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 23, 2015 | Committee Room | Transportation

Full MP3 Audio File

Ladies and gentlemen welcome to transportation Thank you all for being here today. We do not have pages of yet we will stop whatever we are and acknowledge him when they arrive but we do have sergeant at arms and we have Mr. Joel Aston, your friend of mine Malta Garderson Charles Godwin and Warren Hopkins thank you all for your service today. Without any further do senator Lee, first bill [xx] today is senate bill 174 real quarter at least city of Welmington the honorable senator Lee is here to present and you have the podium sir Thank you Mr Chairman to senate bill 174 although it may look a litle bit more like a local bill it's actually is a public bill and it's because by statute if we are going to to authorize we have to authorize the ability of DOT and see what we intent to and [xx] essentially this is a small the portion of right away that is not being used it is somewhat in bad shape, there are [xx] crime I believe goes on and declare [xx] and all what this bill does is really enables DOT and the city to get together and it actually negotiate atleast to utilize that property for the purposes set down in the bill, the city will hopefully agree and the [xx] probably ask them to make sure that they maintain it and take care of the area. Thank you Senator. We've got questions, Representative Speciale. [xx] motion time. Okay, no question. Representative Jeter I see you hand. Representative Keller. Yes. morning sir  I'll ask you to use your microphone please I've been out in the heat, I apologize. This does allow the parent transportation to use that rail after 10 years if they decide they need to We stole it. Yes sir. Thank you.  Adjust it to a little bit advantage [xx] keep available for future use of flight service. Okay. All the passenger's service for that matter. Representative Adams. Yes thank you Mr. Chairman. What is wrong right away? How are these [xx] and what is [xx] I can ask someone from the city if chairman will allow  absolutely or might have someone in mind yes sir Michael is asking with the [xx] whether you can speak to any particular question that one may have thank you before you come up all the way here way may continue with [xx] microphone in the podium and the sergeant at arm help you first you have to be a minister of the oath, just kidding, we will not tell you to please let us know who you are, who you're with and you have to push that mike button if and had been already put. My name is Mike Zosky and the executive director of the Woman International Fulton Clinical Organization and the writer for in the series is about 100 feet and with Representative Adams follow up? Intended use the intended use is for trial and agreed space Thank you thank you Representative Claygon Thank you Mr. Chairman lets move forward to reactivate some rear light turning down into [xx] to assist one of them Mr. Calasky answer that specific one. The intention for this corto is for our future potential passenger service it's not for a fraid movement. The intention that Representative is speaking of is for reestablishment of gasoline to court order and that's not part of this court order. Follow up Representative Cleveland. Senator you mentioned there was criminal activity in this area, it has not experienced criminal activities in other places, it does not really change if you just making rare road interior[sp?] trail. Yes Sir. What are the plans to get rid of  this criminal activity if you make a trail in there and have your citizens using it. Certain in connection with the rare[sp?] to be either demolishing or depending certain buildings that are adjacent to, that's part of a larger plan, they will also be policing it more because it would be intended for folks to be in this particular area. Essentially this rail road wide of ways is probably out safed from an 100 feet

below grade on either sides, so it's almost in a little riven so to speak in as classify a bridge as well and will increase the activity policing activity down in there because it will be the place for those folks to be going back and fourth on side walks and things like that. Representatie Clivelen I'm going and I'm going to bounce of your question, and Senator [xx] if you don't mind the gentleman from Wellington can I ask him a question? Just kind of of shooting of Rep. Crevlen my assumption here if you are going to turn it to some type of walking space cleaning space or whatever you define it is that space would it be can you verify an assumption have to that would be policed area if activated? Yes it will be policed. The city Wellington's police officers police are current trail and green ways and so this will be policed as well we've seen that when you activate an area tends to [xx], and so by re-establishing the use in this area we would anticipate that crime would be deterred in this area as well.   Press and act of component of police? Yes sir. Thank you. also Rep. Crevlen I think what you are referring to by re-activations as a new program reinstating trails to rails any other question I have representative Nero. Thank you I will just look at number two of this since person own interest in real property comprising the layer where they part the lease one other plans for the CDF if someone that owns property does not want to be part of that please we put that provision in the statute just to double cheek to make sure from the point of perspective it is all understood that is currently there are no private owners the only deal tape but they want to double cheek that as they go through the process Do we need a hand is there a subject to in there or you say you are going back to double cheek that is some kind of a language that allows for period of time to double cheek back and reinstate the ownership you sign