Nessel opposes Trump’s SNAP restrictions, calls rule ‘entirely unacceptable’

Government Business

Article | March 11, 2022

The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the importance of constant innovation—as well as the need to respond quickly, agilely, and on a large scale. During the early stages of the pandemic, governments increased mask production, facilitated data sharing among pharmaceutical companies, relaxed regulatory requirements for certain tests and drugs, and accelerated vaccine production. These were the critical first steps in what turned out to be a highly successful collaboration with the private sector, non-profit organizations, and research institutions. Governments have served as catalysts throughout the pandemic, assembling and enabling multi-sector efforts to deal with the flood of cases and develop vaccines. Even before the pandemic, the government's role as a solution catalyst was expanding in scope and complexity, with a focus on how to harness innovation across sectors for public benefit. Governments have gone beyond repairing market failures as commercial and cross-sector innovation has accelerated. Governments are fostering cross-sector solutions for a variety of societal challenges, including public health, climate change, and cybersecurity, in addition to assisting in the strengthening of strategic sectors such as defence and space. Utilizing outside innovation to drive mission delivery Many technologies have been developed by the commercial sectorthat can be used to address complex societal problems. Governments are looking into ways to use these capabilities to improve mission delivery in ways other than contracting, in order to develop a broader set of partners and solutions. It is not always easy to implement such technologies in the public sector. Governments, unlike commercial entities with access to legal and financial structures such as joint ventures and mergers and acquisitions, must find more creative ways to capitalize on external innovation based on mutual interest and advantage across sectors. Government action and innovation State and local government leaders face shrinking resources, demanding constituents, complex policy environments, and constant pressure to deliver results on time.

Article | May 26, 2021

Taxpayers, citizens, and industry leaders may not be totally familiar with Public Facility Corporations (PFCs), but that should change, especially now since public funding for critical projects is at an all-time low. PFCs are becoming somewhat common in many regions of the country. If the legal entity (PFC) is not familiar, here’s a bit of background. A PFC is a nonprofit corporation created by a sponsoring governmental entity — a city, county, school district, housing authority, or special district. PFCs have broad powers over public facilities, including financing, acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, renovation and repair. A PFC, once created, has the authority to issue bonds on behalf of its sponsoring public entity and once the bonds are funded, the money can be used in numerous ways. This type of legal entity has gained attention because public officials with critical projects are being forced to seek alternative funding sources. In Texas, public facility corporations are allowed the broadest possible powers to finance or provide for the acquisition, construction and rehabilitation of public facilities at the lowest possible borrowing cost. A sponsor — such as a municipality, county, school district or housing authority — may create one or more of nonprofit public facility corporations. Then, the PFC can issue bonds for the construction of public facilities or finance public facilities or even loan the proceeds of the revenue to other entities for specific purposes. A report that was released by The University of Texas School of Law found that a house bill approved during the 2015 legislative session “expands the authority of public facility corporations and allows the corporation to exercise any power that a nonprofit corporation might exercise and/or grant a leasehold or other possessory interest in a public facility owned by the PFC.” Here’s a bit more background of what is happening in Texas and there are numerous similar examples throughout the country. The El Paso Independent School District (EPISD) several years ago created the EPISD Public Facility Corporation to fund construction of central offices through non-voter approved bonds. The corporation issued more than $29 million in bonds. The plan called for the EPISD to repay the bonds with general fund dollars from the district's general fund. The 2019 Texas Legislative Session ended with a $4 million rider added to the state appropriations budget. The money was provided to the city of Port Aransas to build a $36 million apartment complex for affordable housing. Plans call for the 200-unit complex to be operated by the Port Aransas Public Facility Corporation. The corporation will work in partnership with a private company to develop and manage the property. An investment of approximately $14 million came from the private sector partner, and the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs provided an additional $18 million in funding. Site work on the project began in July 2020. Many school districts have created public facility corporations for construction projects for schools, and many municipalities have also used PFCs. The revenue from these types of bonds is sometimes called lease-revenue bonds. They do not require voter approval. Public facility corporations do not have the authority to raise tax rates, but it is possible for a school board to approve a property tax increase to make payments on the bonds sold by a PFC. The city of Tioga, located in the Sherman/Dennison region of Texas, constructed a new high school with funding from a public facility corporation. A collaborative initiative was launched with a lease-purchase agreement which allowed the PFC to hold title to the land and facility until the investment was repaid. At that time, the agreement calls for everything to transfer back to the district. Because the current campus was reaching its maximum capacity, a new high school campus had been a priority for the district and this was the funding mechanism selected. The city of Fate in Rockwell County recently embarked on a public-private partnership to develop an affordable seniors housing community. The projected cost is approximately $30 million. To fund the project, the city created a PFC. Plans are for the city to handle the design, construction, and management of the project in collaboration with the PFC. City leaders will appoint board members to the funding corporation which will then operate the development as a nonprofit. The project is anticipated for completion in January 2022. There are similar types of alternative types of funding options in other parts of the U.S. In Utah, for instance, the Park City Board of Education approved a PFC which will allow the district to secure revenue for a number of master plan projects. The projects have a combined projected cost of $122 million. The school district had considered the funding option of general obligation bonds, which would require voter approval, but elected to create a Local Building Authority (LBA). This funding option will allow them to fund an expansion of a high school facility to accommodate ninth-graders and expand another campus to allow for eighth-grade students. Public officials, legislators, government contractors, and taxpayers all should have an interest in watching PFCs as well as other alternative funding sources. Until traditional public funding becomes more available for critical public projects, there will be a need for various types of funding solutions. Mary Scott Nabers is president and CEO of Strategic Partnerships Inc., a business development company specializing in government contracting and procurement consulting throughout the U.S. Her recently released book, Inside the Infrastructure Revolution: A Roadmap for Building America, is a handbook for contractors, investors and the public at large seeking to explore how public-private partnerships or joint ventures can help finance their infrastructure projects.

