Our sergeant of arms [xx] Adams, Charles [xx] [xx] xx]xx]also our page so they are take Rusell from Wade county with representative Pemilton, Sage could you stand up please. Andrew Weatherman to Bells county with Representative Tillman and Hannah [xx] from Wake county and she with Representative Chris Malone good to have you with us this morning we are going to be doing a comparison done between the senate basing on transportation and the house budget and prices are going to determine to begin our presentation price [xx]. Thank you all. and Camrin, good morning members of the committee. I want to begin with the comparison report which is the new report, and I will go through a brief refresh on how to read this, if you see like online a shaded item, that means that it will be an Item in controversy. If I [xx] line two I does not I say that, that means that both the House and Senate are free. The first two. columns are Senate columns but the last two are the House reflection. So our number one are starting with the highway this is the board of transportation, [xx] in it address this, the issue is that the board of transportation is spending for out of stay travel far more than budgeted. The way the house handled this is that reduce its current certified budget from 25, 000 to 20, 000, it will cover with you were provisioned that the board can not spend more then the current budget of 20, 000. Good morning [xx] Physical Research, the next item number two on page one is identical in both versions of the Budget and allocation of funds to continue with the Modernization of the Saddles Information Technology. Lines three and four are the said municipality the house follows a statutory formula, the Senate eliminates the statutory formula which is a base recurring appropriation of 147.5 million in the first year, increasing to a recurring appropriations of $160 million in the second year. Next they're planning in those budget for the gran strap NPO project that comes into North Carolina, the next item is the small urban construction point I will make a note that that item is covered by the CR and so that item can and go ahead and receive it's funding. Item seven and eight are slightly different both chambers propose extending funding through receipts for 44 timeline position to support the tagging tax together program the senate budget extends what [xx] status for the duration of biennium the house budget extends for period of nine months and you will see the house version item number eight. Item number nine is identical on non controversy you will see on provision side there are few differences, but the intends to maintain with respect to the 2.3% across the boarder increase to the conversation ratio for Commission Contractors that's [xx] the provision of a Performance and Senate associated with the meaning of the revised Standard Operating Procedures. We turn the page, beginning with item number 10. This item is also identical on non contrast[sp?] stated 250000 operating reduction division Y, for the division number of vehicles, and item number 11 is a senate only item, it reflects a request from the division to delay the implementation date for the hearing piece schedule which was reported to jail t UFC[sp]. This delays until July 1st, 2017 it makes a corresponding adjustment to the continuing base budget. Item 12, the house funded one new position to accelerate the approval of new technology. 13 is not in controversy and it is
accounting change for federal matching funds. I'm sorry representative Torbett. Is it true that you're taking ongoing questions, or it has been late before we jump too far [xx] Well that's fine with me, go ahead. Thank you. Roger thank you so much, before we go to number 11, it may refresh my memory with a background on hearing things [xx]. There's a provision that was included in the last budget which directed the division to develop a hearing fee schedule and essentially to implement that at a date certain in lieu of the January 1st 26 implementation date, the division and the presentation to this body had recommended extending that implementation July 1st 2017 to be aligned with some IT system modifications namely, satels and then the associated modifications of the required IT systems to accomplish the back end support associated with the implementation of these instances. will resume with item no 14 at the bottom of page 3 in the differential seat with item no 15 on the following page. The house budget recommended nullification of 2.1 million for the operation of the longer newly designated heteros inlet routes, and also for certain training requirements for the division concerning oil store responses. The governor had essentially recommended a nullification of 850, 000 as budget and the senate pass on the budget on page 4 reflects that allocation. The difference here is the agency estimate with respect to the operating cost for the heterious in route the house budget reflect the agency estimate. Page 4 item number 16. Again for the period division, the budget recomended a nullification of $700, 000 non-recurring [xx] the fund that's the direct appropriation to replace hydroplastine equipment and also make some repairs on water towers at the ship yard, the senate budget also funds it the this item the point is through probation which we will discuss a little bit later. Item 17 and 18 with respect to the over transportation