you are pretty secure that there is an honour with confidence there is an honour but as part of the lease process and go in and do that because of standard formalities. On it. [xx] Yes Sir. Representative Mark. For being late Mr. Chairman, quick question [xx] that would be correct Sir. Great. Thank you for joining us. Thank you, quick question about how would some of the closures when you're doing the repairs or, I have heard some concerns addressed from people in [xx] to about some of the closures in certain areas how that would affect traffic, how it would affect possible negative effects to the neighborhood could you address those things for a moment, please. Yes Sir, currently this is just an abandoned right of way there would be no impact or a negative impact on the adjacent land and as in fact I think that putting a park in what is now currently an abandoned right away would be a benefit to the adjacent land. Follow-up? Follow-up Representative Mark. The park that you referenced Senator Waywood give me an idea where that would be, what neighborhood are you describing with department? How about this, for me I've got a method but I can hand you to better describers down in third street down near and that have familiar with downtown Wilmington but it's right there at the Third Street Bridge. I am very familiar you with every aspect, every part of Welmington. Yes, Sir. But canI I follow up very quickly and I promise I won't be long?   You all heard him say promise Representative Mark. All right, I'm not beating up on you senator like I said, I just received calls from that community with concerns about how this going to be structured and so many closures and how the perception is that it may lead to some negative aspects like maybe spike and crime or whatever now this is the case this is what I have been hearing this I just want to get some clarity I apologize for being late, I know you've got great representatives from [xx]

county here, but since I'm a native date people tend to call me as well. So just wanted to put those concerns to rest. Yes sir. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Chairman.  Further questions from the committee okay [xx], Thank you Mr. Chairman and Senator William apologize for being of late I'm right here. Conceptually I think it's a good thing, they've done a lot with rails to trails in Virginia, and is that what you are attempting here in this segment in Welmiton[sp?], well its not a  rails to trail programme like  under the federal Law, but it is essentially utilizing and abandoned rail  rather not abandoned but not currently used rail way kind of waste we can use it until such time as it is needed for primarily passage of rail some point of them the very distant future. Follow up Mr chairman Follow up The city is going to extend the liability and development knowing that this may fall back for active use rail. What kind of development are you looking at during this potentially 10 year period? I can, it's primarily a passage development, I can let Mr. Kozlowski respond more, I actually have renderings of what it might look like, again the context of this bill is such that the city would have to enter to at least agreeing with DOT and would likely put various restrictions on this city such so that they couldn't develop it in such a way that will prevent the future use as a recorder. That's says right, representative, is there any more? Very quickly senator, how is the public outreach because like I said I want to make sure that everybody understands the intent of legal actions so we have a few head public meetings or you're continuing to have public meetings with due residence of the affected area? In this are not yet and I can let Michael Kozlowski speak to the process but essentially in developing the list with the city and the DOT, I would expect to be public hearing some behalf of the city council with DOT in attendant that might, a verify that.  Mr. [xx], you said that [xx] that you represent.  Mike [xx] again [xx] planning organization. As part of this least agreement, what we will do is we would propose it, we'll develop a master plan for the use of this bend, and rail corridor as an interim use until the re-establishment of passenger rail within the corridor Follow up Follow up, so what I'm understanding is that will help facilitate the long this plan will help or this action will help facilitate the long awaited arm track Charlotte to Wilmington line it would help with that [xx] We anticipate that that is a long long time coming so we will, it's anticipated to be past the duration of this court or an interim basis Rep. Connie I'm sorry, just further question and I don't know if this is for Senator Lee or Mr. Chairman to somebody with the department, but have we done as DOT? Have leased this carters for these type of use or something similar before? If you know that Senator Lee, if not we can ask the department maybe? Yes ma'am, I actually patterned my bill off of a bill from Senator Harrington from a few years back Representative Toll may I have an answer?  Briefly can I actually touch on that. We did the very same thing in  Gaston county as we had a piece of rail that we didn't want to get rid of but, it goes through in front of Belmont Abbey, and they wanted a connector where the state could open there down at the downtown area of Belmont, but we wanted to maintain that rail quarters so they're simply accessing the lamp at the right side without disturbing the bed or the existing rails, so everything's working great. Thank you. Any further questions? Believe our residence speciality is going back in motion, is that correct? the bill I move [xx] favorable report for senate bill 174, I don't see any recommendation or any referral. Does not have referral? And you've heard the motion all in favor say aye, opposed no. The ayes have it the bill is passed.

