008, MdTA
projects a debt issuance of $711.8 million, which includes $86.6 million of capitalized interest bonds.
Generally, capitalized interest bonds are utilized as a way to defer debt service payments on a
project under construction until such time that the facility is operating and collecting revenue.
However, MdTA has established toll facilities that generate adequate revenue to pay debt service.
Waiting for the ICC revenue to begin cannot be a primary concern since ICC revenue is expected to
represent no more than 10% of total revenues by fiscal 2015, and the existing toll facilities are
expected to cross-subsidize ICC’s debt service needs for an extended period. Therefore, utilizing
capitalized interest bonds may increase borrowing costs unnecessarily. The Department of
Legislative Services (DLS) recommends that the Secretary discuss the decision to utilize
capitalized interest bonds.
At the end of fiscal 2007, MdTA had three bond issues outstanding:
• 1992 Series bonds were issued in August 1992 for $162.1 million and advance refunded a
portion of the outstanding 1985 Series bonds, funded a deposit to the 1992 Series Reserve
Subaccount, and paid bond issuance costs;
• 2004 Series bonds were issued in June 2004 for $160.0 million to fund MdTA’s capital
program; and
• 2007 Series bonds were issued in September 2007 for $300.0 million to fund MdTA’s capital
program.
Exhibit 6 provides the schedule of debt service payments and total debt outstanding for
MdTA debt (debt backed by MdTA facilities). This includes projected debt issuances of $711.8
million in March 2008 and $666.1 million in fiscal 2009. Total MdTA debt outstanding is expected
to increase from $245.1 million in fiscal 2007 to $1.9 billion in fiscal 2009. Debt outstanding at the
end of fiscal 2009 will be $1.89 billion, which is just under the statutory cap of $1.9 billion. SB 182,
as introduced in the 2008 legislative session, would raise this statutory debt outstanding limit to $3.0
billion.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
13
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Exhibit 6
Debt Service Payments and Debt Outstanding (MdTA Debt)
Fiscal 2007-2009
($ in Thousands)
Debt Service Payments 2007 2008 2009
Capital Appreciation Bonds – 1992 Series $15,420 $15,415 $15,415
2004 Series Bonds 9,032 9,027 9,030
2007 Series Bonds 0 0 12,337
2008 Series Bonds (Projected) 0 0 0*
2009 Series Bonds (Projected) 0 0 0*
Total Debt Service Payments $24,452 $24,442 $36,782
Debt Outstanding
1992 Series Bonds $86,075 $70,660 $55,245
2004 Series Bonds 159,000 157,955 156,855
2007 Series Bonds 0 300,000 300,000
2008 Series Bonds (Projected) 0 711,800 711,800
2009 Series Bonds (Projected) 0 0 666,100
Total Debt Outstanding $245,075 $1,240,415 $1,890,000
* Assumes use of capitalized interest bonds.
Source: Maryland Transportation Authority
Exhibit 7 shows the amount of bonds projected to be issued for the ICC and other capital projects
as well as total bonds outstanding in each year from fiscal 2004 through 2013. After not issuing any
revenue bonds since fiscal 2004, MdTA plans revenue bond issuances of $1.0 billion in fiscal 2008 and
$666 million in fiscal 2009. During the period from fiscal 2008 to 2012, MdTA plans to issue $2.8 billion
worth of debt. Approximately $1.2 billion of these bonds are to fund construction of the ICC. The
remaining $1.6 billion is to support MdTA’s capital program.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
14
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Exhibit 7
Bond Sales and Debt Outstanding
Fiscal 2004-2013
($ in Millions)
$1,200 $3,500
$3,000
$1,000
$2,500
Bonds Outstanding
$800
Bonds Issued
$2,000
$600
$1,500
$400
$1,000
$200
$500
$0 $0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Revenue Bond Sales for Other Capital Projects Revenue Bonds for the ICC
Bonds Issued to Fund Capitalized Interest Total Revenue Bonds Outstanding
Current Statutory Limit Proposed Debt Limit
ICC: InterCounty Connector
Source: Maryland Transportation Authority Financial Forecast, December 2007
Statute limits MdTA revenue bonds outstanding to $1.9 billion. As also shown in Exhibit 7,
MdTA is expected to exceed this amount beginning in fiscal 2010. By fiscal 2012, bonds outstanding
will be well above this statutory cap, totaling $2.9 billion. To reflect the additional bonding capacity
needed for its current capital program, SB 182 would increase MdTA’s debt outstanding limit to
$3.0 billion. MdTA’s current forecast assumes that debt outstanding will peak in fiscal 2012 at
$2.9 billion; however, this forecast is based on the assumption that after fiscal 2012 no additional bonds
will be issued over the entire forecast period. As will be noted in the first issue, this is likely a faulty
assumption given the fact that debt service payments will begin to crowd out cash available for capital
projects beginning in fiscal 2014.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
15
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Debt Affordability
Statute provides that MdTA may issue bonds without obtaining the consent of any unit or agency
in the State, as long as total bonds outstanding do not exceed $1.9 billion at the end of any fiscal year.