division are virtually identical the monitory amount is the approach to the allocation of this funds is identical however the description for the senate item on item number 18 includes some language is basically saying what the total appropriations to the division is. So flip the page page 5 Yes sir [xx]. Thank you No sir. Follow up Mr. Chair. [xx] [xx]. General preference within the senate document to identify the total appropriation associate with this program so it's more so the insertion sponsor for consistency the item is virtually identical. Thank you very much. Thank you [xx]. So we can move into page five, items 19 and 20, the house version of the budget allocates $2 1/2 million for state to airports including for aviation ready economic development projects, the senate version allocates $4.5 million and it requires supervision are related to two specific projects that are funded with these additional money. Yes sir [xx] Thank you, Ryce[sp] you mentioned that senate pretty much he amounts this money to two projects, where and what are those from? The two projects are proposed to be funded on a non-recurring basis through the senate provision, this project look at the [xx] errors for the construction of the near traffic control tower. Where is it? Representative [xx] my district is Onslot county but air force therefore city of Jacksonville. The other project as for the KP regional jackport for the construction of the terminal on [xx], and that will be Wilmington that will be [xx] thank you. We will now shift over to the maintenance side of the
highway fund, starting with number 21, there are some significant differences here, 21 is a bridge program, the senate provided funds beginning at 50 million for the first year, and 90 million for the second year. You may remember during the DUT presentation there has been $90 million level that would enable DOT to reduce the number deficient bridges down to the National median of 2% within 15 years if it was funded at with additional $90 million. A point of verification on that they're taking the money from contract resourcing to put towards the bridges. They're not taking money from contract re-servicing, they choose not to fund, they choose not to increase funding for contract re-servicing. Use that for [xx]. I mean in fact you have to remember they're significant revenue changes between the House and Senate budget that did give the Senate budget more tool availability, and we'll cover those a little later. Next this is a statutory adjustment for the Bridge Program that is not in controversy. Excuse me [xx] there's a lot of rebirth about this I don't know if it's because of [xx] or what, are you all picking at this? [xx] Page six, the health increased funding to the contract re-servicing program. One of the things that you will note is the senate money is recurring while the house money is non recurring and that simply because the funds are shifted to the highway fund in the house budget in that required non recurring funding and so it's $42.5 million in the first year and an additional $120.5 million in the second year and so that is bringing the contract re-servicing amount up to $530 million, next is the general maintenance reserve in the house budget and that reduces is that account by $10.9 million. Next again the senate budget was one of you to request to fund the pavement preservation at a hundred million dollars, this is the schedule programme that was created in the last [xx] in the last section actually next. Representative Torbitt. Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you Emner. I think it's important probably to throw this out there at this juncture that the number that was given by [xx] for every five million of re-servicing dollars used, you actually reduced the equivalent need for the [xx] about million dollars, so I think if you start doing in front of the [xx] you can see how some of the reductions and maintenance [xx] put more real servicing on and the real new servicing on roads, therefore the guiding to use for mine expert 18 years down the road follow up Mr. Chair. Yes sir. Representative [xx] just the fund how much maintenance been reduced in the I will request Senate to the committee. Next item 26 and this is the small increase to the secondary road and maintenance as account within the house 2.8 million non-recurring the senate... Mr. Chairman I'm sorry I stayed quiet in that last question and I can't stay quiet about it. It's true and I'll go ahead and say it for the record, it's true that it takes last to maintain a road than it does to re surface road transaction dollar scam and the more years you do that, the worst that role[sp?] becomes so reference to the previous put question for my colleague over there is that, over a decade and maybe years it has been conditioned too, but copying and cracks and put