OK Senator Lee you're still on board with port usage contracts public records senate bill 299. Senate bill 299. Yes sir this is the usage contract bill and let me just give you some background as many of you may know I was on the North Carolina Port Authority for a few years before being appointed to this seat and one of the things that we had concerned about was the fact that in this just to give context this deal is not worth the expenditure funds but receipt of funds into the North Carolina port authority from particular shippers and vendors so, again not talking about expenditures but revenues and one of the frustrating aspects of this is that our competition whether it is Northern control stone could just stroll our minutes and have the terms of our agreements but mere score or other lines so that was frustrating and I understand Go ahead. Frustrating so I think it's important to keep this information private. OK Representative Moore At the appropriate time I'm not going to beat up on the senate any longer had appropriate time for a motion. Representative Holley. Thank you Mr speaker, I have a question do we not have access to the other states contracts as well? No ma'am in fact there was a study done and I think we are the only port in the East Coast that doesn't have this protection. Follow up? Follow up.   Okay this is just the information, this is not this is just information about incoming amount but not everything about the contract. Everything about the contract is going to be kept quiet. Everything within the contract again these are contracts regarding revenues coming into post our expenditures the contracts will be kept essentially as trade secret or not public Follow up Follow up You know I've been in contract for a long time and I do know that when a new contract is coming up most people look at the old contract to see what the expenses were and what the cost were so then they can give an accurate bid to the state, if you had all this information you're eliminating other contracts in the future that the only one who we have that information is the existing contract. Mr. Chairman which  modified, ask someone from the portfolio to respond to that, Chair if you the microphone identifying yourself I'm Laura Blair, I'm senior director for North Carolina State Ports Authority Executive external affairs. What this bill does, it is very narrow and deals with only one type of contract the courts authority [xx] and it's all water side activities so it's just our carriers. It's just young meng musk, folks that we do, we negotiate contracts with annually about every 10 years so things like real estate transactions, those are not covered by this bill. We would still bring those to the board of directors and after the board of directors and so means since we will still brings those to council of state. If a vendor wanted to bid at North Carolina ports for a particular service offering I mean we have everything from uniforms all staff that you will think for a normal business those would not be covered by this this is very neurology sort of water side type contracts. Representative Geter Thank you Mr. Chairman for a series of questions. What other contracts shouldn't be public knowledge? Excuse me? You are talking about asking for a specific contract under North Carolina Statute to be hidden from the public. Where else do we do this and where else should we do this? I can only speak to the bill that I propose today Sir. I think it's vitally important since we are the only port on the East Coast that does not protect this information that we have the same competitive advantage that the other states have with respect to these particular types of contracts. I can't speak to any other contract out there because I haven't done the research on it, Sir. Follow up. Follow up. Logistics is an interesting world, and the fact that almost every one of the carriers that the Ports Authority individual behind me just mentioned have to produce tariff rates. If they're having to produce tariff rates and their rates publicly, as a private entity why shouldn't a public institution do? I'm not sure I

understand the question why private, I'm not sure which private institute you're speaking of sir. I mean you're talking about is, as the young lady behind me said, you're talking about contracts between Yang Ming and [xx] not there anymore, and all these other things, they have to reduce tariff rates, so if I want to know what the tariff rate is to move a container from Rotterdam to Wilmington, or whatever the lines are, I can look that I receive the tariff rights, public information. Yes, sir, and it's my understanding that public information is uniform across all lines so that each of these particular carriers can compete on an even plain field, the situation that we have is that we can't compete on an even play field, if the law work to all of us and everyone had to disclose these information, I think it might be a different question but that's not the question that we have today, so in order to compete on a level plane field I think we need this particular bill, I think it's very important to not just the ports but North Carolina as a whole Follow up. Follow up. Who will have access to your information? The essentially the board of directors for the port authority and I guess folks have the port authority negotiating take agreement. Follow up. Follow up everyone will have the oversight to make sure the agreement is signed by the ports authority in line if no one has access to it. And who will have the oversight to make sure the agreement signed by the ports authority are in line the board will held accountable for the agreements that they are into, the competitive nature of the business I suspect would. Follow up present towards and they haven't answered that question. Thank you senator Japania, (xx) I think you properly know that I think the chain  criminals go from the board, port  authorities board who answers secretary of NCOT, that will be secretary [xx] who in turn answers to of North Carolina. Which is my follow up question having more question for representative Torbett so is the genesis of this bill going to make it so that not just the authority directors or port authority have these information but it will go all the way to the NCDOT board. Chair  go ahead.   