A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | June 10, 2014 | Committee Room | Tansportation

Full MP3 Audio File

The House appropriations subcommittee on transportation to order. I’d like to acknowledge our sergeant at arms, Mr. Marvin Lee, Mr. Billy Jones, and Miss Martha Parrish. And also our pages who are with us today are Taylor Nolan from Wake County with Representative Stam, Rakeas Raspberry from Lenore County with Representative Graham, Tate Letrosy from Wake County with Grier Martin. Good to have you all. I’d like everyone to turn your cell phones off, and be prepared for an informative meeting this morning. First of all, we’re going to have our staff come and present the rules and the procedures for the meeting today. Then they’ll also do a presentation of the House transportation budget. Amna Cameron as well as Bryce Ball. What I’d like for you to do, and I’ll go ahead and mention that, we’ll do the presentations now, and if you have any amendments that you’d like to run what we’d like to do is bring those back after lunch. We’re going to break for lunch sometime this morning and then after lunch bring those amendments back, that you would like to run. If you have an amendment. If you don’t have any amendments, that would be fine with us. But that’s the procedures that we want to use. Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You mean immediately after lunch, before? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Have your amendments ready after lunch, when we come back after we have our discussion this morning on the budget. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Meaning like 1? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, what we’ll do is if we, say for instance if we go to lunch at 11:30, we’ll return at 12:30. And immediately at that time. Is that a fine time for you all? 11:30? A lot of nods. Thank you. At this time I’d like to acknowledge Amna Cameron from the staff. Also I want to thank the staff for all the work they’ve put into this. They’ve worked real hard and that without them we could not have made this possible. Thank you, staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again Amna Cameron, fiscal research division. I’m going to go over the rules for the amendment process. These are very typical of what is normally covered. The first is you have to use a formal amendment. Luke is here and he will be drafting the amendment requests. And number 2 is you cannot increase total spending. 3 is you cannot have amendments that affect another subcommittee and we will point those out as we go through. And number 4 is the salary and benefit items are in here. Those are off limits for amendments. You cannot spend reversions. You can’t change recurring and non-recurring designations. You cannot change substantive policy or law. Number 9 is you cannot fund items with management flexibility reserves. Number 10, you cannot affect agency or program transfers to other subcommittees. And number 11 is you have to wait until finance to amend finance and feed provisions. So we will start [SPEAKER CHANGES]?? [LAUGHTER] [SPEAKER CHANGES] It actually affects very few items. We will start with the money report on K1. Item 1. The Senate had increases for the highway use tax and they repealed the refund for taxi cabs. The House makes no changes to the highway use tax rates. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Item 1 on this sheet? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The money report, yes. K1. So this includes the refund for taxi cabs on item 1. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Item 2, you will find the monetary amount reallocated from the unaligned and unexpended balance of funds within the intermodal divisions to be the same as that proposed in the Senate budget. That’s a reallocation of 12 million. The difference with this item is that the funds are not specifically designated to the pavement preservation account. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Item 3 mirrors the Senate budget. This holds harmless the dredging funds that were not received last year but were intended to be received. Item 4 is a new item, compared to the Senate budget. The governor’s office recommended that the transfer to us from the gasoline inspection

?? be restored. This funds now - these monies - go to structurally deficient bridges, so this money would be moving to ??. And this item is off the table for amendment until you reach the floor. We were on number 4 the ??. So now we are moving on to Item 5. So, Item 4, no amendments will be allowed. Item 5 and Item 6, these mirror the Governor’s and Senate budgets. It’s 2% cuts to several divisions – one is administration fund codes, and second are Division of Highways administration fund codes. Number 7 mirrors the Senate budget and this realigns the Financial Management Division to actual spending. Item 8 is a modified – the Senate budget took 3 filled positions and 2 vacant. Essentially, the House budget takes 1 filled position and makes changes to 10 for the other positions. Number 9 mirrors the Governor and Senate budget. This is a 2% cut to OSHA. And number 10, the Senate took 21 vacant administrative positions. The House budget takes 27 positions and it’s the Department’s choice whether these are vacant or filled. Next is a statutory adjustment for the State aid to municipalities, again mirroring the Governor and Senate budget. The Senate eliminated the economic development program fund and so you see in the money, that this eliminates what was supposed to be the non-recurring amount this year and moves to 8 million as a recurring amount. I will also go back to 10 and make sure that you see, the 270 vacant receipt-supported positions are being eliminated. And that’s the same amount in the Senate budget. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Resuming on page K4 with Item # 13. This item is modified from the Governor’s proposed 2% reduction but mirrors the Senate-proposed realignment of funding for point of sale credit debit transaction costs both for driver services and for vehicle services. Item #14 also mirrors the Senate budget. This is proposed budgeting of anticipated net receipts associated with the JLTOC recommendation for the conversion of paper titles to electronic titles. Item 15 mirrors both the Governor’s proposals and the Senate proposal, budgeting additional funds for license and identification card production. And Items 16 and 17 at the bottom of the page, mirror both the Governor and Senate proposals relating to the Medical Review Unit and Ignition Interlock Program providing additional funds to reduce backlogs in both areas. Flipping the page, on page K5, Items 18 and 19 were not funded in the Senate proposal. These are the remaining items associated with the Governor's proposed expansions before the DMV reform initiative. The House proposes to fund both the call center positions, as well as the drivers’ license examiner facilitator positions. Item #20 related to the Governor’s Highway Safety Program, the Governor-proposed 2% reduction mirrors the Senate proposal as well. And Item #21 under DOT Information Technology, mirrors the Senate proposal to provide addition funding for the development for the capability for online license renewal. At the bottom of the page, on page K5, Item #22 related to the Intermodal Divisions, this item provides 6.2 million recurring to a new system-wide capital reserve for the replacement of ferry vessels as well as other system-wide capital improvements. You will see in a later provision, that a provision repeals the Tolling Director from last session as well as the port’s authority to impose tolls, which would also remove tolling from the 3 currently tolled routes in the State.

Moving on to page K6, maintenance. The first 2 items reflect the governor's budget and the Senate budget. These are cuts to the primary system and the secondary system. Item 25, the governor recommended 5.5 million as an increase to contract ?? and the House proposes to increase funding by 11.5 million. Next is the pavement preservation fund. This is, again, a new fund that the Senate proposed. And that is funded at 50.2 million. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Resuming of page K6 with item number 27. I should note that these are salary and benefits items which are matters for full appropriation and not matters for subcommittee. But I will briefly discuss the differences between the Senate proposals and the House proposals with items 27 and 28. 27 the House is proposing a $1000 annual recurring salary increase with additional benefits increases above that. The Senate proposal provided approximately $809 in a recurring salary increase. Item number 28 the Senate had proposed a .8% increase for cost of living adjustment for retirees. The House is proposing a 1.44% cost of living adjustment. And items 29 through 31 on the next page are identical to the Senate proposal. The last item in the highway fund relates to the public instruction drivers education transfer. This mirrors the governor's proposal which is an adjustment, typically an annual adjustment, to average daily membership, and reflects the monetary revisions based on that new projection. It is different from the Senate proposal which had proposed to shift the funding to non-recurrence. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Moving on to the highway trust fund, the refund for taxi cabs is deposited in both the highway fund and the highway trust fund. So you see that in item 33, item 34 mirrors the Senate budget. This realigns funding for administration to actual spending levels and 35 is the amount deposited into the STI 40/30/30 split. Lastly, again mirroring the governor and Senate budget, this is a 2% cut to be ?? administration. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At this time we'll take questions if anyone has any questions on any of the money items here, or any discussion? Representative Isler. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Clarification, I guess, ?? can address this. On 35, the last item, on the $68 million. That is currently approved projects because our ?? will not kick in until 15 16. This is addition to STI projects that are already [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could add some new ones too. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Correct. This will add projects to the list when the draft TI are released in December. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was going to ask about that number as well. So you're increasing, not decreasing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct. It will add projects. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. And so we know where we're adding the projects. Is that mentioned in the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is. And I will grab it off my computer and answer your question a little later in the meeting. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, Representative Donald. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? another question. Make sure I understand and this will come up in conversation outside of here. The difference between contract resurfacing and pavement preservation. What is ?? the other or are they different. [SPEAKER CHANGES] They are different. Pavement preservation is a treatment used to preserve the surface life prior to doing