tame and gravel over want this to be good pavement and in overall in my humbe opinion the great that the overall quality staff is right implies to[sp?] that from one end of the state to the other end of the state because they are always sold cheaper [xx] I think at the point when you graphing down roads and you hitting potholes that have been there for five or six years and you saying cracks in a road that are only about 2 inches they the payment separation and it's not prepared I think we need pack a little bit harder little and our [xx] daughters and sons years, it's much cheaper to just corrects with 30 and to put tar and rubber band and working along that same bank that if we want to continue that course then it must and necessary as we rapidly progress into out past, it was probably much cheaper sometime compress clay at the overall use to be and maybe I should get back to the and force and buggy trail system were they actually take no Howard maintenance and just count use them during the rain but that seems the way we we're going we trying to turn that around to the point where we will give the citizens what they are paying harder when tax money are borrowed, and that's the highest best most efficient most effective road system is that way Thank you Mr. Chairman. Yes Rep. Martin. Their was a little bit too much in my question than was intended why I got the her, my question was is there a level of maintenance funding about what you can they will results in smaller amount of contract and service I think we have a question with anyone seeking to [xx] the contract resourcing fund [xx] moving more questions. Item 27 this is the senate budget for the secondary road maintenance that it increases it by 39 million in the first year and 28.6 recurring in the second year. The senate also to choose to roll all these sub committees now to properly budget for worker compensation expenses and that is reflected on item 28.29 and 30 reflect the capital differences they are actually quite similar the house to delay the projects by one year and both fund the repeasing renovations fully. You'll see these in provision package and fund the same capital projects generally where the big omission is the DMZ request for a new building. The next page starts with full chair item again the compensation increase is a full chair item and the house case employees 80% raise. Next are elimination, the senate eliminated 56 filled positions and named those in provision the house eliminated 50 positions but did not name the positions. In pro reference and a reminder the Governor [xx] also eliminated 50 positions. Next the senate budget eliminates all vacant positions of her five months beginning at the end of this fiscal year. Yes Mr. Chairman, Yes Sir Representative Mark. A question I think for Miss Camroon I'm just trying to figure out between the house and senate who's getting rid of which position where so the [xx]. So did on 33 this is the house tradition the house eliminates 50's administration precision but it doesn't say which one did such a deal till they select safety, the cement in the provision with 56 division numbering that are to be eliminated. The CER says that those any position actually listed we
need to be send brief notices for 30 days. Sir, so the out of this provisions in the house today are in line with 33 and 34, what's the inner action, 32 and 33, and then what's the clear action with 34? 32 and 33 are still two positions, 34 are vacancies. Representative Tusk. Thank you Mr. Chair, is that December the as far as the [xx] the same across all the is that a transportation only? Transportation only. Thank you. Moving on to the ful chair items, you'll see on 36 funding for the state health fund in the house budget, you see the employee benefit reserve online 37, and this takes you to the revenue availability stage and the senate right now your motor fuel taxes divided 75% to the highway plan, 25% to the highway trust fund fund, of course we'll cover later on but the senate stops the general fund transfer which put all of that money to the highway fund so to balance that additional money, it changed that distribution to 70, 30 adding 5% a motor field proceed to the highway trust fund, that resolves in a loss of 94 million to the highway fund and a gain of 94 million to the highway trust fund. The house budget also had a motor fuel change in that is that it staggered the rate between diesel and gasoline the diesel rate would stay at the current rate 36 cent instead of drafting the 35 as scheduled and it will maintain the gasoline rate at 33 cent per gallon. Items 40 and 41 show the respective approaches to the division of motor vehicle fee changes item 40 reflects the senate approach whereas 41 reflects the house approach in general these are very similar across the boarder approaches the senate recommend 20% adjustment rounding to the nearest whole dollar for the individual rates the house approach increases by 30% these individual fees. Item 42 is identical on both versions reflects an agency request to consolidate to temporary registration options at the tender trip permit in the 10 day temporary tag, and also to increase the fee for the 10 day temporary tag. Page to page 11. You will see with these items and all the items in this page are senate items. There is comprehensive review on the senate side of transfers to other agencies and numerous eliminations were proposed in the senate budget. Item number 43 eliminates a transfer fee licence restoration fee from the highway fund to the general fund which ultimately funds the bold centre so that reflects 535, 000 and receipts incoming to the highway fund that would otherwise go to the general fund. Item 44 eliminates two specific transfers from a special registration plate account this transfers go to the department of commerce for out of state advertising and to DHHS for location rehabilitation services, specifically publication and exccesibilty brochure, so that represents $1.47 million that is then credited back the highway fund. Item number 45 proposes to eliminate the transfer to the license to gift trust fund from licence fee revenue it's just 275, 000 recurring in our seats and then coming to the highway fund. And then based on the distributional changes that the senate proposed between the highway fund and the highway trust fund on the motor fuel tax side. Items 46 and 47 on the next page reflects small statutory adjustments, just based on invented formulas in the distribution of proceeds. Item 48 [xx] I don't think 43, 44 and 45 as were funded on the general funds transfers you are all [xx] These are
