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 | February 12, 2013 | Committee Room | Transportation

Full MP3 Audio File

Committee, let's take our places...If the members will take their seats... We'll get started a little bit late, but I wanted as many members to arrive as possible, before we get started, I think we've got a healthy percentage here now. Like to start off with our introductions of our pages, and then move on to our other introductions. The House pages today we have six pages, Alec Johnson from Heywood County, Representative Queen, just raise your hand as I call your name, thank you, Erin Kehoe, from Cumberland county, Representative Glazier, Rias Lane from Chowan County, Representative Steinberg, Claire Ledford, Yancy County, Representative Presnell, Emma Thomas from... Representative Fisher, and Neshawn Bennett from Mecklenburg, Representative Roddey Moore. Did I announce that correct, Neshawn? Thank you. We appreciate your service and we appreciate the service of our House Sargeant at Arms, Carlton Adams, Jesse Hayes, Joe Crooke, and Antwan Marshall. We want to introduce our committe clerks for the session, Carla Farmer, and Lynne Taylor, and our assigned staff members, got a hand from Representative Bowles, there you go...where the real work gets done...we have assigned staff, welcome back Brenda Carter and welcome, Giles Perry. So we've got, I understand we've got fifty years of expertise on our staff here, don't want you to know how many, but about fifty years. Okay, a couple of housekeeping items: one is please feel free to take the contents of your folder but don't take the folder when you leave, and I also want something special as this is our first meeting and we have most of our members here, I don't know where to start, but we'll start up here and go around to the Vice Chairs and introduce yourselves, tell us where you're from. This'll take about ten minutes at the most. Frank..Representative of Brunswick County I was Chair last session along with Representative...Mills, I'm honore to be co-chairing this time with William Brawley, we've got several Brawleys, this is William Brawley, would you like to comment sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I represent the 103rd district in Mecklenburg County, primarily Matthews, and Mint Hill, and a little bit of Charlotte. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let's start with the vice chairs and go around, I suppose the front row, and then the back row. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Am I on? I'm Dana Bumgardner, House District 109, Gaston County, 'garden spot of the Earth'. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And home of the Garden Parkway. You don't want that? I'm Representative Becky Carney, serving from District 102 in Charlotte. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative George Cleveland, District 14 Onslow County. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Carl Ford, District 76, portion of Cabarrus and Rowan Counties. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm Representative Phil Shepard from Onslow County, District 15. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm Representative Dean Art from Union County, District 69. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hugh Blackwell from Burke County, District 86 [SPEAKER CHANGES] Jeremy Bowles, representing District 52, of Moore County, home of the 2014 Men and Women's U.S. Open. [SPEAKER CHANGES] William Rist, District 22, Bladen, Sampson, and Johnson County. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rainn Brown, Davidson County, District 81. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rick Catlan, New Hanover County, District 20. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good afternoon, Trisha Cautham, District 100, the part of Matthews, Mint Hill, and Charlotte, that Representative Brawley does not have, I have. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Nelson Dollar, South Central Wake County, District 36. [SPEAKER CHANGES] John Faircloth, Southwest side of Guilford County, District 61.

Freshman Valerie's representative district 50 Northern origin term County resident of District 33 SW. can Goodman district 66 which is parts of Montgomery Richmond Scotland how can Ramos Charles Graham House District 47 Robinson County Kelly Hastings hundred and 10 house district Cleveland and Gaston counties Yvonne Holly House District 38 Raleigh and lucrative north northeast we Charles jeer outlay district 19 the western part of your McElrath district 13 gallons that Carteret County drainage District 117 most and will apparently Jim Moffat district 116 western half of Buncombe County Rosalie Rodney Moore district 99 Charlotte Molko out of North Eastern part of the city is ineffective a second district from scanning my district is home of the Concorde MILFs Sunseri in the astronomers the lives lightless they should be called Congressman Steve Ross district 63) and Eastern Alamance County Jason same district I seven Lincoln County of Santa Clara, finally Mike Stone district 51 Leonardi County and voluntary district Senate they weren't Forsyth County part-time district 6 terrified Washington in the northern half of Joe Tolson 23rd District H, Martin jonquil porterhouse district on a white Gaston County and today on bodyguard was chair of the Garibay's bodyguard Wilkens will person so important grant.wav the present Grand Cayman and wonder if this chairman polygynous retarding this hot representative Brightwell house district 9 Israel's command during the present silently with years of presenter is nearby Muslim already let's move right into our one bill we had today is this house bill can remove registration for antsy five $4100 and Steinem will be presented to the next chair I'd like to briefly introduce it in the lot of the details is not compatriot here and talk between the two of us we represent most of the area of the southern leg of the. Or even if you enjoy parts of every have a loop if you're missing a thoroughly with I will and this bill allows us to proceed forward with connecting when I was young I was so not will will behave if you can imagine outlooks represented my dad would occasionally have despite me and I always ask him please get out with quick now that I would negotiate by counting how many licks and with what an excellent this bill is the first section the first section is the spike in and section 2 and three is negotiate the federal government is ordering us to study the red room or else they will not approve anything else the red route is impractical to put it mildly but if we don't study it we can't move forward second two or three tells the Department of Transportation and our oversight committee to get it done as quickly as possible to studies so that we could release the landowners within the red route of light that occurs on their property from being studied and without I will turn the rest of it overlaps about what's happening here put the route that we want

