Welp 36 is down and out

[00tec]

I'm reading conflicting info on this but seem to recall Hick being really resistant to sharing the details of this deal.

CDOT may have to reimburse tolls during emergency closure of US 36

https://www.9news.com/article/news/l...6-22fbe26ae3df




Katz INAL AFAIK. The initial closure might be LE mandated (safety) but not the days/weeks/months of rebuilding. This could all be left up to the lawyers (settlement) and I have no idea the scale of this (thousand, millions, ???).

For the state to privatize any portion of a roadway and accept any liability when tolls can't be collected is short bus stupid. Who else gets this kind of deal?

I also read that CDOT is footing the bill for the repair.

[Irving]

For the state to privatize any portion of a roadway and accept any liability when tolls can't be collected is short bus stupid. Who else gets this kind of deal?

That doesn't seem that uncommon for contracts. I'd don't think any of my contracts have that kind of wording, but they might. I'd have to check.

[Skip]

That doesn't seem that uncommon for contracts. I'd don't think any of my contracts have that kind of wording, but they might. I'd have to check.

I'm saying privatized.

If the road was not privatized, then this would be fine. If I'm a state vendor and you prevent me from doing my job, I'm still getting paid. But if I have a stake in the thing generating the revenue, then I need to make sure I get paid.

[Irving]

I'm saying privatized.

If the road was not privatized, then this would be fine. If I'm a state vendor and you prevent me from doing my job, I'm still getting paid. But if I have a stake in the thing generating the revenue, then I need to make sure I get paid.

I don't understand were you're going. Of course privatized. If you invest in something, your investment partners need to have the responsibility of keeping your investment up and running. I'm looking at this through a pretty narrow focus of what I do, but I can see the parallels. I wish I had more experience with larger privatization projects in which to discuss this, but it doesn't seem unusual to me.

[Skip]

I don't understand were you're going. Of course privatized. If you invest in something, your investment partners need to have the responsibility of keeping your investment up and running. I'm looking at this through a pretty narrow focus of what I do, but I can see the parallels. I wish I had more experience with larger privatization projects in which to discuss this, but it doesn't seem unusual to me.

I'll restate...

The company is also responsible for maintenance and rehabilitation of the roadway, under that contract.

Why should the state have any liability for lost toll revenue to the private company?

If the state took an action that caused lost revenue, I get it.
If the roadway maintenance is the responsibility of the state, I get it. (still a shitty deal for taxpayers, but I get it)

The taxpayer is assuming the liability of lost revenue for an asset that is the responsibility of the company.

[Irving]

Okay, I'm on board. I'm in agreement that I don't understand where the state is liable here, especially since the private company was involved in the construction to boot.

[TFOGGER]

It's called corruption. Private company gets a sweet deal for 50 years, the terms of which are effectively secret, to collect tolls on a road that was built by a "public-private partnership". They are nominally responsible for maintenance, but when something goes wrong, those unpublished contract provisions kick in to ensure they get their money, regardless of their responsibility to rectify the fault. Essentially, they deny responsibility for the repair, as it's not "maintenance", and continue to profit at the taxpayer's expense. Not to mention, the Boulder Turnpike was already paid for once by tolls, and the tollbooths removed, one of very few cases where that actually happened.

[Irving]

Not to mention, the Boulder Turnpike was already paid for once by tolls, and the tollbooths removed, one of very few cases where that actually happened.

The ONLY case where that has ever happened in the US, from what I was told.

[Skip]

Okay, I'm on board. I'm in agreement that I don't understand where the state is liable here, especially since the private company was involved in the construction to boot.

It makes no sense. It's like the company needed to be guaranteed revenue no matter what, even for factors under their control.

It's called corruption. Private company gets a sweet deal for 50 years, the terms of which are effectively secret, to collect tolls on a road that was built by a "public-private partnership". They are nominally responsible for maintenance, but when something goes wrong, those unpublished contract provisions kick in to ensure they get their money, regardless of their responsibility to rectify the fault. Essentially, they deny responsibility for the repair, as it's not "maintenance", and continue to profit at the taxpayer's expense. Not to mention, the Boulder Turnpike was already paid for once by tolls, and the tollbooths removed, one of very few cases where that actually happened.

I'm starting to get more interested in who Plenary Group is. They have a "Plenary Roads Denver" and a website...

https://plenaryroadsdenver.com/

Only contacts are a service center and PR guy. No office in Denver.

SoS has two entities in good standing. Both filed through a local attorney in Denver with principal office listed in LA (CA). So they appear to have no business presence in CO but didn't opt to file as a foreign entity.

The Group website has their management team/leadership...

https://plenarygroup.com/

With a page on 36...

https://plenarygroup.com/projects/no...-express-lanes

The operating and maintenance contract is for 50 years which commenced following construction completion in early 2016. The partnership between Plenary Group and CDOT will see the delivery of an efficient, well-maintained multimodal transportation corridor 20 years sooner than originally planned.

It sounds like they come in with capital to displace the mismanaged state funds to complete the project and are then given a stake in the revenue. All of which should be infuriating to taxpayers who aren't relieved of any financial burden and apparently have to guarantee the company's RoI.

Not surprising Hick didn't want to talk about this. And I wonder about the ties to Sr. leadership.

[Gman]

Just imagine what a dysfunctional and corrupt government would do...and you're probably closer to reality than you know.