Talking P3s with Dr. Morteza Farajian

Dr. Morteza Farajian, executive director of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Build America Bureau, discusses the bureau’s pipeline of P3 projects, including new authority for airports, and the timeline for the bureau to release key P3 program guidelines and awards. Senior infrastructure reporter Caitlin Devitt hosts.  

Transcription:

Transcripts are generated using a combination of speech recognition software and human transcribers, and may contain errors. Please check the corresponding audio for the authoritative record.

Michael Scarchilli (00:05):
Hi everyone and welcome to the Bomb Buyer Podcast, your essential resource for insights into everything municipal finance. I’m Mike Scarelli, Editor-in-Chief of the Bomb Buyer, and this week we dive into the dynamic world of public private partnerships and innovative financing and infrastructure. Joining us to explore this vital issue is Dr. Morteza Ian, executive director of the Build America Bureau. Morteza shares his expertise on the current pipeline for P three transportation projects and the impact of recent federal legislation on advancing public-private partnerships. In this episode, Morteza sits down with our senior infrastructure reporter, Caitlin Det, to discuss the diverse projects in the pipeline, including manage Lanes transit-oriented developments, and the exciting new authority over airport projects. They also cover how the infrastructure investment and Jobs act is reshaping financing strategies for state and local governments. With that, let’s get started and dive into this insightful conversation.

Caitlin Devitt (01:07):
Welcome Morteza. Thank you for being here.

Morteza Farajian (01:09):
Thank you for having me today, Caitlin.

Caitlin Devitt (01:11):
Our pleasure. So we’re about halfway through the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which included a handful of provisions to advance public private partnerships, which I hope we can talk a little bit about later. But first, tell us about your current pipeline for P three transportation projects.

Morteza Farajian (01:29):
That’s a very good question, Caitlyn. I can think about it from various aspects because we have different project types that we are assisting, or at least we are hearing about those projects in the market. They come talk to us in early stages, like before, we are working with a couple of project sponsors, mainly State Department of Transportations on managed lane projects. One that is right now in procurement in Georgia that we are working with is SR 400 Managed Lane project. We are also working with other projects such as the one that recently was announced in Tennessee that might be a P three project choice lanes. There are other projects of course in other states that folks are working on them, not necessarily managed name projects, but there’s a project in Louisiana that they just reached agreement with a private partner. They announced it, I believe it’s called Cchu Bridge I 10 projects.

(02:40):
That’s another one that over the last couple of months we have worked very closely with them and each one of these projects is using our programs in different ways. Some of them, like the project in Louisiana, they have used our private activity bond allocation to issue tax exempt debt paths. Some of them like SR 400, the state duty on behalf of the private partner that will be selected has started the process with us to negotiate a term sheet that has been provided to the bidders and hopefully if the bidder is selected and they want to move forward and close a loan with us, they would be able to receive a direct loan as well as private activity bond allocation. That project has also received private activity bond allocation from us in the case of tenancy. It’s still in very early stage. We have had some discussions with them.

(03:39):
That’s one of the projects that is in the pipeline. It’s probably going to be a little bit down the road, but more or less it looks like that it’s going to be a project similar to the project in Georgia SR 400 project. So that’s one type of project that we are working with mainly state departments of transportation. We are also talking to a lot of folks on the TOD side on the TOD side transit oriented development, which is a relatively new program and I’ll be happy to talk about it later. That’s where we see a lot of public private partnerships. It could be a little bit different than the roadway projects that we just talked about, but we do see a lot of joint development type projects, for example, that a transit agency has land adjacent to a transit station and they want to partner with a developer to develop it for them.