Article | May 27, 2021

The COVID-19 virus (C19) pandemic is turning out to be the event of the century. Even World War seems timid in comparison. We are in the 4th month of the virus (in non-China countries) and have gone past the lockdown in many places. Isn’t it time we re-think the approach? What if there is another wave of C19 coming soon? What if C19 is the first of many such events in the future? Before we get into analysis and solution design, summarizing the C19 quirks: While a large section of the affected population is asymptomatic, for some it can be lethal There isn’t clarity on all the ways C19 spreads It’s known to affect the lungs, heart, and kidneys in patients with weak immunity It has been hard to identify a definitive pattern of the virus. Some observations in managing the C19 situation are: With no vaccine in sight, the end of this epidemic looks months or years away Health care personnel in hospitals need additional protection to treat patients Lockdowns lead to severe economic hardship and its repeated application can be damaging Quarantining people has an economic cost, especially in the weaker sections of society If one takes a step back to re-think about this, we are primarily solving 2 problems: Minimise deaths: Minimise the death of C19 and non-C19 patients in this period Maximise economic growth: The GDP output/growth should equal or higher than pre-C19 levels One needs to achieve the 2 goals in an environment of rising number of C19 cases. Minimise deaths An approach that can be applied to achieve this is: Data driven health care capacity planning Build a health repository of all the citizens with details like pre-existing diseases, comorbidity, health status, etc. The repository needs to be updated quarterly to account for patient data changes This health repository data is combined with the C19 profile (disease susceptibility) and/or other seasonal diseases to determine the healthcare capacity (medicines, doctors, etc.) needed The healthcare capacity deficit/excess needs to be analysed in categories (beds, equipment, medicine, personnel, etc.) and regions (city, state, etc.) and actions taken accordingly Regular capacity management will ensure patients aren’t deprived of timely treatment. In addition, such planning helps in the equitable distribution of healthcare across regions and optimising health care costs. Healthcare sector is better prepared to scale-up/down their operations Based on the analysis citizens can be informed about their probability of needing hospitalisation on contracting C19. Citizens with a higher health risk on C19 infection should be personally trained on prevention and tips to manage the disease on occurrence The diagram below explains the process Mechanism to increase hospital capacity without cost escalation Due to the nature of C19, health personnel are prone to infection and their safety is a big issue. There is also a shortage of hospitable beds available. Even non-C19 patients aren’t getting the required treatment because health personnel seek it as a risk. This resulted in, healthcare costs going up and availability reducing. To mitigate such issues, hospital layouts may need to be altered (as shown in the diagram below). The altered layout improves hospital capacity and availability of health care personnel. It also reduces the need for the arduous C19 protection procedures. Such procedures reduce the patient treatment capacity and puts a toll on hospital management. Over a period, the number of recovered C19 persons are going to increase significantly. We need to start tapping into their services to reduce the burden on the system. The hospitals need to be divided into 3 zones. The hospital zoning illustration shown below explains how this could be done. In the diagram, patients are shown in green and health care personnel are in light red. **Assumption: Infected and recovered C19 patients are immune to the disease. This is not clearly established