MdTA debt backed by toll revenues is not considered State debt and, therefore, is not limited by the
State’s debt affordability measures. The Capital Debt Affordability Committee uses benchmarks to
determine whether State tax-supported debt is affordable. The first measure is that total State
tax-supported debt outstanding should not exceed 3.2% of Maryland personal income. The second is that
total debt service on State tax-supported debt should not exceed 8.0% of revenues. Since MdTA debt
does not count toward State debt, MdTA is not bound by these debt affordability measures; however, it
has its own measures to ensure that debt outstanding remains affordable. Coverage ratios include:
• The rate covenant compliance ratio, as stipulated in the trust agreement, requires that net revenues
must be at least 1.00 times the amount deposited into the Maintenance and Operations Reserve
Account plus 1.20 times greater than debt service. The fiscal 2009 rate covenant compliance ratio
is projected to be 1.28 and drops to 1.05 in fiscal 2010.
• A second ratio is the debt service coverage ratio, which is a ratio of net revenues (total revenues
minus operating expenses) to debt service. Although the trust agreement stipulates that net
revenues must be 1.20 times greater than debt service, MdTA maintains an administrative policy
that requires it to be above 2.00. In fiscal 2009, the debt service coverage ratio is 3.82. In
fiscal 2012, the debt service coverage ratio drops to 2.02, just barely above the administrative
policy level.
• The ratio of total cash to toll revenues must be greater than 1.00. This is an administrative policy
only and is not contained in the trust agreement. The fiscal 2009 ratio is projected at 2.85, but
then drops to 1.00 in fiscal 2011.
MdTA projects bond issuances from fiscal 2008 to 2012 will total $2.8 billion. As a result,
MdTA’s debt service payments will increase significantly over the next 10 years. As shown in Exhibit 8,
debt service payments will increase from $27.6 million in fiscal 2004 to a peak of $201.2 million in
fiscal 2015, representing a 629.0% increase in debt service over that 11-year period. The exhibit also
shows debt service as a percentage of net revenues over the same time period. Net revenues are
calculated by subtracting operating expenses from total toll, concessions, and investment income revenue.
Debt service as a percentage of net revenues is an indicator of how much money will be available for the
capital program after operating expenses are paid. The percentage reaches a low point of 14.5% in
fiscal 2007 and climbs to its peak of 49.7% in fiscal 2014. Dedicating nearly half of revenues to
operating expenses and debt service means that less money is available for the capital program in future
years. This causes some concern since MdTA’s system is aging, which requires more costly capital
repairs and maintenance. Both the Nice and Hatem Bridges are already nearly 70 years old, and much of
the rest of the system is 50 years old.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
16
Exhibit 8
Debt Service Payments
Fiscal 2004-2018
($ in Millions)
$250 100%
90%
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
$200 80%
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Debt Service as a % of Net Revenues
70%
$150 60%
Debt Service
50%
$100 40%
17
30%
$50 20%
10%
$0 0%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Actual Actual Actual Actual Amended Budget Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est.
Fiscal Years
Debt Service Debt Service as a % of Net Revenues
Source: Maryland Transportation Authority Financial Forecast, December 2007
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Conduit Financing
Besides MdTA revenue bonds, MdTA also issues debt on behalf of other entities, called
conduit financing. The following projects were financed by MdTA using conduit financing:
• a total of $451.1 million of projects associated with the $1.4 billion expansion project at BWI
Marshall Airport, including the Elm Road parking facility, pedestrian bridges, roadway
improvements, a central utility plant, and a new consolidated rental car facility, which is
backed by fees at BWI Marshall Airport;
• $40.0 million for three parking facilities at Largo, New Carrollton, and College Park for the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), which is backed by lease
payments from WMATA;
• $23.8 million to finance the Calvert Street parking garage in Annapolis for State employees,
which is backed by lease payments made by the Department of General Services; and
• $325.0 million in Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds to fund construction
of the ICC, which are backed by future federal aid with a secondary pledge from the
Transportation Trust Fund.
Exhibit 9 shows debt outstanding for MdTA’s conduit financed bonds. The debt service for
these projects is paid by the revenues from the projects and does not affect MdTA’s debt outstanding
or its budget.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
18
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Exhibit 9
Debt Service Payments and Debt Outstanding on Stand-alone Projects
Fiscal 2007-2009
($ in Thousands)
2007 2008 2009
Debt Service Payments
2002 A&B Series – BWI Marshall Airport Elm Road garage $20,345 $20,719 $20,739
2002 Series – BWI Marshall Airport rental car facility 9,031 9,023 9,021
2003 A&B Series – various BWI Marshall Airport projects1 2,351 5,499 11,286
2004 Series – WMATA parking garages 2,905 2,903 2,900
2005 Series – Calvert Street Parking Garage 985 1,561 1,557
2007 Series – Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle Bonds 0 36,091 36,091
Total Debt Service Payments $35,617 $75,796 $81,594
Debt Outstanding
2002 A&B Series – BWI Marshall Airport Elm Road garage $246,365 $238,180 $229,590
2002 Series – BWI Marshall Airport rental car facility 111,665 109,825 107,890
2003 A&B Series – various BWI Marshall Airport projects1 64,100 60,900 51,800
2004 Series – WMATA parking garages 38,960 37,890 36,785
2005 Series – Calvert Street Parking Garage 23,760 23,175 21,960
2007 Series – Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle Bonds 325,000 300,655 279,365
Total Debt Outstanding $809,850 $770,625 $727,390
BWI Marshall Airport: Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport
WMATA: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
1
The fiscal 2008 and 2009 debt service payments are estimates only, as they are variable rate passenger facility charge
revenue bonds.
Source: Maryland Transportation Authority
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
19
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
PAYGO Capital Program
Program Description
MdTA’s capital program involves the construction and maintenance of revenue-generating
transportation facilities throughout the State. Currently, MdTA is undertaking two large capital
projects. The first involves construction of the ICC, an east-west road connecting I-270 and I-95.