(04:39):
Or we do see some public private partnerships that will be considered public infrastructure or some sort of transportation mode happening between a private developer and cities. As you mentioned, bipartisan infrastructure law that was passed in 2021 has made a couple of changes in the way that some of these projects were being done in the past. One of those new trends that we have seen in market is more projects being sponsored by local governments like municipalities, and that’s one area that even Bureau has gotten a little bit more active in coordination with municipalities, cities such as Austin, such as Kansas City, such as Los Angeles, New York City, or even Tampa, smaller size cities that we have worked with them through various programs that we have to build capacity for them so they can look at various options, not necessarily public private partnerships, but to look at a variety of options on even how they can use innovative financing to advance some of the projects forward.

Caitlin Devitt (06:01):
So you guys just did your first TOD, right, with TFI alone with Mountain Brown in Washington?

Morteza Farajian (06:06):
Yes, and thanks for bringing that up because that’s a really good example that I personally like. It’s not a public private partnership project, but it’s a really good example that shows how folks in a city were able to think outside the box and come up with a project that is innovative. The solution itself is innovative and it’s very effective in addressing a couple of needs That CD has all under one project. That project is a vertical development and they’re building a parking garage and some people will just scratch their head and say, wait a minute, how does a public garage fit within your transit oriented development program? There’s a really good explanation for that. First of all, the public garage is within walking distance to a transit station, so it helps folks who want to use a transit station can possibly go park in this garage if their car there and then jump on transit.

(07:13):
But also more important than that, that public garage in downtown is trying to provide parking space to those who want to park their cars, go to a restaurant or a bar or do some business in downtown area, visit someone in downtown instead of parking their cars on the street. This parking garage allows them to park in this structure. So the street space, the curbside space, which is very valuable, would free up for other activities, whether it’s for additional pedestrian lane or bicycle lane or whether it’s for outdoor seating space for some of those restaurants and bars that can now put tables and chairs there and accommodate more customers in their business. Either way is making that area more walkable, more accessible, and it’s helping with the businesses to flourish and more business activities for the city. But in addition to that, they’re also building a civic center, STEM center, commercial kitchen.

(08:23):
They’re even putting public charging stations for electric vehicles and a couple of other things that they have all been bundled under one project under one roof as is a structure is being built, which by the way, it’s under construction and soon they’re going to have the groundbreaking on it. C is able to address all of those needs all under one project. Very effective, very both cost efficient and process efficient process to make improvements to downtown area. That’s a model that I personally like a lot and in the conversations I have with other cities, I bring it up because I think that’s a good example that shows we should think beyond just one solution. For example, whether that solution is building a transit station or public garage or a public library or a civic center and try to combine them, try to combine them all under one construction so we can reduce the cost of the development and a lot of this space is shared space. It can be used for various activities and various uses.

Caitlin Devitt (09:40):
Yeah, it’s a cool little project for sure. So IJA included a few different provisions. We talked about one and another. One is the Innovative Finance and Asset concession grant program, which I believe total is a hundred million over five years, and the point is grants to help state local governments assess whether they’re assets. I think they’re like list their assets and assess whether they be viable for asset concession or monetization. So earlier this year you guys released guidance and solicited applications, which I believe were due in May. So talk to us a little bit about what kind of response you saw and what your hopes are for the program and if you have a timeline for announcing the grant awards,

Morteza Farajian (10:31):
That’s another good program, Caitlyn that we have. It was created by bipartisan infrastructure law. As you mentioned, we were a little bit of slow in getting the money out, but we were able to issue the nofo notice of funding opportunity earlier this year. As you mentioned, we combined three years of funding in that nofo. So everything is current up to now. I believe we put out a little bit less than $60 million because there were some haircuts to the program, but a little bit less than $60 million was included in the nofo. We have received very good responses to that. nofo, we should understand that this is the first time that the program is going out, and typically it takes some time for folks to get up to the speed. So the responses that we got in the first round, it’s not a lot, but I can tell you that it’s based on the expectations that we have.