a full resurfacing often it can just be the length of pavement a pavement preservation as a thinner full surface treatment whereas contract resurfacing is at lest a two inch layer of new pavement. It's much more long term than a preservation technique. Neither. SPEAKER CHANGES Moving on to the provision packet we will start with page 212. Item 34.1 is a technical amendment that clarifies the state aid municipalities amount to be appropriated and this mirrors the senate version. Item 34.2 is also a senate provision this simply allows core members to receive a report when a private developers give money to a local government who then give it to DOT for a project. 34.3 is a JLTOC recommendation to repeal a report on right turns on red. Item 34.4 also a senate provision this has been modified at the department's request, and this says that the ??, the annual report will become a fiscal year report so that right it's a calendar year report and that the annual audit will be submitted with it which it already is but you will receive it earlier and no later than October 31st. Item 34.5 also mirrors the senate and this is to constraint DUT's travel out of state. Item 34.6 ?? explain section (a) and last year's budget there was a provision to extend the highway use tax to include the fees charged by dealers the tax bill that both chambers have passed and the governor signed into law modified this section so that this provision becomes effective in October so this simply has some clarifying language to make sure that that provision does not become effective until October. And lastly you see section (b)is the repeal for the motor fuel taxes. Again you can amend this in financial over the floor. SPEAKER CHANGES Section 34.7 on page 214 is another financial related provision but reflects a JLTOC recommendations and mirrors the senate proposal this provision allows the conversion of an existing paper title to an electronic for a fee for $3, not to exceed $3, excuse me, as well as sub-section b provides for compensation for licensed related agents if these transactions are performed by those agents. Section 34.8 is modified from the senate proposal but conforms to the governor's language authorizing remote drivers' license renewal but for a term o four years and there are not age restrictions associated with this capability. Flipping to page 215, section 34.10, this language is identical to the senate proposal and is modified from the governor's proposal the provision directs the the department of the division of aviation specifically to sell both the ?? helicopters and the Cessna citation ?? jet and to put to those proceeds into a reserve for the future acquisition of aircraft modernization of the division of aviation fleet. And sub-section b requires a report and for sub-section c the report is to be delivered October 1st 2014. SPEAKER CHANGES Moving on to page 214, section 34.11 this is

It would have been news, it would have been modified senate provision. And we will start with the first section. Right now, you have an S.T.I.P., that you’re all familiar with, to plan for construction projects. What this provision does, is it establishes a type of T.I.P. but for maintenance activities. So you see in section 4A, this requires this new maintenance T.I.P., and requires that the board approve it. For an S.T.I.P. you have now a five year program, at least the next one will be five years, and it’s amended every two years. This highway maintenance improvement program will be a three year study. Much like the T.I.P., it’s limited to existing revenues, and it will be amended annually. The highway maintenance improvement program will include any type of full service treatment. So it will include any type of pavement preservation, as is defined in this provision and resurfacing projects. Moving on to the definitions for the highway maintenance improvement program, it’s simply our definitions. The one I will point out is number 4. And what the highway maintenance improvement program doesn’t do, is it doesn’t tell you how much more is out there that is rated to need resurfacing but for which funds do not exist. And so in April of next year you will begin receiving how many laying miles are rated to need resurfacing or some type of preservation treatment for which there are no funds available. If you decide to take up revenue reform, this will be a very good indicator of the amount of funds necessary to fully fund maintenance needs. Moving down to section B. The chairs are concerned about the quality of the ride quality that you receive on some largely secondary roads. And so there are several sections in here that seek to improve that quality of ride. One important section is that the bottom of this section B and it states that the department can only use what’s called a ?? a micro servicing treatment, tripled chip sil or what is a essentially a chip sil topped by a ??, a cape sil for asphalt treatment. In C you actually have the definition for what this highway improvement program is. I went over most of those details with you already. Moving on to section D, actually if you could move forward to the section E. And I will cover that before moving backward. These two sections mirror each other, but section E applies to this coming fiscal year and the prior version E is what will be codified beginning in fiscal year ’15-’16. So the next year, what this says is that DOT has to get the money on the road much sooner. Right now, with your contract resurfacing funds, the great majority of those funds are going out the door either last month or this month. And what this requires for next year is that 60 percent of the fund have to be let by September 1. So in two months. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister chairman, will you wave me in for ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And then it says 70 percent of those funds have to be released by October 1. [SPEAKER CHANGES] September 1. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The 70 percent by, I’ve covered that so now I’m at the… [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So that is what happens this year.