The second is construction of ETLs on a 10-mile stretch of I-95 from the I-895 split to north of
MD 43.
Fiscal 2008 to 2013 Consolidated Transportation Program
The final 2008-2013 Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP) shows an increase in total
capital projects of $225.9 million from fiscal 2008 to 2009. This large increase is primarily the result
of construction schedules for the ICC ($169.5 million) and the ETLs on I-95 north of Baltimore
($32.7 million). Exhibit 10 shows the expected capital expenditures in each year.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
20
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Exhibit 10
Capital Expenditures by Year
Fiscal 2008-2013
($ in Millions)
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
MdTA Capital Spending
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ICC and I-95 ETLs
Other Capital Projects
Development and Evaluation Program and System Preservation Projects
ETL: Express Toll Lanes
ICC: InterCounty Connector
Source: Maryland Transportation Authority, January 2008 Consolidated Transportation Program
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
21
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Exhibit 11 shows capital spending by facility in fiscal 2009. As stated previously, the largest
portion of the capital program in fiscal 2009 is directed toward the ICC and construction of the I-95
ETLs.
Exhibit 11
Capital Expenditures by Facility
Fiscal 2009
Hatem Bridge
Harbor Tunnel
1%
1%
Bay Bridge Key Bridge
3% 2%
Nice Bridge
1% Fort McHenry Tunnel
4%
Multi-facility Projects
and Point Breeze
5%
InterCounty
Connector
55% JFK Memorial
Highway
28%
Source: Governor’s Fiscal 2009 Budget Book, Volume I, page 706
Exhibit 12 provides a list of major construction projects funded in fiscal 2009. These projects
account for 97.6% of all funding for major projects in the construction program in fiscal 2009.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
22
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Exhibit 12
Major Construction Projects Funded in Fiscal 2009
($ in Thousands)
Completion of
Project FY 2009 Total $ Fiscal Cashflow
Bay Bridge Deck Rehabilitation – rehabilitate the westbound $12,643 $117,566 2009
bridge deck. Phase I involves truss, beam, and girder spans.
Phase II involves suspensions and thru-truss spans.
I-95 JFK Memorial Highway MD 24 Interchange 23,925 59,844 2010
Improvements – involves improvements to the I-95/MD 24
interchange, upgrades to MD 24, and reconstruction of the
MD 24/MD 924 interchange.
Police Training Facility – construction of a new Maryland 9,450 17,775 2010
Transportation Authority Police training facility at Hawkins
Point.
Interchange improvements at MD 695 and Quarantine Road 12,365 52,620 2010
– involves interchange improvements on MD 695 at
Quarantine Road and a new commercial vehicle inspection
facility.
Deck Replacement for the Hatem Bridge – involves 15,800 56,000 2011
replacement of the 1.5 mile deck on the Hatem Bridge.
Bay Bridge – includes the cleaning and painting of the 12,500 84,000 2012
structural steel on the westbound bridge.
I-95 JFK Memorial Highway Express Toll Lanes 303,369 1,181,599 2012
Construction – involves the construction of two managed
lanes in each direction from I-895 north to north of MD 43.
InterCounty Connector Construction – construction of a new 637,195 2,445,825 2013
east-west, multimodal highway in Montgomery and Prince
George’s counties between I-270 and I-95/US 1.
Bridge, Roadway, and Signage Rehabilitation on I-95 South 16,990 122,109 ongoing
of the Fort McHenry Tunnel – includes resurfacing of 61
bridge decks and related structural repairs; resurfacing of
roadways; replacement and upgrades of existing signs;
miscellaneous safety improvements; and inspection and
repair of highmast light poles and sign structures.
Total $1,044,237 $4,137,338
Source: Maryland Transportation Authority, January 2008 Consolidated Transportation Program
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
23
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Sources of Funding
In prior years, MdTA’s capital program has been funded almost entirely from pay-as-you-go
(PAYGO) funds from toll revenues. In some years, PAYGO funds were supplemented by revenue
bonds issued by MdTA. Chapters 471 and 472 of 2005 established a financing plan for the ICC and
included a number of different funding sources, including federal funds, the TTF, the State’s general
fund, GARVEE bonds, and a possible Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
(TIFIA) loan. Exhibit 13 shows the funding sources by year of MdTA’s total spending. Although
total spending reflects operating, capital, and debt service, the largest portion of spending is for
capital.
Exhibit 13
Total Spending by Source
Fiscal 2006-2018
($ in Millions)
$1,800
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
Total Spending
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Actual Actual Amended Budget Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est.
Fiscal Years
Operating Revenues Revenue Bonds Other ICC Funding Cash Reserves Total Spending
Note: Other InterCounty Connector (ICC) funding includes Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle bonds, the
Transportation Trust Fund, the State’s general fund, and federal funds. Chapters 471 and 472 of 2005 give MdTA the
option of using a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan. Possible draws on a TIFIA loan
are included as part of revenue bonds in this exhibit.
Source: Maryland Transportation Authority Financial Forecast, December 2007
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
24
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Projects Added to the Construction Program
As shown in Exhibit 14, three projects were added to the 2008-2013 CTP. All three of these
projects were added directly to the Construction Program and were not in the Development and
Evaluation Program in the 2007-2012 CTP. Given MdTA’s current financial condition, which
includes a capital construction program that heavily relies on debt, DLS recommends the
Secretary discuss the rationale for adding over $100 million to the capital program, especially
non-critical projects such as the I-95 park and ride facilities.