(11:33):
We have received most of our applications from local administrations such as municipalities. We expected most of those applications to center around taking advantage of properties that project owners have so that they can, as you mentioned, screen those projects and figure out which one of those projects are more suitable for development, better utilization, maybe creating some revenue sources for the agency, whether it’s a transit agency or whether it’s a municipality. And I can tell you that most of the applications are focused on that concept. Although the program itself is not just limited to what we call asset scanning, it also provides assistance to those who have already selected the project and they want to hire consultants to do, for example, feasibility analysis, option analysis, revenue analysis, and other things that they need to do in order to advance that project to the next space. But the emphasis of the NOFO and the emphasis of course of the program in the legislation is on identifying assets that they are underutilized.

(12:55):
I used to work for Virginia Department of Transportation before joining Build America Bureau, and I can tell you firsthand from my experience, a lot of public entities, they have many assets that are underutilized. In most cases, there might be a list of those assets somewhere, but people are not paying attention to them. People don’t know all the details about those assets. Sometimes they don’t know what’s the true value of that asset or what’s the best use for that asset. There might be, for example, bus depots that have been used for years and years and years, but because of a lot of changes that has happened in the operations of that bus service or maybe other bus depots or maintenance facilities that have been built over the last couple of years, maybe all of that space is not needed anymore, or maybe that space is not needed in that location.

(13:58):
It should be in a different location. But that systematic study to go out, look at those assets, first of all, create a list of those assets, but then second look at other options for those assets. Can this become, for example, a site if it’s not needed for Bos Depot anymore, or if it’s half of it is not needed or one third of it is needed, can it be a site that if CD for example, needs to build a new public school or a public library or courthouse or public housing shelters, affordable housing could be a joint development with a private developer to build housing in the CD and create a revenue line for the transit station. Or in many cases, these lands are actually right next to transit stations. These lands that exist right next to transit stations, let’s say there’s a surface parking lot that yes, there is a need for it.

(14:59):
In many cases, people need to drive to that transit station, park their car and get on the train, for example. But is that the best use for that asset? Can’t we have dense development around that station and still maintain those parking spots maybe as one or two floors in this new development? Those are the type of ideas that we are encouraging people to go back and have a fresh look at those assets, hire consultants, do their analysis, figure out if there’s market demand for it, figure out if there is public need for it, figure out if there is a way to generate additional value, potentially revenue line for the transit station. But value is not just revenue line for the transit station. Value is also additional economic development for the region. Value is also increasing ridership for that transit station. If there’s dense apartment building development right next to that transit station, it’s very likely that these people are actually going to use that transit service that is also in the form of property taxes for the CD jobs that will be created or potentially even tackling some of the other needs that that region may have in terms of affordable housing units, workforce housing units, even taking it to the next level and say if they need some public space, some green space, maybe some developments or improvements on the A side to make sure that there are accessible entrances and exits for those with disabilities.

(16:48):
So those are all the different things that we are encouraging people to think about when they go through this process and hopefully some of these properties that would be identified and screened through this process, we will be able to create a database with them and publish the database publicly. So private developers who I feel looking at partnership opportunities for some of these public entities, they can access not only to the information to develop their business case and know whether it makes sense financially for them to partner with a public entity and move forward, but also know who they should contact. In many cases, it’s really hard to find a point of contact even if you are a local developer, you know about the parcel, you have some good ideas about it, it’s very hard to know who you should contact, how you should move forward, what’s the right process to get to the right and get some of those ideas in front of them and be able to develop them. So our goal is to that only develop this database, have basic information that developers can look at and do their business case, but also make sure that some of those connections can be made so these ideas can get to the right person and hopefully be developed and move forward. They create win-win scenario for everyone, good paying jobs, economic development and values for the communities.

Caitlin Devitt (18:20):
Do you have a timeline for when you’re going to announce?

Morteza Farajian (18:23):
We are evaluating applications. I can tell you that we have made very good progress. We should be very close to wrapping up our evaluations. It will still take some time before it can be announced, but our goal is to announce it in summer.

Caitlin Devitt (18:41):
I’m sorry, you said your goal is to announce it when?

Morteza Farajian (18:43):
In summer.