Move back to the statutory amount which will ?? future fiscal years that amount is seventy percent permanently within two months. And again that is that those contracts have to be wet that total that amount. So moving back to section E and what is ??. This says where you can and cannot use single chip seal treatment. Some people refer to this as tarring gravel roads and essentially says one that you cannot use it on the primary system. Chip seals are normally used only on secondary low volume roads and so while you can have it on primary systems it is not the norm on sub-division streets and on access routes that have heavy truck use. Lastly, section F are the authorized uses for when you can use a single chip seal. Item one states the number of vehicles per day and that is set at a hundred vehicles per day, item two states that chip seals used in combination with slurry or micro surfacing treatment, number three is when you actually need that rough surface to provide traction. Now this is common in mountain communities or where you want, especially in bad weather where you want that traction. Section G is a report. Section 31.11 C; this is a technical change. It simply renames an existing statute to better identify it and it takes off some language on the next page that is collapsed into an earlier section. Moving on, this deals with your existing contracts with servicing budget and it simply says that contract re-servicing can include slurry seal in micro servicing treatments as an eligible expense. We have covered that section E. So we move on and this section has some similarities to the Senate’s proposal. Section A establishes it; section B includes the eligible activities. The only change here from the Senate is item number ten and the words and the ?? at the end have been added. Section C mirrors the ineligible activities that I covered with you last week. Section G establishes this new account. Section H sets those targets for, for having the industry perform this work. Right now, North Carolina has a limited industry that does these types of four service pavement preservation techniques. And so it simply gives the industry time to get in this business and start taking over these activities. So you can see essentially in four years the House plans on that eighty percent of this work will be out sourced and fifteen percent at the end of the upcoming fiscal year. Lastly moving onto J, you have a threshold for the amount of mileage to be treated from this account, it’s thirty three hundred miles. Then you have a report. So I will move on to the next provision and that is 34.13. This is similar to the Senate’s version. It has slightly different targets. Again, the department did not meet the requirements put in place for some of the pre-construction targets to outsource on number one that this amount is now seventy percent compared to the

the Senate 68%. Item 2 is 60% compared to the Senate's 50% and the rest mirrors the Senate provision. I will note that section B allows the department to riff employees to meet these targets. Item 34.14 mirrors the Senate provision. This simply says to the DOT board a study, the fees for logo signs, the gas or hotel or food signs that you see before you exit on the interstate or the tourist oriented signs, to revisit those and see if you could raise those to recoup the cost to administer the program. And the second section of that last section says to work with the Department of Agriculture to study agricultural tourism signs. The next provision also mirrors the Senate and this tells the department to study improving signs for the mountain-to-seas trail and for historic and cultural signs. Next is DOT staffing and this is a study of staffing levels. Obviously if you are shifting significant workload int he maintenance categories to be outsourced in future years this study directs DOT to examine their amount of staff and come forward with recommendations on how to staff their department given this future outsourcing requirement. Next, again mirroring the Senate, 34.17 is a study of fees, new fees for work performed by the highway divisions existing fees and lastly it looks at privatization and sponsorship opportunities. Section 34.18 renames the funds that you set aside for structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges and names that Bridge Program. It also includes culverts[?] as an eligible activity. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Daniel. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Resuming with section 34.19 on page 223, this language represents a slight modification from the Senate proposal. The provision actually defines what currently constitutes the unreserved credit balance in subdivisions 1 and 3 of the provision in subsection a. In subsection 2, in addition to what currently constitutes the credit reserve, the unwanted and unencumbered balances on the last day of the fiscal year from the intermodal programs with the exception of the ferry division and from the small construction programs within the Highway Fund would then be credited to the Credit Reserve which would eventually flow to the Reserve for General Maintenance. I should note that the removal of the ferry division from subdivision 2 corresponds with some later language relating to ferry tolling. The balance would be credited to the reserve for system-wide capital improvements instead. And then there's an addition with subdivision 4. It's an administrative cleanup provision. The remaining balance for any open project that has been inactive for two or more years since construction has been completed would be swept and go to the credit reserve balance as well as project that is not obligated during the first two fiscal years in which the funds are appropriated for that project. In subsection B this provision follows the money. On the next page, page 224, section 34.20, again a slight modification from the Senate proposal. This language provides additional flexibility to the Department of Administration in terms of the disposal of these three parcels conforming to chapter 146, which are the normal procedures for DOA. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Moving on to 34.21. This lists the changes to the

...biennial maintenance condition assessment report, again mirroring the Senate provision. [SPEAKER CHANGES] On page 225, section 3422 is different from the Senate prohibition of using Highway Trust Fund money to support the DMV positions currently funded with the Highway Trust Fund receipts. This authorizes for the next fiscal year continuance of that use of funds. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Moving on to the DOT cash management, this again is a mirror provision of the Senate. It has a new statuatory definition for the floor, which mirrors the amount of money that the current way DOT calculates the floor is. It doesn't change that amount. It creates a target range to maintain the balance in, and it gives the Department a year to lower that cash balance under a billion dollars, or it requires a monthly report each time the cash management is above $1 billion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3424, at the bottom of page 226 and continuing on to the next page 227, is identical to the Senate proposal. This provision authorizes DOT to hire outside counsel for additional legal services. Subsection B sets targets for that outsourcing of legal counsel to not less than 10 percent of new cases during the next fiscal year, increasing to 20 percent in the following fiscal year. As well, requires the Department to develop performance measures to begin reporting on its use of in-house versus external counsel. On page 227, the bottom of the page, section 3426, you see in subsection A, this provision repeals the prior tolling directive from last session. It also removes the authority of the Board of Transportation to impose tolls. Subsection F brought in the authority to generate other receipts on the ferry system. Then flipping to the next page, on page 229, if you look at lines 3 through 13, this language establishes the new $6.2 million reserve account in the Highway Fund for varied capital improvements. This is a system-wide account. It would consist of the net receipts generated on the system, as well as the unalloted and unencumbered balances on the ?? fiscal year for Ferry Division operations and maintenance, as well as any other appropriations by the General Assembly or contributions and grants from private sources. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 34.27 allows DOT to have the discretion to transfer a concrete arch bridge, of which there are 29 in the state, to a non-profit or public or private entity. As long as that entity bonds the full amount necessary to maintain this bridge in the future and pay for the costs incurred by DOT by restoring a new bridge in a different location. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3428 at the bottom of page 229 authorizes a new optional standard registration plate background, and that is to be a First in Freedom plate. You see on the next page, on page 230, what the plate is to include. It should have the words First in Freedom printed at the top of the plate above all other letters and numerals. The background First in Freedom may include an image chosen by the Division representing the Mecklenberg Declaration of 1775. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Moving on to section 24.29, the Senate eliminated this fund because the account was rarely used. It was only used for two projects, and expended a little over a quarter of the funds this year. This requires DOT...