The NCDOT board is not responsible for approval or review then this particular contrast port authority and price agency right now so it doesn't flow that way source information. Representative Davis, Okay, further questions? Thank you you have a question Just want to clarify I understand that the port is actually operate for the money, I mean there is some money for infrastructure, for dredging and maybe some repairs for the terminals but, they operate like a private business and probably businesses have the right to be able to do it's kind of negotiation I'm I correct in that? Yes sir I think there are some ONM funding but it's very limited yes sir.  Any further questions, representative Moore is recognized Move for a favorable report on senate bill 299 You've heard the motion for Representative Moore, further discussion, all in favor say aye, oppose no, no ayes have it bill passes. I believe we are going to save senate bill 654 for discussion only at the end so senate bill 600 I believe senator Rose is in the house Senator Lowe welcome to transportation, you're recognized sir. Alright, can you hear me? That's it alright this is Senator Meredith's bill and it is a sample study bill but as we know, autonomous vehicles are still a developing technology, companies across the world, including North Carolina continue to test cars with this new capability, it's predicted in the next five to 10 years multiple companies will introduce cars that have the ability of driving themselves, and by 20140 experts from the Institute of Electrical Electronics engineers have estimated that up to 75% of all vehicles will be autonomous now, the bill is simply a study bill that directs the Department of Motor Vehicles in collaboration with other interested stakeholders to study how to implement autonomous vehicle technology on state roads. The MVS directed to consider

all of the following is necessary to successfully implement autonomous vehicles technology including any legislative changes. complications or liabilities that could arise by allowing autonomous vehicles technology also how autonomous vehicles technology can promote research and development in the state. also the bill uses the injustice stunning definition for autonomous vehicle. A vehicle capable of operating in four automation mode where full automation is defined by the society of the automotive engineers. so, we ask for your support in this bill. Yes sir. There is any more, Mr Chairman is saying that this is was study bill I mean if not anyone has questions I would like to go ahead and move for a motion at the appropriate time okay I will speak to Reverend Toures, Thank you sir a lot for bringing this forward, I just want to make a couple of acknowledgements here sir, most between members are close to our age and how getting back to the mechanics days I remember using the pictures of [xx] we should [xx] cars if you remember those proper mechanics are prediction back then we will be having flying cars similar to the jets and how fascinating it was. Well, the technology the senator to bring before yesterday is an a, over the horizon and look at this and out your looks center to what proper mechanics is that technology is here today and so the dates and times by all accounts that I've been able to follow on the Autonomous Industries, those dates and times are hard dates and hard times so the probability is high that we'll be doing exactly like you said we'd be doing at the time that you described, so I would join my colleague representative Moore in promoting this and moving this forward. Okay, thank you, Representative Ford. Thank you Mr Chairman just statements I was told two weeks ago that the was not going to hear any study bills, I wonder why we're hearing any study bills in the Senate? I guess we're the Upper House, I don't have any other answer. Representative Yarborough. Well, I guess along those lines the Senator said it we're 5 or 10 years away from this happening, why does this have to be studied in the next seven months? One of the things that we have to concern ourselves with is, it would be in our best interests as a State for us to get in front of the curve instead of waiting till the curve to gets here, that would be my answer. Representative Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How much will this study cost? And the other question is, how about letting the Autonomous Vehicle Industry do the study? Well the stakeholders will be involved in this study, but once again this is something that DMV has proved of and wants to see happen.   Follow up. Follow up How much money?  I don't have an answer to give you this time. Is anyone in the the commission identify yourself and answer the question if you like. Thank you sir, my name is Kelly Thomas commissioner of motor vehicles, plan on spending any money on the study, I've met with general motors met with Automobile Alliance Association meet with Chrysler received a letter today from Honda Noth America, they want to partner with us in the study so we can gain an appreciation for what is the technology, and for the record they're already testing those vehicles in North Carolina today, so I could not recommend waiting another year. Representative Adam yes, thank you Okay representative Bowls? Representative Flavum yeah the commissioner touched on what I wanted to say, the technology is already here, we have cars on the road here Califonia, Ohio and several other States, and agreed in the near future, it's going to be something the auto dealers are going to pushing in the stores, so I hope we better be ready for them. Senator Benganer. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I agree with commissioner Thomas and appreciate him being here, this is here now and it's important and I think we should absolutely start the study now. Thank you, further questions from the committee?