Caitlin Devitt (18:44):
In summer. Okay, so soon.

Morteza Farajian (18:47):
Yes.

Caitlin Devitt (18:49):
And then do you plan to have another round next year and the year after that or do you think you’ll do kind of the same thing where you wait and then bundle it the last two years together?

Morteza Farajian (19:00):
No, I think next year we will probably just issue the nofo and then they are following that we’ll have another nofo. The reason that it took us a little bit time for the first NOFO was because this is a new program and it had some complexities. We couldn’t just go and take a nofo off of the shelf and maybe modify the slightly and put it in market. So it took us some time to go through the process of not only drafting this new nofo, but making sure that it’s drafted in a way that it provides the right flexibilities to folks who are applying for the program. It’s relatively simple to read and understand and apply for the grant because we understand a lot of these project sponsors who are applying for planning level grants. This is a planning level grant. They do not have a lot of resources and we didn’t want to make it too complicated for them or ask for a lot of information that in many cases, project sponsors that do not have access to a lot of resources would just be discouraged from moving forward.

(20:09):
So it did take us a little bit of time to draft a nofo that is very practical. It’s laser focused on the goals and objectives of the program. It’s inclusive, but also it’s something that’s going to give us the outcomes that we wanted to get out of this program moving forward. We don’t need to do all of that because that NOFO has already been drafted. So in the next versions of the NOCO that they’re going to put out, you’ll not see a lot of changes. Most likely you’re going to stick to this template that we have now and that makes it easier to put it out every year.

Caitlin Devitt (20:47):
We’re here with Tza, Farrah John from the Build America Bureau, and we’re going to take a quick break and we’ll be right back. Hi, and we’re back with Marza Farrah John from the Build America Bureau. So also as part of the IG, the Bureau is tasked with developing value for money analysis, guidance or standards that would help cities and states determine whether P three is the best option, excuse me, for certain federally funded projects or certain projects to tap federal funds. Update us on that if you would. Has it been done, and why is it important, this value for money analysis in general and developing standards for it?

Morteza Farajian (21:35):
Caitlyn, it looks like that you have done very good research about every single task that we have in IJA and you’re just pointing that out to us. That’s really good because these are all the items that have kept us busy over the last couple of years, and this conversation gives me the opportunity to talk about some of the challenges that we have been working through them to make sure that the end product is a product that is in reality in practice, something that can help project sponsors and is delivering the intended outcome of the legislation. Many might be familiar with value for money analysis, the value for money analysis that is typical in the industry that has been used for years by many who have done P three projects in the past. It’s a study that mainly focuses on some sort of assumption based in many cases, it’s very hard to verify those assumptions.

(22:48):
For example, whether a P three model is going to reduce operating costs in the future or whether the risk sharing mechanism is going to generate some values for the project is sponsor, whether it’s going to expedite delivery of the project, and in those cases, what’s the extent of that benefit? Many of those assumptions, as I mentioned earlier, are hard to verify. In many cases, there are tax adjustments or other adjustments that it’s very difficult for people to understand why we are making those adjustments, and at the end of the day, the analysis produces numbers and people look at those numbers and say that, for example, the P three delivery might be 10% more valuable, more beneficial, cheaper than other deliveries over lifecycle of the project mainly because of those assumptions. I had the firsthand experience in Virginia going through that process multiple times, and I saw that how those numbers could easily change based on the assumptions that you will put in the system in the model.

(24:04):
I don’t think that’s the right way to do value for money analysis. And if you look at the model that we had in Virginia, the P three guidelines that Virginia published a couple of years ago, and the value for money guidelines that Virginia published a couple of years ago when I was in Virginia, we put more emphasis on the process itself on some of those trade-offs, some of those subjective type of, or quantitative, sorry, qualitative instead of quantitative type of analysis. So are not just focused on the final numbers, but we are looking at the trade-offs. We are looking at how this decision ultimately is made based on policy goals and objectives and it could be different for different project sponsors. So it’s very, very hard to just have a quantitative analysis and just focus on numbers. It’s beyond that. We want people to see beyond just numbers.