[0:00:00.0] For the Southern let southern lag at 540, let’s call the Orange Group. Now, DOT and local transportation planning people and Mayors and like they did a really good thing many years ago and that they laid out the route for 540 for the whole big loop and so the southern part of this has been known for years and years and years and years and years and everybody knew that, all of the towns along that section the same as the other sections but whether you are talking about Apex or Holly Springs or Fuquay Varina and Garners as well, they were all planning on that route and going to certain route and off course because we were planning ahead the Federal Government punishes us. So, the best plans but somewhere along the way in the planning process and alternate route call the, ‘Red Route’ was put out there because you have alternate routes. It was to my knowledge, it was never anybody’s intent that what's call the Red Route would ever be used for this road, it wouldn’t make sense financially, it’s not as Representative Stam said, its simply not a build-able route because if we go through about 16 or so neighborhoods or if we go through parks it would be horrendous on the town of Garner. And I wanna digress for a second and simply say to our friends in Garner that if for some reason following the environmental studies that the Federal Government is required us to do, they came up and so the only route that it could be would be the Red Route then you will see people like myself and others, well first of all it couldn’t be build financially but if there was any threat of that you would see myself and others stick forward the legislation saying, “This is not going to be build, we will just prohibit from being build.” So, the folks in Garner should not feel threatened. However, if we wanna get this route build we have to allow the Federal Government to…We have to comply with the requirements to study as the Federal Government has set them forward and I wish you didn’t have to be that way but that’s the way it is but we need to move forward on this and the reason why need to move forward on this is jobs, this will be huge for jobs in Wake County once we get the studies done and we hopefully get the road built along the route that’s already been identified, the Orange Route, there will be tremendous force and it will also free up those people who’s land has been planned for this route for a long time, the Orange Route, the good route. They have been held up they can’t do anything with their property. So, in fairness to their property rights we need to move forward is essentially a local bill although it’s not in a technical sense. So, one of the quick things, the folks in Garner and their expense along with the RTA, and their expense they went to Washington to see if they could find, they engage some pretty skilled people and experienced people in Washington to see if there was someway to get around all of this where we wouldn’t have to backtrack on this legislation and it just simply couldn’t be done. So, all of the efforts basically have been made. So, we are here with the legislation, we wanna move forward to get this and taking care have done, get the studies done and get this road build where it needs to be build. So, I will be happy to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question from the committee this time, Representative ___[04:14]. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. What it gonna cost is to do the study? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m not sure if someone is here from the DIT, they may have I think Mr. ___[04:24] is here and if the Chairs direction… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. ___[04:30], I would like to answer the question, if you like? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We don’t have a final cost estimate but typical for an EIS of this magnitude and a lot of the money has already been spend already with the alternatives that have been study but you are looking at anywhere from 12 to 15 million for the studies along and the engineering that goes along with the study so that ends up being studies preliminary… [0:04:59.7] [End of file…]