Better enforcement of social factors The other reason for high number of infections in countries like India is a glaring disregard in following C19 rules in public places and the laxity in enforcement. Enforcement covers 2 parts, tracking incidents of violation and penalising the behaviour. Government should use modern mechanisms like crowd sourcing to track incidents and ride on the growing public fear to ensure penalty enforcement succeeds. The C19 pandemic has exposed governance limitations in not just following C19 rules, but also in other areas of public safety like road travel, sanitation, dietary habits, etc. Maximise economic growth The earlier lockdown has strained the economy. Adequate measures need to be taken to get the economy back on track. Some of the areas that need to be addressed are: One needs to evaluate the development needs of the country in different categories like growth impetus factors (e.g. building roads, electricity capacity increase), social factors (e.g. waste water treatment plants, health care capacity), and environmental factors (e.g. solar energy generation, EV charging stations). Governments need to accelerate funding in such projects so that that large numbers of unemployed people are hired and trained. Besides giving an immediate boost to the ailing economy such projects have a future payback. The governments should not get bogged down by the huge fiscal deficit such measures can create. Such a mechanism to get money out in the economy is far than better measures like QE (Quantitative Easing) or free money transfer into people’s bank accounts Certain items like smartphone, internet, masks, etc. have become critical (for work, education, critical government announcements). It’s essential to subsidise or reduce taxes so that these items are affordable and accessible to everyone without a financial impact The government shouldn’t put too many C19 related controls on service offerings (e.g. shops, schools, restaurants, cabs). Putting many controls increases the cost of the service which neither the seller not buyer is willing or able to pay. Where controls are put, the Govt should bear the costs or reduce taxes or figure out a mechanism so that the cost can be absorbed. An event like the C19 pandemic is a great opportunity to rationalise development imbalances in the country. Government funding should be channelized more to under-developed regions. This drives growth in regions that need it most. It also prevents excess migration that has resulted in uncontrolled and bad urbanisation that has made C19 management hard (guidelines like social distance are impossible to follow) Post-C19 lockdown, the business environment (need for sanitizers, masks, home furniture) has changed. To make people employable in new flourishing businesses there could be a need to re-skill people. Such an initiative can be taken up by the public/private sector The number of C19 infected asymptomatic patients is going to keep increasing. Building an economy around them (existing, recovered C19 patients) may not be a far-fetched idea. E.g. jobs for C19 infected daily wage earners, C19 infected taxi drivers to transport C19 patients, etc. In the last 100 years, mankind has conquered the destructive aspects of many a disease and natural mishap (hurricanes, floods, etc.). Human lives lost in such events has dramatically dropped over the years and our preparedness has never been this good. Nature seems to have caught up with mankind’s big strides in science and technology. C19 has been hard to reign in with no breakthrough yet. The C19 pandemic is here to stay for the near future. The more we accept this reality and change ourselves to live with it amidst us, the faster we can return to a new normal. A quote from Edward Jenner (inventor of Small Pox) seems apt in the situation – “The deviation of man from the state in which he was originally placed by nature seems to have proved to him a prolific source of diseases”.