Exhibit 14
CTP Projects Added to the Construction Program
($ in Thousands)
Completion of
Project FY 2009 Total $ Fiscal Cashflow
I-95 JFK Memorial Highway New Park and Ride Facilities – $5,952 $15,000 2010
involves the construction of a new 310-space park and ride
lot at MD 152 and a new 200-space park and ride lot at
MD 24.
I-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel – Improvements from Moravia 750 8,822 2010
Road to the Tunnel – involves two phases. Phase I includes
grinding and overlaying from Moravia Road to Eastern
Avenue. Phase II involves restriping from Eastern Avenue to
the Fort McHenry Tunnel.
Bay Bridge – includes the cleaning and painting of the 12,500 84,000 2012
structural steel on the westbound bridge.
Total $19,202 $107,822
Source: Maryland Transportation Authority, 2008-2013 Consolidated Transportation Program
Among the new projects included in the 2008-2013 CTP is construction of two new
transit-accessible park and ride lots on I-95. These lots will be located just off I-95 at MD 24 and
MD 152. The lot at MD 24 will supplement an existing park and ride lot which is not transit-
accessible. The MD 152 lot will replace an existing lot that is not transit-accessible and will have to
be moved when MdTA moves forward with improvements for I-95 Section 200. Transit will be
provided by Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) express bus service that will utilize the ETLs
being constructed on I-95, as well as Harford County transit busses. Upon completion of the park and
ride lots, MdTA intends to transfer ownership of the lots to MTA. It is unclear whether MdTA is
statutorily permitted to transfer ownership of the lots to MTA since the lots are part of the I-95
jurisdiction statutorily defined as MdTA’s. DLS recommends the Secretary discuss why MdTA,
authorized only to construct revenue-producing facilities, is constructing the park and ride lots
and whether MTA will repay MdTA for construction of these facilities once ownership is
transferred.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
25
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Issues
1. Debt to Take a Huge Toll on MdTA
Over the next four years, MdTA will issue $2.8 billion worth of debt to support its capital
program. This level of debt issuances in such a short period of time will have a lasting effect on
MdTA due to the significant increase in debt service payments. Debt service will increase from
$24.4 million in fiscal 2007 to a peak of $201.2 million in fiscal 2015. As shown in Exhibit 15, these
large debt service payments will crowd out money available for the capital program in future years.
Exhibit 15
Total Spending
Fiscal 2006-2018
($ in Millions)
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
Total Spending by Category
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Actual Actual Amended Budget Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est.
Fiscal Years
Capital Spending Operating Budget Debt Service
Source: Maryland Transportation Authority Financial Forecast, December 2007
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
26
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Assuming MdTA receives an increase in its debt outstanding through SB 182, by fiscal 2012
debt outstanding will be just under the new statutory limit and without a further increase in debt
outstanding or significant toll increases, the money available to MdTA’s capital program will be
limited. This is a serious concern, as MdTA has an aging system which will continue to require an
increasing amount of system preservation dollars. In addition, several large capital projects are
looming in MdTA’s future, but little funding will be available. Large capital projects which may be
necessary in the medium-term (next 20 years) include:
• possible construction of additional Chesapeake Bay crossing capacity;
• significant rehabilitation or replacement of the Nice and Hatem Bridges, which are both nearly
70 years old;
• possible redevelopment of the I-95 travel plazas if a public-private partnership proves not to
be feasible;
• additional capacity for all of the Harbor crossings (includes the Fort McHenry and Harbor
Tunnels as well as the Key Bridge);
• further improvements to I-95, since current construction is limited to only 10 miles and
studies are underway to address capacity on MdTA’s remaining 40 miles of I-95; and
• improvements to the I-270 corridor, which if current studies of a possible public-private
partnership development of the corridor prove not to be feasible, could be considered for
development of a toll facility by MdTA.
How Did We Get Here?
The financial strain that MdTA is currently experiencing has been in the making for many
years. Historically, MdTA has often had large cash reserves, which enabled it to finance many
projects for MDOT using cash instead of conduit financing. For example, in 1990, MdTA
constructed Seagirt Marine Terminal with $208 million in cash, and now leases it to MPA for an
annual operating lease payment.
With so much cash on hand, MdTA has raised tolls infrequently. In fact, it is cheaper to cross
the Bay Bridge today than it was when the bridge opened in 1952. In the last 20 years, toll rates have
been increased only four times. Toll rate increases prior to 2001 often took place at only one facility.
In 2001, toll rates at three facilities (Hatem, Tydings, and Nice Bridges) were doubled, and in 2003,
toll rates at two facilities (Hatem and Tydings Bridges) were increased by 50%, and toll rates at the
Harbor crossings (Key Bridge and Fort McHenry and Harbor Tunnels) were doubled.
In addition to the effect of few toll increases, MdTA also forgoes revenues due to the
substantial commuter discounts it offers. As part of the 2001 and 2003 toll increases, MdTA did not
raise commuter rates, so that commuter discounts today are substantial – up to 84%. Exhibit 4 shows
the discounts provided to commuters as well as the percentage of commuters who use each facility.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
27
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Over time, as toll rates remained stable, inflation drove up the cost of everything else. As
shown in Exhibit 16, over the past 10 years, the percentage increase in the operating budget has often
surpassed the percentage increase in operating revenues. In several years, MdTA experienced double
digit growth in its operating budget. In its ratings report for MdTA’s Series 2007 revenue bonds,
Fitch Ratings identified both the commuter discount program and greater than inflationary operating
expense growth as posing a risk of constraining financial margins in the future. To address this, as
noted earlier, MdTA took a number of cost containment actions in fiscal 2008, reducing spending by
$12.9 million. In order to maintain its financial coverage ratios, MdTA will have to continue to
constrain growth in its operating program and reevaluate the substantial commuter discounts it offers.