In the department of commerce to develop inhouse programs to so that they might identify companies that might use this money. It requires monthly meetings by both organizations and quarterly meetings jointly to select projects to receive these funds. And it requires a report on, beginning October of this year. On the process that is implemented both at commerce and DOT to make sure that projects are identified and grayed for quarterly reports on those that are chosen. [Speaker changes] section thirty four 30 is contingent language that house bill 10-99 or other similar legislation become law that this authorizes the division of aviation to use funds that created by the act to administer the requirements of that bill. Section 34 31 pertain to the use of funds that are used in operating subsidies for global transport authority of the 1 million of funds transferred 250 thousand is to be used exclusively for on site project costs. [Speaker changes] The title is on the bottom of page 231, but if you flip over you see a new study committee, house only, on to look at the implantation of the STI law. Lastly is, the last provision that follows money item 4, that establishes this transfer, again that cannot be amended until the floor. Last is the ?? underground storage program and this goes to the non commercial fund. [Speaker changes] and then the final provision in the packet is the JLTOC recommendation it was not included in the senate proposal however, this conforms to the current contract for license production. Changing the materials that are specified to be used for the licenses for our ??. [Speaker changes] Thank you staff, this time I would like to open the floor to any questions or concerns. [Speaker changes] Page 217, line 7 to 11. [Speaker changes] Provisions, we’re talking about provisions right [Speaker changes] Yea. In baseball if you’re on second base and you ?? ?? by rule you have to touch the bat. Problem is if you don’t do that, there’s no penalty. Make a point and never go back and touch second base. What happens on line 11 is the dot for some reason, I’m sure for a good reason, doesn’t get it done by September 1, what’s the ?? oops we’re sorry. What’s the penalty, what’s the, what forces them to follow. [Speaker changes] There is no penalty in this other than that as you can see with the pre condition, additional requirement are placed in future years when they do not meet a legislative directive. [Speaker changes] Rep. Val? [Speaker changes] Is this appropriation ??? [Speaker changes] The senate budget actually funded this request out of general fund dollars but it did not restore this transfer that use to exist from the gasoline inspection tax and it is in the money report on item 4, it is 3 point something million dollars. If you look at the money report the amount is there. In item 4. It was in the senate budget.

[0:00:00.0] …funded out with the general fund not transportation and it’s 3.45 million. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up so this is ___[00:10] general fund. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. So, the presentation is not__ [Inaudible] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And the Governor’s budget work amendment the restoration of the transportation funds. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was consistently going with this, follow up or any questions, Representative ___[00:35]? [SPEAKER CHANGES] 231, 232, 231 the following into 232 from my own ___[00:52] and you are explain to me ___ versus the different conversations that I wanna I just try to understand what we actually tend to do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, from that prospective the intent for this is not to question STI that is to give us a better grasp and how things are moving and for instance on the district level when we have the concerns about where we are in work projects so and so and so forth then we will get some sort of feedback and know how they are arriving in these decisions that kind of things is not to take away from the bill or anything to do with the bill and just to have a better understanding daily process and how things are moving and while some projects here are that’s all, just some feedback. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman can I have… [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I will move to Representative ___[01:43]. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I just might ____[01:50] without the full complement of General Assembly being present there is no way that you can change the law, some people may think this is an attempt to change the law, it is not. I have had not less than 30 members come to me and asked me specific STI questions on, how do they this? How did they do that? And I can’t answer because I don’t know but I think it’s a common point all of us have a little bit of that working knowledge on how did they get from, where they started to where they are going and what was the process? And this committee would do just that, they are bringing the DOT and they could use whatever they want to give us a full understanding of how they arrive and what they arrive and that’s the jest of this committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, is it fair to say we are not ___[02:43], this is an effort solely to draw the map not the side work coastline should be. So, what we are trying to figure out what they are doing? Why they did it? How they did it? Not feel them going to be. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This lot of attempted all from my prospective to change the law as it is, it’s just to have some oversight and how we are going there, this is the fastest process and this is a new program. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ___[03:10] as you know we have the fiduciary responsibility of the people that sent us here. The Department of Transportation does not have that same fiduciary responsibility I think it’s come upon us to have a mass as much knowledge about a tremendous change in transportation so that we can go back and reassembly respond to questions from either constituency, municipals or county governing agencies that are currently asking those questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ___[03:46]. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman the question, that you could only think that the impacts ___[03:51] our division engineers for the smaller projects that comes in and in some cases there might a hardware or smaller perception ___ that’s for the large amount of money that passes ___ is going and have some ___, have we taken that some discretionary money? [SPEAKER CHANGES] In our package we still have the discretionary money for the division and board members it’s 500,000 per district and there are also some discretionary money that we have there for, for instance for the maintenance funds in the districts and divisions… [SPEAKER CHANGES] It was in the Senate budget proposal or we are gonna bring that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We wanna bring it with the Senate as far as the discretionary money from division movements. Now, if you talk about something little further like you should from that prospective and you are talking about the maintenance and things on the division level. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The other way to fund guard rails is simply through the maintenance accounts and these are discretionary to the house… [0:04:59.8] [End of file…]

...They you have your primary and your secondary system and DMT and that is all the general release states. The Department of Transportation budgets those funds in certain categories but the division engineer can shift those funds around if necessary for guardrails, or potholes. In comparison to the current year budget, when you combine the primary and secondary and the general maintenance account finds that flow back to the primary and secondary account, it's $35 million less than this current year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, that's $35 million statewide impact? Do we know what the bits of fourteen divisions I guess that's moreover $2 million divisions. Is that appropriations or is that (??) [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's up to the department and generally primary and secondary are divided by formulas based largely on land miles and population statistics. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I've heard some concerns from level MPO that while we don't want too much discretion and too much opportunity for to make use of the term sludge funds or whatever. That's not a positive thing but on the same token it's very positive for the local engineers to be able to fix smaller matters without having to go through some of the more laborious (?) processes. {??) [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I can respond, thank you of course Representative Ramsey. I'll try to just try to encapsulate everything. What this budget attempts to do, and it's a good outcome, is that we're making every attempt to raise the bar on the quality of services and roads throughout North Carolina for the citizens that send us here. In essence that's what it does. You may discuss this same outcome with one division engineer that has a position of "x" another division somewhere may have the position of "y." So what we collectively try to do is say, what can we do to tangibly and noticeably affect roads throughout North Carolina by simply...let's raise the bar just a click so we can let the citizens reap the rewards. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] (??) Can't let these meetings go about without asking the fair questions. Two part question. One is, is any fault (??). Is any fault given to the two hour trip tokens which are quite expensive? To a least having some fee so people would have in some degree that long two hour ferry ride. Was that part of the economic plan to, I guess this is question two. The idea that all these economic activity to replace revenue in the bigger picture in time somewhat, as well as possible taxes from tourism. Is that effecting in anyway how long? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, and also there would be a marketing move to encourage people to come in and to ride the ferries and so on and so forth. I'm going to also move to Representative Torbett because this is something he's worked real hard on. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Valor(?) As you know we've looked at this for several years now and a couple of just blatant outcomes. One is why do we want to impose a hardship on just a certain area of citizens in North Carolina by impacting tow? We use the Island of Ocracoke as an example. There is absolutely no option, excuse me can somebody get the door right there? Close it. The folks on Ocracoke have no alternative other than swimming than to take the ferry and my guess is they can't swim as someone said earlier, with their car on their back at the same time, so they are limited. One of the arguments is that when they ride the ferry they don't contribute to the fuel tax. So if you talk about that route for example let's say it's twenty miles. And let's say your car averages twenty miles per gallon.

[SPEAKER CHANGES]: . . . if you want an equity to someone that rides on the roads, then shouldn't that toll be 37.5 cents, not a hundred dollars a year, two hundred dollars a year, or twenty bucks a ride. So there's not equity there. So in looking back at it, why not just once and for all actively pursue that as part of the road system of North Carolina? Once and for all and be done with it. At some point in time, not in my lifetime, but at some point in time perhaps our grand-kids will be up here and will be able to bridge some of those current routes just as we have in the past. But until then, just absorb it into the road system and that should increase ridership. It wouldn't take 6 million dollars out of the local economy and simply transfer it to Raleigh. But it would leave that in the local economy and build upon that. I’ve had some folks say that by doing that, you could actually market that and see a spike in sales tax revenue for the state, simply by not having that toll and increasing ridership and some of the other projects that we address in the bill last year. I think it's a positive outcome. It's not penalizing one section of North Carolina any more than any other section. If at any time in our history, of recent history, the state needs to be working collaboratively together to improve us??. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I totally we agree, it's just that those two hour road trips appear to be a different animal than the short little road trips, and I was wondering if that was considered an idea . . . [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Absolutely. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: OK, Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Any other questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: If we don't have any further questions, I'd like to open up, that we can do this before lunch. If anyone has any amendments that you're thinking about running, can I see if anyone is interested in running an amendment? If you are, then we could take those, take a few minutes to do those, that way we will finish early, if that's up to the committee here. Does anyone have any amendments you're thinking about running? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: My only concern ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: We'd expect nothing less, Representative Jeter. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Now you know how my wife feels. I have two items that I would like to discuss with the chair, that I planned to do during lunch. But I don't necessarily want to force us to come back in an hour because I have two harebrained ideas. So, is it possible we could take a ten or fifteen minute break, If no one else has an amendment, I think it's pointless for us to come back at one o’clock and take everybody's time. I've got two thoughts that I'd like to talk to the Chairs about before I bring them up publicly. It may or may not have merit and maybe in ten or fifteen minutes we can come back and finish this thing up by noon and not have to come back. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Well, as Chair I'm fine with that, if the committee is fine with that. Would you all like to take about a fifteen minute break? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: As long as it's outside. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I wanted to make some calls, I have some concerns that my city might have and I haven't had a chance to really process all of this, I did want to ask several questions. I may have an amendment, I don't know, . . . [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Why don't we come back at eleven ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: . . . I may not. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Well, I tell you what, let's do this: Why don't we break for lunch now, and come back at 11:45, is that OK? Is that plenty of time Representative Adams? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: 11:45? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: 11:30, 11:45. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Is that fine with the rest of the committee, if we break for forty-five minutes? That maybe give you time as well? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: One, one quick note: . . . [SPEAKER CHANGES]: . . . convene our meeting of the Transportation Subcommittee on Appropriations. Before we left we asked if anyone would have any amendments. If you do have some amendments at this time you'd like to run, or if you've given them to staff, Mr ?? is ready to receive those, and process those if you have any. No amendments? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Yes ma'am? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I, Sir, I have the question that Representative Adams asked . . . [SPEAKER CHANGES]: OK. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: . . . in terms of, with the additional funds in the STI, do we know what projects there would fall into line? Of course, the regional and division projects are not determined because local input will factor in those. But on a statewide level, the next series of projects are all very high dollar. The first qualifying project would be the Winston-Salem eastern beltway . . .

...this is listed as a toll project and so the locals may not approve that as a toll project. And then it moves down to College Road in Wilmington, and lastly, it will be a portion for I-85 expansion in Gaston county. So those are the three potential projects that could be affected. [Speaker Changes] [??], can I ask you a question? [Speaker Changes] Anyone else? [Speaker Changes] Yes sir, [??]? [Speaker Changes] [??](previous speaker was speaking over) but not surprisingly it violates one of our eleven commandments. So it's not a license plate issue, it's not a material thing to think policy issue would- I would probably [??] ... but I apologize. I found out [??] from the brilliant and [??] ammendment which I [??] on her. [Speaker Changes] Well, we reconvened, but we just noticed we didn't have a [??], we're missing one of the couple that were here earlier. [Speaker Changes] [??](speaking over previous speaker) [Speaker Changes] So... she must have stepped out. [Speaker Changes] ...two, three, four, five, six. We have six. [Speaker Changes] A member of the minority party. Is that right? [Speaker Changes] [??] [Speaker Changes] We've got seven here. [Speaker Changes] One, two, three, four, five, six. [Speaker Changes] [??], South Carolina [??] [Speaker Changes] Counting four man [Speaker Changes] We need one. [Speaker Changes] We need one. [Speaker Changes] We need one. [Speaker Changes] Here he comes. We thought when we started- Representative Arp, we'd like to request you stay here so we have a quorum. But if we don't have any further discussion on any further ammendments, then I move that the House Preparation Sub-Committee on Transportation adopt the Appropriation sub-committee report. So I hear a second to that? [Speaker Changes] (many) Second. [Speaker Changes] Okay. All in favor "Aye"? [Speaker Changes] (many) Aye. [Speaker Changes] Any opposed likewise? [Speaker Changes] All right? [Speaker Changes] I'm sorry, I was clearing my throat. [Speaker Changes] Then the meeting is adjourned. I appreciate your time. [Speaker Changes] Good job Mr. Chairman. [Speaker Changes] Thank you. (recording ends.)