all senate proposals, 43, 44 and 45, and so the senate is proposing to eliminate those on the general fund side, so the program will it affects this. Resuming on page 12 with item number 48, this is a house proposal to increase the amount of revenue that is diverted from the motor fuels tax and what otherwise the highway fund so instead go to the shell draft navigation on drenching fund, there is another proposal on the senate side Hollywood than in the art section which if that was another revenue source for shallow draft dredging. Item number 49, the senate proposal to eliminate the transfer of motor fuel tax revenue for the noncommercial leaking patrol underground storage tank cleanup fund, this will be effective July 1st, 2016, so the associated money with this item in 1.5million beginning the second year of the biennium, the bottom page 12 we move to transfers section and the house budget proposes to allocate 10.6 million for ports modernization of the first year of the biennium at 30.1 million in the second biennium each of this allocation are not recurring, Page 13 item number 51 the senate also proposes to allocate funds for post-modernization, favoring 35 million recurring for the biennium. Item number 52 is the house proposed adjustment and this was recommended by the governors budget to align the amount that is transferred for the sales tax exception for the department of transportation with historical actual so that the small 938, 000 adjustment in the first year and increase to 2 million in the second year In contrast the Senate budget ad item number 53 proposes to eliminate fully the transfer based on the sales tax exception as well as the legacy transfer for the highway patrol, and this is one of the largest revenue adjustments as well in the senate budget at $215.9 million coming to the highway fund. Item 54 the house had proposed to increase the transfer tot he general fund none tax revenue by 3.7 million. Page 14 through page 15 you'll see a reference before an approach concerning transferred to other state agencies the house budget had adopted the governors recommendation to increase [xx] an effect several item transfer service state agency space on historical actual and you will those in related item 55. In contrast items 56, 57 and 58 the senate proposes to place the majority of this transfers to other state agencies under continuation review. So the funding source is converted to none recurring in the first year and then and then reserve that's established in the second year based on the satisfaction of the continuation review process and allocation of funds going This takes us to the highway trust fund on page 16, item 39 represents senate budget. As we discuss with the increase especially from the extra 5% of motor fuel revenues, there is a significant increase in the highway transline enabling these senate to increase on the STI by 167 knowing on the first year and 171 recurring in the second year. 60 and 61 are health items, so you can see on line 60 this is the increase to the STI of 43 million in the first year with a reduction of 22 million in the second year. One of the significant changes let's see house does assume a transportation bond and it includes a $50 million reserve, 40 debt service in that first year. Item 62 is the counting cage that's not in controversy, and moving on you see the very similar item reflected for revenue availability just spent in the entity fine. Anyhow we transancy you see the switch to 7030 for the motor killed as the provision
in line 63 and 64, you see the health position staggering the rates between diesel and gasoline taxes on 64 and 65 reflects the DMV fee changes there and you see the 65 represents the Senate and 66 represents the house that takes you to a new item on 67 and this is very similar to the senate budget last year it increases the highway use tax caps the cap on commercial vehicles is now $1, 500, it raises that to 2000. It increases the current curb on recreational vehicles like RV's from 1500 to 2000 and it increases the tax on out of state vehicles by $150 to $250, and again 68 looks reflects the same change in the highway fund which is the elimination of the non-commercial [xx]. The only other item is not in controversy and that is a debt adjustment for the turnPike authority. That concludes the Compare it to another money reports Yes sir Representative Mark, Do I request upon [xx] in courts, man's martial loves Look here I want to build on anything? Before I begin just to clarify, anytime you see the words 'Senate only', 'House only', 'Senate version' or House version those items are in controversy. The many times to be identical those items are not in controversy. Beginning on page one of the provisions