(25:06):
So the guidelines that we are drafting now and again, the reason it has taken some time is because it’s something new and we had to consult with a lot of the stakeholders both internally and externally and make sure that the document that we are putting together, it’s again a practical document that can be used in real projects and create the intended outcome that we have for it. The document is going to go out soon. First of all, it’s going to be one document, one guideline, and that was one of the reasons that we had to slow down a little bit because Federal Highway administration also had a value for money guideline and we didn’t want to duplicate the work for folks to submit one value for money analysis to Federal Highway administration for the highway projects based on their guideline and their process and procedures.

(25:59):
And then one to us, we wanted to just make it one document so it’s easier for folks to go through the process once and submit one study based on one methodology, and that took some time because we had to sit down with our partners of Federal Highway Administration, make sure that we’re all on the same page because it’s going to be a joint document, but also externally, we had to make sure that we consult with a lot of the project sponsors and make sure that whatever we put in the documents, because going to be a requirement for those who want to go for our loans, whether it’s publicly financed or private financed based on project size, it’s something that they can do actually, and it’s practical and it’s not going to create issues when they’re trying to submit this study to us. As I mentioned earlier, it’s finalized, it’s done, it’s going through the final checks and mainly looking at the quality control and make sure that everyone is okay with the final version of the document.

(27:10):
Again, our goal is also to publish that this summer, which could be the next couple of weeks if we can proceed based on the schedule we have. But I can tell you a little bit about what we envision for that study, and we have talked about this a couple of times in various meetings with project sponsors who actually have projects moving forward and we’re asking for some interim guidance from us. This study that we are encouraging people to do would be very simple, and it’s actually just summarizing the steps that we typically go through when we want to make a big decision. Well, the first step is let’s look at all available options. Let’s look at which one of those options are practical. Practical could be in the form of having the legislative authority to do it, having from technical side, from financial side, if something is not practical and we can document it and say that, look, there is no way that some of these other options can be implemented because of these reasons, we want to screen them out so that we are left just with those options that are practical and we know that those are real options, then we want to analyze those options, look at the advantages, the disadvantages, the opportunities and the limitations that each one of those options would create for project sponsor and ultimately for general public, for taxpayers who are going to benefit from that project.

(28:48):
And we also want to document, we want to see that project sponsor documents, what policy goals and objectives they have for the project or that development, whether they try to achieve, because that can be different. Project to project could be different, different project sponsors. Different communities may have different goals and objectives. Sometimes projects are supposed to minimize the risk to general public. Sometimes they may want to get the best mobility solution. Sometimes they want to maximize innovation, sometimes they want to maybe generate most revenue for the community, whether it’s tax dollars or economic development or even project revenues. It could be various things or a combination of those. We want them to clearly identify what they’re trying to achieve. We want them to clearly identify what available options they have and do the analysis between those options, pros and cons and trade-offs, and then document how based on all of this information that they have gathered and they have presented their decision makers, how they have landed on the final decision that they pick.

(30:00):
That process for us is value for money analysis. And we are not trying to make the decision for them, but what we are trying to do is to make sure that this whole process follows those steps, logical steps is well documented. If they have made assumptions, we want them to stay those assumptions. We want them to document how they landed on the assumptions. If there’s any backup information, we want to make sure that the whole process is transparent, well documented, and then it’s published. So folks in that community can also see how the decision was made based on what factors, what assumptions, what information, and of course it needs to be reevaluated because there are also some requirements that we have that once you make the decision upfront, that’s good. But in many cases, as you go through procurement, because as we all know, these are projects that would take 3, 4, 5 years sometimes to procure them from the time that the initial project development stages starts at the time that contract is signed, and a lot can change during this process.