Article | July 15, 2020

As the country battles to recover from COVID-19, transit leaders are calling for the next federal relief package to appropriate substantial funding to allow public transit to play its critical part in the economy’s recovery. In the interim, many of these transit and mobility authorities throughout the nation are moving forward with capital improvement projects already in the pipeline and in various phases of development. They will soon be announcing large projects, especially in quickly growing regions, and their planning documents list upcoming initiatives that range from mid-size construction projects to sprawling billion-dollar programs that focus on aging infrastructure. The following are just a few examples of upcoming projects from tollway and mobility authorities. California Just east of San Francisco, the Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority in late June approved $46.8 million in funding for the next stage in Valley Link, a 42-mile light-rail line. This project will connect a planned train station in North Lathrop to an existing station in Pleasanton. Another $13 million previously dedicated to the project paid for conceptual design work that is near completion. Also, elsewhere in the state, the Transportation Corridor Agencies, in coordination with Caltrans, is proposing a $180 million project to add a direct 241/91 Express Connector linking the northbound 241 Toll Road to the eastbound 91 Express Lanes and the westbound 91 Express Lanes to the southbound 241 Toll Road. The connector will alleviate traffic and improve access to toll lanes in Orange and Riverside counties. Texas The Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority has several forthcoming procurements and will be soliciting bids in early August for the third phase of the 183A extension project. This $180 million project will create a 6.6-mile extension of the busy tollway north from Leander to east of Liberty Hill. Construction is expected to begin in early 2021. New Jersey The New Jersey Turnpike Authority has $24 billion in various road and infrastructure projects in its Proposed 2020 Capital Improvement Program released in March 2020. The authority has outlined 24 projects that provide system solutions and upgrades. One of the largest initiatives is a $2.9 billion project to replace approximately 200 bridge decks. Another large undertaking, projected to cost about $1.4 billion, is described as raising a section of Garden State Parkway above a revised 100-year floodplain. Florida Florida’s 2021 budget earmarks $90 million for an ambitious tollway project spanning hundreds of miles. The Multi-use Corridors of Regional Economic Significance, or M-CORES, plan calls for construction of 340 miles of new toll roads by 2030. M-CORES outlines new road infrastructure for three corridors: the Suncoast Connector from Citrus County to Jefferson County; the Northern Turnpike Connector from the northern terminus of Florida’s Turnpike northwest to the Suncoast Parkway; and the Southwest-Central Florida Connector from Collier County to Polk County. Initiated by a state Senate bill in 2019, this is a $10 billion project. Kansas The city of Overland Park and the Kansas Turnpike Authority are conducting a study that could lead to a $300 million project for U.S. 69. City leaders turned to the Turnpike Authority for help with widening the highway which has become the most congested in the state. The collaborative effort would include widening the highway to six lanes, with two of them being tolled. Illinois The Illinois Tollway Authority is closing its bid filing period for a more than $100 million project to reconstruct a section of Interstate 294, and numerous other projects are slated to occur in the next several years. A project to reconstruct the northbound C-D Road has a cost projection of between $25 and $50 million. Another planned project includes demolishing and rebuilding the Southbound Mile Long Bridge with a cost of more than $100 million. Another interesting project outlined involves building ongoing ramps from 75th Street to Interstate 55 which will also cost approximately$100 million. Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) released a request for information to determine how best to structure procurements to replace and enhance the commission’s tolling Customer Service Center system and customer service operations. A number of contracting opportunities will result from this initiative. The commission is inviting responses from software application development companies with innovative products in the customer relationship management, customer account management, and customer experience spaces. System integrators and/or software developers with expertise in CRM, customer account management, call centers, customer contact systems and CX, and transactional/financial processing and billing systems also are also encouraged to respond. PTC is also interested in input from customer service firms specializing in the design and integration of innovative customer contact systems with new or existing applications. In addition to construction and engineering projects, numerous tollway authorities are moving toward all-electronic toll collections. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission moved from toll collectors to all-electronic this year, and the Bay Area Toll Authority suspended in-person toll collecting in March because of COVID-19. This trend will provide numerous opportunities for IT companies in the near future as transit and mobility authorities search for technology solutions to modernize the driving experience on toll roads. Mary Scott Nabers is president and CEO of Strategic Partnerships Inc., a business development company specializing in government contracting and procurement consulting throughout the U.S. Her recently released book, Inside the Infrastructure Revolution: A Roadmap for Building America, is a handbook for contractors, investors and the public at large seeking to explore how public-private partnerships or joint ventures can help finance their infrastructure projects.