package sections 3.1 to 4.2 for all differences they stop the presentations those given by mnon Braise, starting on page 29 section 5.3, to see in a house version subsection C, they discuss the clear [xx] of the motor vehicle registration rate been and how they will be used that's not included in the senate version which is on page 10. Page 11 section 8.39 which is actually within the education section while it relate to driver education, the senate, this is page 11, the senate has decided to shift drivers education from DPI to the community colleges and this provision reflects that change, Representative [xx], yes sir, I would want to talk [xx] [xx] [xx] [xx] [xx] [xx] I don't believe there is any state funding Alex [xx] [xx] Well I think there is a fee that can charge and that come available from what I understand those tally being done through to identify the condom sources so on that story completed they may have other alternatives, I'm sure, supplement in terms of the operation of the program that [xx] increase or extend the [xx] familiar so in the first year of the body and there is a study directive community, calling systems [xx] an approach for providing the the public service [xx] system for their specific allocation of funding Mr. Chairman [xx] So essentially you said the senate provides community college [xx] it look and see where they can find money state money which means it's going to have to come from either some private donation of sort or out of the pockets or parents or or students taken or young people taken to graduate class. I would add also local assumption of [xx] Good point Miss Chairman, are you suggesting perhaps they push down the counties, to have the counties funded, is that what you explained when you said that? The Senate budget doesn't repeal the
requirement for public condition program, and so that is one of the available options for analiate to use what [xx]. Thank you, follow up Mr. Chairman. So with that, the repeal, they pretty much continue with program just you got to go find your own money. They let it cut off, hanging out there, I guess this would be my interpretation. Thank you, thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman [xx] question for this rhetoric would be does anyone disputed that [xx] she told a boy, any more question representative Cashier. Represent Pull you again choose empty if you wind up to late from now, beginning back on page 14 section 29.1 there is difference, the difference is essentially updated numbers and I revised subsection C and the house version have called for an eight years revenue podcast, I believe then you take section C in standard version of four year revenue full tax turning 2121, 2022 so, does not overlap yes sergeant I refer to remind quite opposed to my previous question. I think it's usually who should record that did this house can be worked straight forward, and the way to accomplish in other word what our colleague in the other chamber were wanting to accomplish that was to get the, transfer the general fund relative to drivers AF have no longer coming out of the Transportation Highway Fund. We worked long and hard with the hard work of our staff as well came with a fee-based charge for a late fee that was going to the [xx] department's other construction. So we worked in good faith to accomplish what we have had in previous budget years that the Senate wanted working on getting some money going out to transfer to the General Fund and we found a solution for that, and so we had the problem pretty much worked out. Funding for still going to exist it was no longer coming out the highway funds, we had removed that 26 million dollar passed through the General Fund that was not and thought everything was moving forward and then come to find out I suppose that some folks in the Senate just I think we just don't like Driver's Ed, so we fix the first problem and then it comes back now to have the whole program pretty much I think as Representative Martin but as an unfunded mandated pushed off to somebody sometime somewhere that a report or a review board might have determination and I just think that's a perhaps it's just a, honestly a poor way to do business. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Representative Torbitt. Is that something that the committee would like further [xx] and Cover from by House screening Yes. OK. Representative Dollar. The fear of calling home I have something familiarity with community college budgets and a little familiarity with how local LEAs things are funded is somewhat different, and I will say county contributions to community colleges is frequently much smaller amounts in smaller consideration and then obviously the education with the LEAs and it could be a difficult situation unless parents and students are expected to pay pretty much the entire amount, any other comment? [xx] starting back on page 16 section 29.2, the senate version includes the subsection C which specifies how to use economic development funds, that's the only difference otherwise they were identical, page 18 section section 29.2a is a senate only provision it shows the fundings for the repairs and renovations, you know a difference [xx] in the house two form senator of the house basically delayed by here. Section 29.3 is a house only division and that's a various adjustments to the the FTI process, this wasn't included in the senate.