(31:13):
We need to make sure that the assumptions that were used at the beginning to make a decision that one option was selected compared to the option throughout this process is not changed to the extent that it materially impacts the initial decision. So there needs to be checks and balances in between, and our guideline is going to talk about that, that what’s the best practice to make sure that especially for projects that have to go through that long process, they can have checks and balances in place to revisit some of those assumptions and make sure that they’re still going in the right direction. That’s what our guideline is going to focus on. Of course, I just talked about the framework At a higher level, the guideline is going to go into more details, but what is more important is that the first document that’s going to go out in summer is not going to be the final guide. We are publishing what we think the guidelines should be, but we are asking for comments from those who will be impacted by this guideline, and we are going to receive those comments, suggestions to the extent that we can use some of those comments to make improvements of the guideline. We’ll go through that process and then hopefully sometime next year we are going to have the final version based on the feedback that we’re seeking from stakeholders.

Caitlin Devitt (32:33):
Okay, got it. So the notice for comments will go out this summer, maybe in the next few weeks, and then they’ll use that to refine it, and then next year we should expect to see the final guidelines.

Morteza Farajian (32:45):
You got that.

Caitlin Devitt (32:46):
So Marza, talk to us a little bit more about the pipeline in particular. I know that you guys have started to focus on the TODs and also now you have some new authority with airports. So if you could talk specifically about the pipeline in those two areas, that would be great.

Morteza Farajian (33:01):
Caitlin. It’s very interesting because I’ve been with Bureau almost and a half years, and I have seen how that pipeline in the bureau has changed. When I joined Bureau, our pipeline was about $4 billion and that’s basically what we expect to close within the next 18 months or so, projects that are either in credit or very close to go to credit, it was mainly focused on highway projects, bridges, tunnels. Today that we are talking, that pipeline is over $40 billion, 10 times bigger, and it’s not just highway project, we still have highway projects, but I can tell you that the transit portion of the pipeline, the rail portion of the pipeline has grown significantly. Before, we didn’t have any transit oriented development project 2D project today, almost one third of that pipeline is our TOD program, almost 12 billion worth of projects that we are working with. We also have new asset classes such as airports, bipartisan and infrastructure law gave us the authority to finance projects at airports, which is actually very popular.

(34:14):
We’re talking to a couple of airports. We haven’t closed the deal yet. We all know it takes some time, but we do have a couple of those projects now in the pipeline that are moving forward and we might be able to close an airport loan within the next couple of months. So all of that has made our pipeline very diverse and we see the diversity not only in terms of asset classes, but also in terms of geography. We have states that have closed their first loan with us. Oklahoma is a good example that they closed their first loan, I believe it was in 2021, but since then they have closed four more loans. We also have local governments that before they were not approaching us because they didn’t really have that much capacity to think about innovative financing. But we do see a lot of cities now such as Austin, Kansas City, that they have actually signed emerging project agreements with ’em.

(35:08):
We are helping them with providing technical assistance in early stages so that they can build capacity and work with us. There are other cities who are innovative finance and regional infrastructure accelerator grants that are trying to build that capacity such as City of Tampa or for Lauderdale. So as a result of all of that, we see that diversity happening within the bureau in terms of geography, asset classes, type of borrowers, and that makes us very excited because we are working with various projects in different parts of the country, from highway to bridges to tunnels to airport and rail, all the way to even some public infrastructure projects such as putting decks on top of highways or building civic centers or libraries or courthouses that are adjacent to transit stations.

Caitlin Devitt (36:04):
Super interesting work. So the bureau, some people used to sort of see it as kind of more as a straightforward lending program within the DOT, but it really seems like it’s changed a lot, and part of that is because of some of the new programs under the bipartisan infrastructure law. So why don’t you tell us a little bit about how the Bureau has changed and what else you guys are doing now and what other focuses and programs you have?