Exhibit 16
Historical Operating Revenue and Operating Budget Growth
Fiscal 1999-2008
25%
20%
Percentage Growth
15%
10%
5%
0%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Fiscal Years
Increase in Operating Budget Increase in Operating Revenues
Note: Large increases in revenues in fiscal 2002 and 2004 reflect toll rate increases in 2001 and 2003.
Source: Maryland Transportation Authority
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
28
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Where Do We Go from Here?
By fiscal 2013, construction of both the ICC and the I-95 ETLs should be complete, which
will significantly ease pressure on the capital program. However, debt service will be 600% higher
than it is today, and operating and maintenance costs will be much higher due to the addition of
maintenance and law enforcement needs at two new facilities. Add to this the increasing cost of
system preservation for MdTA’s aging system and other large capital projects which are on the
horizon, and it will take many years for MdTA to ease its financial strain.
Since it is doubtful that MdTA will have available bonding capacity in the future to fund its
capital program, this would leave PAYGO toll revenues as the funding source. However, PAYGO
funding of capital projects will be limited in the future due to increasing operating and debt service
costs. The ability to increase tolls higher than the currently forecasted toll increases is somewhat
limited, since MdTA is already planning substantial toll increases to maintain its financial coverage
ratios. Exhibit 17 shows the projected increase in toll revenues over the next 10 years. In its
financial forecast, MdTA assumes toll increases in fiscal 2011, 2013, and 2015. By fiscal 2013,
systemwide toll rates will be nearly double current rates.
Following these large toll rate increases in fiscal 2011, 2013, and 2015, MdTA will have
limited options available for funding capital projects or other funding needs. By fiscal 2015, MdTA
will be a highly leveraged agency, with debt outstanding of $2.8 billion, annual debt service
payments of $201.2 million, and financial coverage ratios near minimum levels. In addition, its
ability to raise revenues will be severely hampered by the fact that over the last four years, toll rates
would have doubled from previous levels. To address the situation, it is possible that MdTA could
turn to a public-private partnership to lease one of its facilities to a private entity in return for a large
up-front payment. Many states with comparable financial situations, with little to no debt capacity,
large debt service payments, and an inability or unwillingness to raise tolls, are actively considering
long-term leases of toll facilities.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
29
Exhibit 17
Projected Toll Revenue Growth
Fiscal 2007-2018
($ in Millions)
$800
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
$700
$600
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Toll Revenues
$500
$400
30
$300
$200
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Actual Amended Budget Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est.
With Forecasted Increases $278.6 $285.0 $288.2 $291.4 $450.6 $468.9 $603.7 $633.2 $657.2 $670.2 $682.8 $695.8
Without Increases $278.6 $285.0 $288.2 $291.4 $294.7 $298.0 $301.3 $305.1 $308.5 $312.4 $316.4 $320.4
Fiscal Years
With Forecasted Increases Without Increases
Note: Average systemwide toll increases of 48% are projected in fiscal 2011, 23% in fiscal 2013, and 1% in fiscal 2015.
Source: Maryland Transportation Authority
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
What Can Be Done?
MdTA has already taken several steps to address the financial strain that it faces over the next
few years. Cost containment actions in fiscal 2008 were an important first step, but MdTA should
continue to constrain growth in its operating budget. Additionally, MdTA includes in its forecast toll
rate increases in fiscal 2011, 2013, and 2015; however, if toll rates were increased earlier, it may
allow for smaller increases and may keep MdTA on more solid financial ground. Finally, MdTA
began utilizing capitalized interest bonds to defer debt service payments until closer to the time that
revenues will be generated from the ICC and the I-95 ETLs; however, this increases borrowing costs
over the long-term.
Although it will be taking on large amounts of debt over the next five years, MdTA
adequately maintains its financial coverage ratios. Exhibit 18 shows the rate covenant compliance ratio
in fiscal 2002 through 2018, as well as the DLS recommended administrative policy.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
31
Exhibit 18
Rate Covenant Compliance Ratio
Fiscal 2002-2018
3.0
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
2.5
Rate Covenant Compliance Ratio
2.0
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
1.5
32
1.0
0.5
0.0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Amended Budget Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est.
Fiscal Years
Rate Covenant Compliance (1.0x) Trust Agreement Minimum DLS Recommendation
Source: Maryland Transportation Authority
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
In many years over the forecast period, the coverage ratios dip to minimum or near minimum
levels. Having a forecast built on maintaining only the minimum financial coverage ratios can be a
risky decision, because any unexpected changes, such as greater than expected inflation, cost
over-runs on capital projects, or a drop in revenue, could have a profound impact on the forecast and
would require immediate action, either by pulling projects from the capital program or further
increasing toll rates. To ensure that MdTA remains on solid financial ground, DLS recommends
that MdTA set an administrative policy level of 1.25 for the rate covenant compliance ratio.
This is a level recommended by all three rating agencies in reports on the methodology for
rating toll agencies and will provide a greater financial cushion for MdTA in the future.