Can I have one. Representative Torbett. I just want to talk on something Representative Yabo you talked about why do we need it right now for example, if there are modifications or regulatory or just changes in what we currently do in road building process is not like we decide to build road today, and we finish it tomorrow, and so maybe three years maybe four years fives years six years so is trying to get the knowledge base in now will be better predictable and what we have to do is the road infrastructure five years now or six years from now Rep. [xx] It's pretty much what I was going to say it is going to affect road structure it's going to affect parking it's going to affect everything the DOT does down the line so our DMV does it make sense to do this bill I recommend everybody to support it. Further discussion Rep. Catlen. Thank you quick question. This information that we are looking at this technology we're looking at having in a few years maybe is it going to provide data as to where you are, and where you're driving, and where you've been? Are you asking me that question? Well you already have that data you already have that in cars now cars are already providing, them and if you have a car that has OnStar they know where you go, and they know where you are, and where you've been Rep. Catlen you follow. Well a lot of people don't necessarily want anybody to know where they've been or they're going so that's reason I asked that question. Mr Chairman may I have a comment. If Mr. Chairman I may have a comment I believe there's already we passed already I believe by now everybody is Rep. Yablo I believe you wanted to have a comment or question? I'll just respond to Danson from DMV who's very satisfactory, and I'm board. Mr Chairman [xx] I want to say to amendment to remove Rep. Catlen name of that information at where he might be any given time. I think that that is something that the house ought to deal with personally. Further discussion, representative Moore. Thank you Mr chair now that all hearts and minds are clear I make a motion that we give favorable report to senate bill 600. You've heard the motion further discussion? All in favor say aye, oppose no, unanimous. Thank you. Thank you senator before we move on to the bill for discussion a page has arrived a little bit after our normal time here I'd like to end these pages we have Andrew Leikings[sp?], from Guilford county representative Hardister, you should stand up and wave as I call your name. Gabby Banks Franklin county representative Richardson, Victoria Collins representative Reeves [xx] yeah, young at cell port, I think he's got 1 besides county Representative Howard is it Mave Milan, Wake county, Representative. Martin. Did I get that right? Mave, okay. Thank you for your service same way it just 1 of the forty zones, alright we have got senate bill 654 please take the list and take it around, I have for discussion only today, Maples clarification Representative Lewis.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman two of the agency there working can record a map the Wellington and planning organization the WNPO, was given that authority with respect essentially to two maps you can see that on the bill in section 1 if you look DOWN at A 5the thing is that when this was inserted into the statute some years ago they were not corresponding changes throughout the balance of the statute so what this does is it in search the WNPO consistently throughout a particular statute which I will give more in the event of a technical change. One of the big issue though that is contained within this document is an indemnity by NCTOT to the WNPO as to this two maps they've recorded and to give you just a tiny bit of history as many of you know the WNPO is not funded like the DOT and these law suits

are not something, not only not within their budget, but I would say that any successful judgement against the NPO, will be challenge for the WMPO to step in. In connection with that the NCDOT partnered with the WNTO and recording votes for this max. So I think it's appropriate that they stepped in with an indemity in this particular instance, there's a recent court case that says the WMTO was an agent of NCDOT, but the attorney general's office is still stated that it's not within their preview to defend the WNPO in this context with regards to maps that were recorded, again, these two maps. Okay, discussion in front of the committee representative Jitra. Thank you senator, couple questions it's my understanding from the North Carolina former transportation, the Wilmington NPO is the only NPO that was authorized to file their own maps in this two specific places, is that your understanding? Yes sir that's what the statute propose. Follow up, follow up. If Wilmington ask for and receive permission that no other NPO or RPO got, to file those maps. You're now asking the state come in and protect you high if you get sued. You wanted the permission to do it, but now that you got sued you want us to clean up the mess. why should the rest of the state getting half that authority, didn't ask for that authority be asked to be cleaned come after you and be all scooper scooper. Sir I haven't been sued this is the Wellington metropolitan planing organisation organised by federal statute and they in connection with NCDOT authorise record of these maps it is a state project so it is really to clarify the relationship to the WMPA and the DOT in these contexts. Follow up. Follow up. Wellington improvable to file match that no other MPL in the state has they ask for that formation and they received it. Yes they did? Yes, Sir. Is that. The Wilmington MP and in fact, one of these grow is in [xx] so this is the metropolitan planning organization and as you know these metropolitan planning organizations provide transportation for a region not one particular city. Follow up. Follow up. I apologize the Wellington MPO which is what I though I said if I said Wellington I apologize the Wellington MPO asked for and received to file two maps that no other MPO the state heard privilege to do so, and what now you are asking is if we get sued we want the state to bail us out the two maps we specifically ask permission for. Sir I wasn't here at that time I don't know if the Wellington MPO made the request a request from one of the board members. I don't know. We can ask Mr. Kozlowski to clarify if he would like. Mr.  