Morteza Farajian (36:27):
One of the most exciting parts of my job over the last couple of years has been building that capacity within Bureau RO to provide technical assistance and be able to build capacity for a lot of these public project sponsors to think outside the box, think about innovative solutions, think about financing their projects rather than funding them the old fashion way, thinking about bundling projects, whether it’s different phases of the same project or bundling different bridges under one contract or bundling different types of projects like the Mount Vernon project that we just talked about it earlier, the TOD project. To do that, we have created a new office that is called Office of Technical Assistance. This office has multiple tools in the toolbox that is providing to project sponsors. We talked about some of those grant programs such as Innovative Finance and Asset Concession. Another one is regional infrastructure accelerator program that we have gone through three rounds, and so far I believe we have created 24 of those accelerators.

(37:40):
I can give you a couple of examples. City of Tampa, for example, received funding from us. Mayor has created new office within her administration to hire internal staff, internal and external consultants to think about how they can finance some of their projects in downtown area, especially transit oriented development projects. City of Tampa is doing a similar thing. There are other localities counties in Chicago. We have created one, we have given money to sound transit to create a regional infrastructure accelerator that’s going to be focused on some of those transit oriented development projects. There are a lot of examples that we can mention, but we also have thriving communities that helps a lot of these communities that don’t have access to consultants or have access to what we call capacity builders, but they’re on the contract with us. We pay them, but they work for the communities and we have another one for rural and tribal communities.

(38:36):
But even beyond those grant programs, we can provide direct technical assistance, and this is where we have seen a lot of activity going on over the last couple of months. We go sit down with some of the cities. For example, we had workshop, all day workshop in city of Jacksonville, Florida to help them to revitalize an old train station that for many, many decades now has not seen a train to be reopened and all the areas around it to be redeveloped. That’s one example. They have had similar workshops in Kansas City, in Austin, in Chicago, and we have many more that are coming up in summer and fall of this year. Those workshops are really interesting because the direct assistance we provide is in the form of bringing various stakeholders to the room that otherwise they would not be able to get together and talk about how we can get outside of sometimes a cycle of going between various stakeholders and not moving the project forward to break that cycle, reach an agreement, bring the stakeholders on the same page so that they can move forward and get some of these projects to the finish line.

(39:57):
Well, that’s a fundamental work that is happening. Now. Those projects will, they still need a couple of years before they will approach us hopefully to maybe finance their projects, but that’s another mission that Bureau has. So we are not just the lending arm for DOT, but we are trying to accelerate delivery of some of these projects in a more innovative way, in a more efficient way and a more cost effective way.

Caitlin Devitt (40:27):
Cool. Well, lots of good work and thanks for all the great insights we look forward to. It sounds like there’s a couple of benchmarks coming up and we look forward to seeing a lot of these projects take flight. So thank you so much for your time, Zo, we appreciate it.

Morteza Farajian (40:41):
Thank you very much, Caitlin.

Michael Scarchilli (40:43):
We hope you enjoyed this episode. A big thank you to Morteza for joining us and to Caitlin Devin for conducting the interview. Let’s review some key takeaways from this conversation. One, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act has significantly bolstered P threes Morteza highlighted various projects in the pipeline, such as managed lanes and transit oriented developments showcasing how federal support is catalyzing infrastructure innovation across states. Two, the bureau’s. New programs like the Innovative Finance and Asset Concession Grant are enabling municipalities to better utilize their assets. This initiative helps local governments explore underutilized properties, potentially turning them into valuable revenue sources or critical infrastructure projects. And three, beyond just lending the Build America Bureau is focused on providing technical and building capacity for local governments through workshops and direct support. They’re helping cities like Jacksonville, Kansas City, and Austin to think creatively and efficiently about financing and delivering their infrastructure projects. Thanks again for listening to this Bomb Buyer podcast. This episode was produced by the Bomb Buyer. If you enjoyed this episode, please hit like and subscribe on your favorite podcast player and please rate us, review us and subscribe to our content at www.bombbuyer.com/subscribe. Until next time, I’m Mike Scarelli signing off.