designs on all alternatives that get you to the space where you can compare alternatives. About 15 million is my estimation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, thank you. Is any of this coming from the federal government? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Practically all of it would be from the federal government. In the planning stage, it’s all federally aid eligible and this would be a federal EIS that we would be pursuing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Before I recognize anybody else, let me point out we have an elected official, or more than one elected official from Garner. We have the Garner mayor here. I apologize, I don’t know his name. Mayor Williams. And we have talked about it a little bit and decided that if Mayor Williams would like to speak for up to and no more than three minutes, he may do so. Has he prepared? Mr. Mayor? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you’ll approach the microphone and identify yourself. The Sergeant will help you over there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, can you hear me? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hi, I’m Ronnie Williams, the mayor of Garner. Garner is the home of Scotty of McCreery and the home of Miss North Carolina. It’s home of this red route. I’ve lost a great deal sleep over the red route. Matter of fact, I’m only 25 years old. It has given me some gray hair. But as I stand here today, I’m still against the red route and I’m still against the effort to remove the bill. However, what I’ve heard in discussion since we’ve been with many of you this morning, the explanation that Nelson Dollar gave earlier is probably the best that we can do right now. So while we dont’ like everything that’s going on we are going to accept it if you promise that things will be expedited and happen quickly. Thank you for your time. God bless you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Back to the committee for further questions. Representative Bumgardner. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m wondering what the time frame is for doing the study and how long’s that going to delay moving forward on the project? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that another question for Mr. Trogden? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Trogden might be able to give the details, but we have to do the study before we can move forward with the project at all. That’s our problem really. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, yeah. I understand that part. How long’s it going to take to do the study? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You can answer from there, it’ll be fine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That would be dependant on there are several alternatives that were looked at in the past 2 years while this bill was in place, so we may have to add some of those alternatives to continue study as well. It really depends on the number of alternatives, but the estimate right now is probably 12 months to no more than 24 months. 12 would probable be fastest, and I’ve heard ranges that it could be 8 to 10, but I feel comfortable in saying 12 to 24 would be a good planning estimate at this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We like 8 to 10, is a good range. But in part, in response to Representative to your question and the comment by the mayor, section two, specifically says that the department shall strive to expedite the federal environmental impact statement process so that is certainly the intent of the General Assembly and I think the department as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further questions form the committee? That answer your question sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, for a motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to move a favorable report to House Bill number 10. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’ve heard the motion. Any further discussion? If not, for the motion, all in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed say no? The bill is given a favorable report. Thank you. Committee members, at this time we have a transportation one on one overview for some committee members that may be new. We’re up to 44 members this year, which is a dramatic increase over the last session. Want to be sure that everybody’s together on some basic concepts on transportation. I’d like to recognize the CEO of the Department of Transportation, Jim Trugden.

but the Chairman, and members of the committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to be here. And first I'd like to say on behalf of the department, we really appreciate the wonderful relationship we had with the general assembly and especially all the transportation committees. So for all the folks that are new, well the ones that are returning thanks so much for all the things you've been doing to help us in the areas of transportation in the past and the new members, certainly we look forward to working with you and you have our pledge to help you in any way possible, to answer any question you may have and diligently attempt to solve transportation problems across our state. A few areas that I was asked to cover today was one, really a systems overview, which will be the first couple slides which talk about- There we go. Systems responsibility. On the left side of this slide, it basically shows the state lane miles of responsibility as compared to other states. The top is the US average, North Carolina is second to the state of Texas in state responsibility for lane miles, we're first in road mile responsibility, but this will be lane miles. As compared to other states. And then the right side is total distribution of dollars, and that would be all dollars that are reported in expenditures on the state maintained system. So we're 49th in our total distribution of funds on our system, and second in the size of the system across the nation. And you'll see that as compared to other states, especially in the southeast, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia and Florida. And then the next slide talks about public ownership, which is essentially so why are we different, and it really goes back to the 1920s following the depression when the counties got out of the transportation business and road business and the state took full responsibility for that. And so you'll see that depicted in this slide, which shows basically the percentage of state maintained system in North Carolina, which is about 80,000 road miles followed by the local road system which is about 20,000 for a little more than 100,000 and the rest is federal, which is primarily national park, ?? and military installation and those that are solely federally owned but still public. As opposed to South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida and so the basically the thing that changes most is the county responsibility in other states. But you'll see that we're very very close to Virginia in our percentage of ownerships. The only difference between us and Virginia is that Virginia does have one county and ?? county around Richmond that is responsible for its own public roads. I wanted to talk a little bit about funding and the first slide is basically an overview of our state revenues, the dollar depicts every dollar that comes in in state revenue and where it comes from, 60% from motor fuels tax, 15% from highway use, and 25% from fees that are charged from the DMV. And that will be compared to our federal dollars that come in for each federal dollar, 92% of that is from the federal motor fuels tax and 8% is from fees. And then where does that money go? You'll see that predominance goes to the highway fund which is 46% of our total funds, followed by the highway trust fund, which is 25%, and then 28% is federal funds. And that number, 1.2 billion is all federal funds which will include federal rail and federal transit as well. That all of that equals 4.4 billion, which is what we have in our current fiscal year. That does not include the North Carolina turnpike funding that's coming from bond sales for turnpike projects. And then the source of funds and distribution, so for the state dollar as you see as it comes in, 60% motor fuels, and that 60% motor fuels tax is distributed based on the general assembly formula that said statute 75% of it goes to the highway fund, 25% goes to the trust fund.