Furthermore, DLS recommends that MdTA consider:
• changes to its toll rate structure, including increasing tolls for vehicles with three axles
or more, reducing commuter discounts, and utilizing congestion pricing;
• eliminating less critical capital projects, such as the park and ride lots for I-95, from the
capital program;
• ceasing the practice of capitalizing multiple years of interest payments; and
• constraining growth in its operating budget.
DLS also recommends the statutory debt limit be increased to $2.8 billion, instead of the
$3.0 billion contained in SB 182, based on the impact that larger debt issuances will have in the
future.
Finally, DLS recommends that the Secretary comment on how the proposed financial
plan will impact:
• MdTA’s capital program in the future, when operating expenses and debt service
consume a larger portion of revenues; and
• the status of MdTA’s financial condition now and in the future.
2. Current E-ZPass Appeals Process Begins and Ends at MdTA
An integral part of the toll collection process is the handling of toll violations. Toll violations,
caused by an individual failing to pay a toll, could be due to going through a cash lane and not having
money or an E-ZPass transponder; going through an E-ZPass lane and not having E-ZPass; going
through an E-ZPass lane with an E-ZPass transponder, but payment is not made. Failure to make
payment when an E-ZPass transponder is used may be caused by a negative balance in the account or
an expired credit card attached to the account.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
33
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Toll Violations Process
The current process for addressing toll violations is outlined in Section 21-1414 of the
Transportation Article and supplemented by 11.07.07 of the Code of Maryland Regulations
(COMAR). The following description provides a summary of MdTA current practices in regard to
toll violations and also notes where current practice differs from what MdTA has the authority to do
under COMAR and statute.
For the first toll violation, MdTA mails a “Notice of Toll Due” statement for the amount of
the toll. If payment is not received within 30 days (COMAR 11.07.07.05 allows only 15 days), a
“Failure to Pay Notice” is sent for the toll plus an administrative fee of $15. Failure to pay beyond
that can result in referral to the Maryland Vehicle Administration (MVA) for the flagging or
suspension of vehicle registration and/or referral to the State’s Central Collection Unit (CCU).
If a toll violation takes place and the vehicle owner had a prior unpaid violation within the
past 12 months, the violator will be sent a “Repeat Violator Notice,” which demands payment of the
toll plus a $15 administrative penalty for each violation. Failure to pay this notice will result in the
flagging or suspension of the vehicle’s registration and/or referral to CCU. (COMAR stipulates that
if a third or subsequent violation is issued within 60 days of the first violation, subsequent violations
may be assessed a $15 administrative fee plus a civil penalty of $50.)
Appeal Process
If an individual who receives notice of a violation contests the violation, they must first
contact E-ZPass Customer Service, which is handled by ACS, the contractor that MdTA uses for
E-ZPass accounts and violations. If the issue remains contested, the individual may file a written
appeal. Appeals are investigated by ACS, and a “Notice of Appeal Determination” is sent to the
individual. If the violation is still contested, the individual may file another written appeal to the
E-ZPass Violation Enforcement Program Manager, who is an MdTA employee. The program
manager issues a written determination. This determination is final, and the individual has no appeals
left. If the program manager enforces the violation determination, whether the individual agrees with
the decision or not, they must pay the violation and all associated fees or face the flagging or
suspension of their vehicle registration and/or referral to the CCU.
Referrals to MVA for the flagging or suspension of the vehicle registration and/or referral to
CCU are serious matters. If a vehicle’s registration is flagged, the owner will not be able to renew the
registration until the violation, plus a $30 administrative fee from MVA to remove the flag, is paid. If
a vehicle’s registration is suspended, this results in an immediate suspension, and the owner of the
vehicle could be arrested for driving on a suspended registration. If referral is made to CCU, CCU
adds an additional fee for collecting the money, as well as interest penalties of 17%. To receive
payment, CCU has debt collectors, may file lawsuits, and may refer debts to the Comptroller’s office
so that the money is automatically deducted from an individual’s income tax refund. Debt collection
though CCU can also negatively affect an individual’s credit.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
34
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
DLS is concerned about the serious effects that can result from the failure to pay a toll.
Failure to pay can ultimately result in arrest if the individual drives while their registration is
suspended or can negatively affect an individual’s credit. While some individuals violate tolls
knowingly with no regard for the consequences, others are otherwise law-abiding citizens who fail to
pay tolls due to an expired credit card. If an individual does not keep their account information
up-to-date, including payment information and address, notices of violations could be sent to the
wrong address, and several toll violations could accumulate before the individual is aware of the
problem. By this time, several unpaid tolls, as well as a $15 administrative fee for each unpaid toll
can accumulate.
MVA Appeals Process
Appeals of actions taken by MVA take a much different route. Sections 12-201 through
12-209 of the Transportation Article state that individuals may contest the suspension or revocation
of their driver's license. Statute outlines that appeals must be allowed and what governs those
appeals. COMAR 11.11.02 assigns these responsibilities for appeals to the Office of Administrative
Hearings (OAH) for review. Statute says that appeals of the hearing/appeal procedure would go to
circuit court. If MVA makes the determination that it is suspending a license based on accumulated
points or alcohol violations, then the individual may appeal that decision first to OAH and then to
circuit court. OAH handles appeals for MVA “including but not limited to” suspension or revocation
of any of the following: driver’s license, dealer license, vehicle salesman license, driver’s school
license, and termination of vehicle franchise.