Kozlowski, would you like to help with that question Mr. Chairman members of the board, the MPO doesn't need to have the authority to file transition quote or maps, we filed this map under an agreement with the North Carolina Department of Transportation for the Hamster bypass, and in such judge Trawick in Pender County has ruled that we were acting as an agent of the state following of this map and therefore what we're asking for is for the department to imdenify holder harmless and to defends us in these actions against MPO for following the map. Follow up for the gentleman sir. OK, we've also been asked by clerk for these state your name and organisation again. Mike Koslosky, executive director at the Wilmington [xx] planning organisation. Thank you, follow up Representative Jitter. Do you follow the map the woman to make part in planning organisation okay representative [xx] thank you Mr chair do other metropolitan planning organizations are they indemnified by the dot you sir no other on this part of planning organisation has the authority and [xx] to record on that the statute does not want a few of those organisation. I have a problem with the idea that you accepted responsibility to follow a map, you don't want responsibility to defend it. I had no idea what rational you guys do that or there is someone

had to do all registry get in to law whatever, I don't know if you took it upon yourself to get the authority to do this, you are responsible for any action recently confronted. Yes sir I can prove you understand where you are coming from in that regard, what actually happens is the WMPO worked with the NCDOT to record the maps and these maps outline court orders as part of larger plan, I think it is covered under STI, to this reason connection with the OT kind supposed to out lay the blazing the run pub. Follow up. Follow up. I don't think any no organisation  goes out in tangent, does things for themselves they work with there partners and for whatever reasons locally you guys took to the stand police is looking for you. Thank you Mr. Chairman representative Jitter to give every single of my question thank you what I would like to know is which is prompted this someone prompted this MPO to really second guess to themselves when entering  to this agreement. I think has lost key, give you further details but I think the the Map Act generally litigations from the Map Act has brought, this is not obviously with respect to just these quotas but quotas across the state could we hear from DOT? [xx] would you set an iPhone with Jim face up once again and help for that answer? Did you want to hear from the MPO DOT. Really rather I hear from the DOT because I'd like to know how they feel about this, should this bill past and have taken on this additional [xx]. Someone of DOT give us an opinion on that. You're recognized Mr. Lewis, identify yourself and who you're with. Bobby Lewis Chief of Staff NCDOT, because this is an isolation just the to the one with an MPO we're certainly recognize and didn't want any precedence here but this isn't such isolation that we're fine with the bill as it is. Representative Rayne[sp?] follow up. Yes sir, I'd still want to get an answer to my question, what is the condition of the corridor? What's prompted this invention law suit? In light of the numbers, in light of the status, of this whole project, thank you. Is that directed at him? I would say DOT. Okay, who wants to answer Mr. Kozlosky[sp?]. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As far as the corridor and where it is in the process, the state environmental document has been complete on or 3300 which is a hem step bypass. There are seven lawsuits that have been filed against the North Carolina department transportation and also name the [xx] metropolitan planning organization as defendants, two of those lawsuits twelve went to the court and the court of appeals the remaining seven have just recently been the remaining five have just been recently been filed. Follow up I just like to make a statement well maybe a question too for DOT or for the MPO representative so this has been going on almost a decade is that correct. The beginning of this quarter? Mr(xx) would you like to address that? The court on maps were found in November of 2011 okay Follow up representative Brown. I just like to make a statement. Okay  You have it in your hands you and the senate to end this right now in terms of in that fact I really, really hope that you would look carefully at that bill and hear it and pass it thank you very much. [xx] those in support of the bill okay Representative Adams Thank you Mr Chairman the comment was made that this would not set a precedent for other MPOs what protection is there that this would not create a precedent and is there any kind of financial impact regarding the cost of the pending lawsuits Senator Lee.  I'll go with the present question you asked first the [xx] MPO is the only MPO that has the authority to record a math and it's only in two particular instances that outline in the current statute, it's so narrow that I don't think there's any precedent cause no other MPO's got the ability to do this.