And then the DMV fees, which is twenty-five percent of our total, ninety percent goes to the highway fund, ten percent to the trust fund, then the highway use tax, which is the fifteen percent of our total state revenue, one-hundred percent goes to the trust fund. And then how are those funds distributed? Two-thirds of the total state’s revenue are in the highway fund, one-third in the trust fund, and then within the highway fund, one and three-quarter cents are distributed to secondary roads and then to Powell Bill in separate accounts. That will be one and three-quarters cents to each. And then the remainder is distributed based on allocation rules. And I’ll get to those in just a moment. The remainder of those will be distributed through appropriations and they will be distributed within the department based on our allocation rule. And then the highway trust fund, you will take the items off the top, which is 172 million, which is transfers plus the turnpike gap funds, which is off the top from equity, as well as the mobility fund, which now will be getting close to 58 million a year in the coming year, and then administration, 44 million, and then the remainder, which is sixty-two percent to the interstate system, twenty-five percent to the urban loops, six and a half to secondary roads, and six and a half percent to Powell Bill, and then the remainder is the federal match. And debt service – all of that in the remaining column is what is distributed in the next slide that I’ll show you. And then so how will those fund be distributed? The highway fund, which the primary component is maintenance, but you can see the other parts that are coming out of the highway fund as well. That is distributed based on these formulas following the general assembly appropriation. The maintenance account – ninety percent of it is based on mileage with ten percent population. Contract resurfacing is fifty percent, needs thirty-seven and a half percent mileage in twelve and a half percent population. And then secondary roads based on the secondary road mileage with a population component in there. And then Powell Bill, seventy-five percent population and twenty-five percent mileage. And then the trust fund - that’s all the accounts within the trust fund. The trust fund will be distributed to those that remain equity-eligible and will be distributed based on the formula fifty-percent population, twenty-five percent remaining mileage to complete and twenty-five percent equally shared. I can tell you in my twenty-one years of experience at DOT, the last two slides are some of the most important that you can keep in your office to maintain and understand because although you are serving a policy committee, you know policy without resourcing, is hope and we always like policy and strategy be linked and the only way that is through resourcing. Here’s how our resources are allocated and that’s very important to know. I try to memorize most of these and I will tell you, if you can memorize these, these two and then the next slide, which basically shows all of our funds, to conclude the federal funds, we will award you an honorary degree from DOT and the doctor of transportationology. These are some of the most important slides you can understand from a funding perspective with the department. So once you have all of those funds, even though they exist to those accounts, here’s how basically all of it is ultimately distributed with the TIP portion here which still remains. Of the TIP, one-third of that is distributed through equity. The highway maintenance portion, here. And then the remainder which will be ?? municipal aid of a construction transfers, admin, other modes, down to the smallest slice there which is 0.3 percent, which is governor highway safety program. And then our remaining debt service. So that’s all the dollars that are spent on the Department of Transportation in this current fiscal year. This is that data and you’ll see the breakdown. Equity formula because we constantly see questions about how it’s applied, where it’s applied, what it means, and I covered sixty percent based on population, twenty-five miles to complete, and twenty-five percent equal share. The population percentage is distributed based on the regions, and the regions are the regions that are shown on this map.