Allowing MVA appeals to be heard by OAH instead of MVA is an important step in the
process because it allows individuals a “fair, impartial and independent opportunity to be heard on the
issue(s) in question” (from the OAH web site).
While the E-ZPass appeal process involves more layers of appeal, there is never a hearing
outside of MdTA. In essence, MdTA (or its contractor) initiates the violation and all appeals stop at
MdTA. With penalties as serious as the suspension of vehicle registration, which could result in
arrest, or referral of the debt to CCU that could impact an individual’s credit, there should be some
level of independent review of the contested violation. DLS recommends a statutory change,
either through the budget reconciliation bill or separate legislation, that would require MdTA
to institute an appeals process through OAH so that individuals have an opportunity to have
their cases heard by an independent third party.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
35
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Operating Budget Recommended Actions
1. Nonbudgeted.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
36
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
PAYGO Budget Recommended Actions
1. Nonbudgeted.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
37
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Updates
1. MdTA Issues $300 Million in Revenue Bonds and $325 Million in Grant
Anticipation Revenue Vehicle Bonds
In 2007, MdTA issued two sets of bonds. The first was $325.0 million in GARVEE bonds for
the ICC, and the second was $300.0 million in revenue bonds to fund MdTA’s capital program.
GARVEE Bond Issuance
Chapters 471 and 472 of 2005 established a finance plan for construction of the ICC, which
included authorization to issue $750 million in GARVEE bonds. In order to match planned
expenditures, MdTA separated the total authorization into two issuances. The first of these issuances
was in May 2007, and the second issuance is expected in the fall of 2008.
The rating agencies viewed MdTA’s GARVEE bond issuance favorably. The issuance
received ratings of AAA from Standard & Poor’s, Aa2 from Moody’s Investors Services, and AA
from Fitch Ratings. Maryland is only the second state in the nation to receive an AAA rating for a
GARVEE bond issuance. The ratings were based on the following strengths of the issuance:
• long history of federal transportation funding;
• strong financial coverage ratios;
• subordinate lien of the TTF;
• limited statutory authorization for only $750 million;
• 12-year maturity that limits the risk of federal surface transportation program reauthorization;
and
• a clearly articulated procedure to ensure the timely flow of TTF revenues should federal aid
be insufficient for debt service.
The following risks were noted:
• federal highway aid program reauthorization risk; and
• litigation involving the project may delay implementation or increase costs.
Based on these favorable ratings, the true interest cost (TIC) was 3.99%, and the sale achieved
a premium of approximately $18.0 million. MdTA’s forecast indicates that it plans to reduce the size
of its second GARVEE bond issuance to $408.1 million in recognition of the premium that was
received. However, statute does not require MdTA to do so. This would leave an authorization from
the General Assembly for $16.9 million that MdTA is not utilizing.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
38
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Revenue Bond Issuance
In September 2007, MdTA issued $300.0 million worth of revenue bonds to support its capital
program, which included $10.2 million in capitalized interest bonds to pay a portion of the interest
payments through fiscal 2011. The TIC for the issuance was 4.57%, and MdTA received a premium
of $3.8 million.
The issuance received underlying ratings of AA- from Standard & Poor’s, Aa3 from Moody’s
Investors Services, and AA- from Fitch Ratings. Utilizing a financial guaranty insurance policy, the
issuance was assigned a rating of AAA by all three rating agencies. The underlying rating of AA-
from Standard & Poor’s represented an upgrade from the previous ranking of A+. The ratings were
based on the following strengths of the issuance:
• strong liquidity position, with 1,050 days cash on hand at the end of fiscal 2006;
• large and well-diversified system consisting of six pledged facilities, with monopoly control
over eastern Maryland’s essential highway, bridge, and tunnel network, particularly I-95;
• willingness and ability to raise toll rates, demonstrated by a 100%-150% toll increase for
noncommuters in 2001-2003, and traffic levels that showed relative inelasticity over that time;
• cooperative relationship with MDOT on managing MdTA’s support for other State
transportation projects; and
• strong historical debt service coverage.