It evens to the WMPO they only can do it is too very specific project R3300 NU475Y. So that's kind of the pressing question, as far as the cost on the law suit side I don't have an answer other than DOT is currently defended in the law suits for which the MPOs are involved in as well. Follow up? No, thank you. OK. Representative Bumgadner. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have a question for the MPOs chairman. Miss (xx) I think that's for you. State your question representative. Thank you. It says here, is there something wrong this mic? It says here you were authorized in 2006, and I just heard you say that you all filed the map in 2011, were you on the NPO in 2011 I served as executive director of the NPO and I was here in 2006 and also in 2011 when the maps were found, we were granted the authority to find the maps in our six but the board did not actually file the maps until 2011 Follow up Was there, tell us a reason why you asked for the authority to file the map up and while it took five years to do that. The justifications or reasoning behind the request to file the maps were related to hardstand by [xx] the environmental document had not been complete yet, however we were experiencing seeing a significant amount of potential development within the coral or the xhamster bypass so we felt that this would be a mechanism that would allow us to protect that quatrain duo from entrenching development as well as this project crosses two counties and so it was determined that the MPR which is a regional body, if we had the authority would be the appropriate entity to file the map Follow up Thank you. So when you all for that authority, did anybody have any idea that you were accepting responsibility for the law suits as well did that discussion ever occur? Yes sir Follow up Follow up So I'm just trying to get handle on you all decided you wanted to be able to draw your own maps and you did, I guess you filed for the permits and then when you got see that to me doesn't line up. You filed for permits but you didn't file the map so you must have known where the road was going in order to file the permit The record of decision had not been determined on what of the quarter[sp?] was going to be and therefore based on the department's policy, the department would not file the map. However, we had a good idea of where the court or the least environmentally damaging practical alternative court order would be and so the NPO filed the map in consultation with the department. [xx] follow up. This one will comment, absolutely this is the problem with this whole map Act and now we're in a mess here that's going to have to be cleaned up  no matter what we do and this whole situation is bad, I think. Okay we got six people and then I get to everybody. Representative Carney is next. Thank you for a question, representative Brown asked questions I had about the law suits in general, I guess just one clarification on the law suit, I might be wanting to ask Mike is, is there anything that's related specifically to what the NPO did in this filing and then there's follow up questions with that will the cost be if we don't pass this bill? Senator Leyyond Mr. Klowski can answer that. Yes Mr. Chairman. Mr. Klowski As far as the cost currently that's undetermined there's seven law

suits right now and there's over 200 properties that were within the proposed [xx] so I cannot answer what that court will be whoever it is important to point out it is time the MPO and its member jurisdiction and they are all sharing in the cost of the defense of the MPO [xx] and the first part of my question I like to follow up was, what specifically are this all state law suites, so this law suites that are specifically for [xx] the law suites a do which we were just discussing  the seven that have been filed against the MPA, here also NCDOT is also a named defendant in each of those suites. Representative Keller   I think so but specifically for the [xx] world wide. That's correct. Representative Blackwell Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions.  First question is for the gentleman from the Authority, do I understand correctly you have no idea how much money has already been spent by the authority that would be recovered by you under the provisions of this bill. Mr. Kysloski. Today the MPOs spend approximately 13500 dollars in our defense of the seven [xx] to help them vote against us. Follow-up. Follow-up for Senator Lee, please. Since you already have a fiscal note on this, is to what this is expected to cost the State before it's over and done with. Yes, Sir, I do not have that, next time. Finally, could I ask a couple of questions Mr. Louis from DOT. Follow-up Mr. Louis you are available? Yes Sir, Mr. Louis I understood that because this is a single occasion that you're all going to go along with it, why did the department itself go along with this to begin with, what was unique that you would do this with them and that you wouldn't do with anybody else in the past or I take it in the future and this is the question specific to bills specific to matter that follow Why was the [xx] urban area metro pertaining the department plane organization as one MPO added to the list of entity is authorized to adopt and amend this [xx] I think that was when the 2006 legislation 2006 legislation allow them to apply for demand Follow up what I'm trying to understand from the department's perspective is not when did it happen or what legislation did it happened in but what was the concept or the theory as to