Region A, which is in the Northeast, is Divisions 1 and 4. Region B is Divisions 2 and 3. Region C is Divisions 5 and 6. D is 7 and 9. E is 8 and 10. F is 11 and 12. And G is Divisions 13 and 14. But you can look and find your county and region and ultimately the division that those counties would be in. And then funds that are not eligible to be distributed through the equity formula are these that are listed. Number one is urban loops, but that’s been that way since the law was established in 1989. And the original law, some have been added through the years. Competitive awards and grants – these are primarily federal competitive awards and grants. For example, any grants that come to us through rail public transportation or even highways through like the most recent tiger program to receive a 10 million dollar grant to ?? Bridge. That would be equity-free as well because it would have been through the federal grants program. Federal congestion and mitigation and air quality funds fondly referred to as CMAQ which will be a portion of another pot of federal funds under MAT 21 or the new federal authorization, but those funds are not eligible or not distributed according to the equity formula. They’re distributed basically for non-air attainment or quality non-attainment regions, which are basically those that have not been well-performing in air quality monitoring. And then the ?? River Bridge phase 1 and it’s Garvey bonds payments were excluded from equity. That was part of the Mobility Funds Projects of Mobility Funds Establishment in July of 2010 as well as the Appalachian Development Highway System Funds which are part of the Appalachian Region Commission, but there are federal funds that come through Congress through USDOT specifically for projects in the ARC eligible region. Next topic I wanted to talk about is strategic prioritization so after we have all these funds in these pots, they are distributed to all these accounts, how do we program projects across our state to make sure we are achieving the maximum effect of our transportation dollars and how they are being spent? One of the challenges that the department faced prior to 2009 was that we did not have what I would call a public process for prioritizing or programming projects and our delivery rate was not what we wanted it to be. Generally averaged somewhere between 54 and 55 percent per year but that’s because a lot of projects were in the pipeline being studied. And a great example was talked about was the kind of studies that you were just debating at 540. How long does it take? What needs to be done? Some projects take much less time because of the size and complexity of the project. Others, very complex projects, takes much longer. So if you have, for example, at that time, we had about 12 billion dollars towards the projects in say for example, 2008, 12 billion dollars’ worth of projects shown as funded in our transportation program, but only 6 billion dollars anticipated worth of revenue. That’s because so many were in studies trying to get through the study process to be eligible for funding that we were over-promising and over-committing transportation projects for available funds. The solution was we had to have a more open and transparent for selecting projects for even entering to the study process to make sure we were evaluating projects on good sound criteria that everyone can understand and then even if you didn’t meet the required priority points in that process, you would at least have understood why in comparison to other projects in your region and across the state, and then know what to do to make your project more competitive. That process was undertaken in 2009. It was led by strategic planning and office of transportation or what we call the SPOT office. And they work closely with groups across our state to develop our prioritization process, to refine the prioritization process, and to make sure that…

One that's both open and transparent but also people have confidence in and it's replicatable. No matter how you ask the questions you get the same kind of answers. The work group had some very key external partners, and I'll talk about those in a minute. Those are the ones that help us understand issues, not just the transportation issues, but also the local issues across our state. Because as you're aware, there's no one solution that can solve every challenge in transportation across the state. Then it's always good to have folks that understand the challenges in each region helping to develop the process that we can all be satisfied with. The scope of the prioritization process in North Carolina currently measures about 85% of the projects within the trust fund, that's delivered through the trust fund. The reason for that is some of our projects that are funded through the trust fund, and I'll give you the examples of our signal systems improvements, our state-wide traffic offices, our road striping program. Some of those are more maintenance and operations, and so they really don't belong in a prioritization system where you're prioritizing capital projects. Our system really focuses on the capital projects across our state that improve transportation across all modes. All modes are prioritized, and the work group partners are listed there, but have been invaluable for us in getting feedback. The objective that we had when we started this was we wanted a process to prioritize projects and a program at the end that's not just a North Carolina DOT program but a State of North Carolina program. Something that everyone across our state says, I have an interest in, I have input into. And I can clearly show the challenges in the region that I live and work, and have input into how we solve transportation projects not only for our state but for each of the regions across the state. So where does prioritization fit in? This is a great model of, first we have long-range transportation program, which is our 30 year program that basically looks at the needs of our system. So it's really not about projects at this level. It's about, we have an 80,000 mile road network. We have 340 miles of passenger rail service. We have ferry systems, we have aviation. We have all of these great capabilities. How will our state grow? And what will be the future challenges? And how will we maintain the capability of our existing network to meet those 30 year objectives? That's really the focus there. It's not about projects, it's more about, what resources will we need and how will we address these growing challenges with the 50% population growth that we anticipate we'll see over the coming timeline. That information really looks at what are the needs, and what are the big programs that we need to address these. And then what's the right balance? Because in the end, you'll always find many things that you can do. But then in the end, you've got to decide what do I have to do and then what do I need to do? Because that's generally where resources run out. So that helps us get to, now the hard resource decision making comes in at that 10 year. We know we're projecting to have this level of revenue. We know we're to have this level of challenge and demand based on what we see in the long range. So how do we start identifying those programs and then projects? So the 10 year program is where you first start seeing projects in our program show up, because we want to make sure that they're staring to queue up so we can deliver them in a timely manner. And this is basically why our strategy was important. We want to get away from 50% delivery, and our objective is a 95% delivery in that last five years. Because we want to make sure we have the right mix of projects and programs in that six to ten year period. That's the period that's the most important for prioritization. What do we have in the queue in the years six through ten that we know will be important for our state so we can deliver that in a very timely manner? And not only does it include projects. The wonderful thing that, I believe, and one of the most significant things that we changed in our 10 year look is, is it's not just