The following risks were noted:
• MdTA’s debt issuance program, which will considerably increase its debt profile in the
medium term;
• managing growing capital and operating needs for existing facilities while undertaking large
capital construction projects;
• increasing reliance on debt to finance capital needs, with the potential for existing facilities to
cross-subsidize ICC-related debt service obligations for an extended period; and
• greater than inflationary operating expense growth and MdTA’s existing commuter discount
program could pose a constraint on financial margins.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
39
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Appendix 1
MdTA Financial Forecast
Fiscal 2007-2013
($ in Millions)
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
Revenues
Toll Revenues $278.6 $285.0 $288.2 $291.4 $450.6 $468.9 $603.7
Concessions 8.1 8.3 6.0 6.0 10.0 13.0 13.0
Investment Income and Other 31.4 35.5 41.5 36.6 28.5 29.1 32.8
Maryland Department of Transportation 39.5 39.8 42.8 44.3 46.0 47.8 49.6
Total Revenues $357.6 $368.6 $378.5 $378.3 $535.1 $558.8 $699.1
Expenses
Operations $189.1 $206.5 $219.7 $241.7 $263.7 $281.6 $298.0
MDOT Transfer 43.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Debt Service 24.5 24.4 36.8 45.8 57.9 127.4 171.3
Capital Program 399.4 920.7 1,143.9 1,089.3 655.2 211.4 132
Less: GARVEE Bond Proceeds -341.9 0.0 -408.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Less: Federal Funds for the ICC -18.0 -0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Less: Revenue Bond Proceeds 0.0 -915.0 -600.0 -510.0 -395.0 -125.0 0.0
Less: MDOT PAYGO -30.0 -30.0 -30.0 -30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Less: General Fund Transfers -53.0 0.0 -85.0 -126.9 0 0.0 0.0
Total Expenses $213.0 $206.0 $277.3 $709.9 $581.7 $495.4 $601.4
Annual Surplus/Deficit $144.6 $162.6 $101.1 -$331.6 -$46.6 $63.3 $97.8
Total Cash Balance $575.4 $738.0 $839.2 $507.6 $461.0 $524.2 $622.0
Debt
Debt Outstanding $245.1 $1,240.4 $1,890.0 $2,428.5 $2,810.8 $2,914.2 $2,879.3
Ratio of Total Cash to Toll Revenues 2.01 2.52 2.85 1.71 1.00 1.09 1.01
(Policy 1.0)
Debt Service Coverage (Policy 2.0) 6.88 5.93 3.82 2.57 4.36 2.02 2.22
Rate Covenant Compliance (Legal 1.0) 1.79 1.52 1.28 1.05 2.72 1.33 1.47
GARVEE: Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle
ICC: InterCounty Connector
MDOT: Maryland Department of Transportation
PAYGO: pay-as-you-go
Includes projected average statewide toll increases of $1.20 in fiscal 2011, $0.85 in fiscal 2013, and $0.05 in fiscal 2015.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
40
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Appendix 2
Audit Findings
Audit Period for Last Audit: January 1, 2004 – October 31, 2006
Issue Date: June 2007
Number of Findings: 7
Number of Repeat Findings: 3
% of Repeat Findings: 43%
Rating: (if applicable) n/a
Finding 1: MdTA did not always require contractors working on architectural and engineering
contracts to submit appropriate documentation to support labor-related costs billed.
Finding 2: Controls over MdTA’s corporate purchasing cards were inadequate, and certain
purchasing card transactions lacked required supporting documentation.
Finding 3: MdTA did not refer certain questionable activities involving corporate purchasing
cards to the Office of the Attorney General’s Criminal Division as required.
Finding 4: MdTA lacked current written agreements to support certain payments from other State
agencies that totaled approximately $12 million.
Finding 5: Certain cash receipts collected by the E-ZPass system contractor were not
adequately controlled.
Finding 6: MdTA did not submit three construction contracts totaling $636,283 to the Board
of Public Works for its review.
Finding 7: MdTA did not adequately control certain equipment and conduct physical
inventories as required.
*Bold denotes item repeated in full or part from preceding audit report.
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
41
Object/Fund Difference Report
Maryland Transportation Authority Operating Budget
FY08
FY07 Amended FY09 FY08-FY09 Percent
Object/Fund Actual Budget Budget Amount Change Change
Positions
01 Regular 1,604.50 1,641.50 1,639.00 -2.50 -0.2%
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
Total Positions 1,604.50 1,641.50 1,639.00 -2.50 -0.2%
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Objects
01 Salaries and Wages $ 108,900,391 $ 118,047,958 $ 131,074,266 $ 13,026,308 11.0%
02 Technical and Spec. Fees 2,580,501 2,641,472 5,643,886 3,002,414 113.7%
03 Communication 852,330 1,224,745 1,141,624 -83,121 -6.8%
04 Travel 165,308 186,055 135,492 -50,563 -27.2%
06 Fuel and Utilities 4,094,699 4,181,100 6,178,401 1,997,301 47.8%
07 Motor Vehicles 3,247,742 2,815,344 3,406,828 591,484 21.0%
08 Contractual Services 29,178,976 31,330,725 36,465,383 5,134,658 16.4%
42
09 Supplies and Materials 4,916,982 5,824,270 5,898,452 74,182 1.3%
10 Equip. – Replacement 2,177,615 15,616,613 8,733,801 -6,882,812 -44.1%
11 Equip. – Additional 4,158,842 18,010,399 8,860,017 -9,150,382 -50.8%
12 Grants, Subsidies, and Contributions 43,000,000 0 0 0 0.0%
13 Fixed Charges 30,630,544 31,081,046 43,692,748 12,611,702 40.6%
Total Objects $ 233,903,930 $ 230,959,727 $ 251,230,898 $ 20,271,171 8.8%
Funds
07 Nonbudgeted Fund $ 233,903,930 $ 230,959,727 $ 251,230,898 $ 20,271,171 8.8%
Total Funds $ 233,903,930 $ 230,959,727 $ 251,230,898 $ 20,271,171 8.8%
Appendix 3
Fiscal Summary
Maryland Transportation Authority
FY07 FY08 FY09 FY08-FY09
Program/Unit Actual Amended Budget Change % Change
Operating Program $ 233,903,930 $ 230,959,727 $ 251,230,898 $ 20,271,171 8.8%
Capital Program 316,376,282 918,311,339 1,141,413,154 223,101,815 24.3%
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
Total Expenditures $ 550,280,212 $ 1,149,271,066 $ 1,392,644,052 $ 243,372,986 21.2%
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Nonbudgeted Fund $ 550,280,212 $ 1,149,271,066 $ 1,392,644,052 $ 243,372,986 21.2%
Total Appropriations $ 550,280,212 $ 1,149,271,066 $ 1,392,644,052 $ 243,372,986 21.2%
43
Appendix 4
J00J00 – Maryland Transportation Authority
Analysis of the FY 2009 Maryland Executive Budget, 2008
44