why this unique situation was created for them for these two projects I think it being unique is that it's the only MPO in this state that actually has [xx] filed under MPO and it's just these two projects and like Mystica Losky was saying, we're already partnered in the suge is well with, because it says in CDOT and as well as MPO so we're already kind off forms in this sit together anyway. Follow up Follow up. Not trying to give you a hard time Mr. Lewis, you know you are one of my favorite people. You are fine. I don't think you answered my question. I know that there was special legislation that gave this MPO special status for two projects. What I want to know is, why the were given that for these two projects, I understand that it was given but what was the concept, what was special that justified making the exception were they asking for it because they said we want to do this fast and you're acting slow and you'll decide to give in or is it just maybe some register down there I thought it was a good idea and I had the crowd to get in there but it did not happen that way so may I rephrase it and you just nod your head if I'm asking. So why did NCDUT not like we've done on so

many other maps apply for it ourselves as opposed to the MPO is that sort of the same policy is we want the environmental document to be complete that document was not completed untill earlier this year I believe it was just recently I think it was actually completed December of last year actually of 2014 so we typically wont make that effort to apply until that time what when an MPO did in 2011 is [xx] was saying is that they solved increased development going way so they effort based on where the alignment was in the environmental document at time protected that court [xx] Mr. Chairman, did I answer your question? Follow up Representative Brock. I'm, they could do it faster because they had special interest and so they were given exception and I don't understand why their wont be multiple MPO's that would say, hey if we can get this done faster let's turn it over to us and we will do your work for you, so we don't have to work on the DOT to do the environmental study and then get around to doing it, so conceptually I am trying to understand why we wont want to do this same thing for everybody and we would be taking on the indemnity related to all these decisions they are making about the environment impart and so forth. Was the question their? Well what I was saying was I don't understand why that same actually now wont be something my other MPO's would also want to take advantage of, is that for we were not that other MPO's might like to speed up the process and do their own environmental studies so they can file the maths sooner why wouldn't that happen elsewhere Yes sir, but to be clear on the environmental document itself we still performed that working TDOT did but we just didn't finish till the end of 2014 so we still done the environmental document. What following in the map in 2011 about to an NPO just protected that corridor from new developments Visiting member Millers is recognized, help answer that question Representative Black and others are just sitting on the sidelines here, and here in the discussion I just want to provide a few comments here, this this was brought to my attention as well again being the representative of the only map that [xx] to the MPO had the authority to follow the past this came to my attention very quickly and regardless of the merits of the past that actually giving an NPO the ability to actually follow a specific map. Again I take you back to page 1 line 29 is that the only had the authority to follow this single maps. Again so we're not, I would be with the actual hesitation if we were back here in 2006 discussing what's that proper, some can say it was proper to do it in order to save the cost of development and within that [xx] all that but that's one of the basic re-emphasize the bill that you have before you today is that regardless of what your stand is on the Map Act in the cabi[sp?] case is that, if this bill does not pass that this map will be the only map in the entire state that will not have some form of defense, as you heard from Mr, Kyloski is that this has been run by the attorney general's office and even though there has been a court case that has said that the MPO was acting as an agent for the department for the DOT, is that there's confusion about whether there will be defense or not all that I'm asking for as the representative of the actual area affected by this map is that this map be treated like all other map resulted to the resulted to whatever legislation that's passed here in this chamber, I don't want to be the representative of the only map in the state that does not have any defense whatsoever, so all I'm asking to do is to treat this man the current legislation we have funded to you like all other mends in the state I wasn't here in 2006, I couldn't fight against the ability for them to add these maps but again to me that's water under a bridge I think we should stand against the aspects of continuing this practice by all means, but again there has

to be some sort of defense here because of the miscommunication or the misunderstanding between the attorney general's office and the department.committee the chair is requested an envelope, personal normally I would send a no committee coming one O'clock, many of us have committees to get at one O'clock, so we're able to continue this in another meeting, we're adjourned. I'm not sure [xx].