[0:00:00.0] It’s every dine that we spent because even though as you know, we have these in separate funds, this body and the Senate has this question and so in the short term do we need to make some immediate adjustments and one of the things that we have been very appreciative with both the house and the Senate was the support of reprogramming some money for our Bridge Program but that’s a perfect example of how we are able to take critical needs that we see work together as partners and drive solutions but our 10 year program has every dine what we anticipate spending trying to balance level of service across both. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wanna… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, yeah. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I apologize interrupting, we do have another meeting at morning here so we gotta three or four minutes left, I would like to take a request… [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I have done about one more slots I will be through very quickly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, that’s really what's important is to make sure we have all our dollars in there so not only the General Assembly sees what we are spending our money on but also the public sees that, our partner see that, everyone can see where we are investing each transportation dollar. And I will not cover scoring other than to tell you we try to look at everything that’s important both congestion, both payment score, safety, economic considerations, benefit cost of projects and all of those who are considered as well as local rankings and multimode points as well. The most important think I can tell you is that because of the collaboration, because of the confidence that’s been build since we started this process, the General Assembly ____[01:52] our prioritization process, it is now law, session law in 2012-84 and we certainly believe that’s because of the wonderful partnership that we have not only with this body but also with all of those partners across the state that make it like I said a state transportation program not just like DOT transportation program. And we are still working on the next phase, we are collecting all inputs from groups across the state and that is a public process just collecting ideas where we need to improve but I can tell you we don’t stop we wanna look for every way to even gain more and more confidence and be more and more efficient with our transportation dollars and so with that… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, I have got time for one brief question and we are just about out of time, Representative Shepherd had his hand up sometime ago. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Sergeant, should it purposes in funding categories within the highway trust fund, highway fund even in ___[03:00] this time? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You said the purposes, well the trust fund right now is a mix of purposes we have Luke’s interstate power bill, secondary road trust fund, and a mix of others. I think one of the things that we have been talking about is first that the Governor has given us how do we take our long range plan which is for 30 year but make sure we are tiny into other things like commerce, economic development region, a comprehensive and coordinated plan across the state. We really need to decide where we are gonna go before we decide the best way to resource. So, the big challenge is where we are going, one of the simple things though that we have look that is one of the tough parts about how we program all these dollars as we have a very unusual mix in each of our accounts and the highway fund we have an unusual mix of maintenance operations, construction model and then in the trust fund we have an unusual mix of capital, maintenance operations I mean all kinds of things and sometimes that creates a competition across the state is not very healthy, maybe if there is a way to focus one of them on, this is our maintenance and operations fund and then the other trust fund this is our capital fund that may help start addressing some of those questions about now what's the appropriate things in each slice of those? That would be my personal opinion is, how we work to really focus on highway fund… [0:04:59.9] [End of file…]

on operations and it's not just highways because we have a lot of operations and maintenance accounts. And then trust fund, how do we address capital needs across the state in all modes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK we're gonna have to cut it off and possibly Mr. Charlie can come back for a question and answer session later on. But there's another committee coming in. We've got to wrap it up, so meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.