Section 29. is on page 23, does the house only provision and increases the amount of motor fuel tax to this highway draft fund. Page 24 section 29.5, the senate version at the bottom on page 24 lines 10 through 12, basically states that the requirement doesn't apply to safety enhancements or increase its mobility unless their request is in access of the standard required by current law. This wasn't included in the house version. Page 26 is that the senate only provision only area and I think I'm the reference to the area. The state says that the out of state travel budget for the board of transportation should not exceed $25, 000. page 27, section 29.6, this is a house only provision, it allows the bridge program funds to be used for covert. Page 28, section 29.7. Yes sir representative [xx] Thank you from my memory we work from the plant, you and I worked from the plant last session and there was not on official language but they was a general consensus between senate Chair to incorporate the [xx] into that system and so just to clarify that we make sure within language this year it was an oversight I think. That's correct but [xx] correction I think it's the correction by understanding the senate didn't incorporate that anywhere is that correct Not at all not senate would not acknowledge [xx] although they had said previously they they could [xx] actually have a email to that [xx] so are we going back what is land breaking here is are we for are we [xx] This will be in controversy do a comment. Thank you so much. In [xx] what Representative Torbett said they disagreed last year in [xx] coverage would be I think some of the language that didn't quite come clear Starting back on page 28, section 29.7 in a house version you will notice that there are two exceptions to the carp[sp?] on the department of transportation of of states travel budget in line to April 9 you will see it doesn't include expenditure discharge of federal projects and expenditure reinforced by non state entities the second exception expenditure reimbursed by non state entities is not included in the senate version no see them difference can someone explain what are, just some examples of what non state [xx] might be. Will that be Joe from Virginia called him up said I want you all camp here and I'll pay for your thing or what kind of creeps[sp?] are we talking about here? Maybe private corporations. Private corporations can pay for them to go travel out of state. Non profit. Non profit. Non profit could pay for them to come travel out of state, alright. Golf tournament for Training seminars Okay, thank you. Page 30 section 29.8 is identical. Page 31 section 29.9, the Senate version directs the department of transportation and the department of administration to develop and implement a plan to sell off remnant property whereas the house version directed the department to reduce the amount of funds expended per project for the acquisition of ride away's or right of ways by 3%. Page 33, section 29.9A the Senate only provision. It reclassifies two vacant position from the division of highways to road environmental for managing the litter program and lawn mowing. Page 34, section 29.9B is Senate only provision. It extends the sunset on the policy concerning minority owned and women owned business and transportation contracts. Page 35, section 29.10, House only provision requires the department of transportation to provide a report on how the capital improvement needs estimate informed. Page 36, section 29.11 is
a house only provision directs the product evaluation program to approve or disapprove new technologies within one year of submission. Page 37, section 29.12. The only difference is there's a revision of subsection A in the Senate version which you'll notice on on line four, which specifies that the authority shall submit a description of total revisions 30 days prior to the activated that revision, and the house version it was basically submit a report and then inquire for the revisions that will apply in the following year? Thank you. Just for clarification senate is only saying that on post that can change the price to 30 days and we kind of say can you give us a little more advance warning, let's know what you're planning and if you can capture that in a year then. Sure. The house basically said, give us your schedule a year in advance, this has 30 days in advance. Right so correct me if I'm wrong Mr Chair, but what I read here is that worst case scenario, every 30 days they could have total increase, based on this. Is that right? Is that what I see? Well I don't know if that's necessary, this is the report so it's just saying give us a report to do it, there're other laws that will probably come to play. It doesn't specify how often the change the range. Correct. Right now it's an annual range. Correct, which is why we say [xx] give us an annual, what you want that's the schedule, but the report comes back and it says 30 days and theoretically you could afterthat cost every 30 day is that what I'm saying? No, I think what you with the help what he said is that the U-team has to tell the Chamber December you proposed they go the Treasury, it didn't say on behalf of and it is that you have to report 30 days before and so we turn out before he report to which at the current that the next stage is of all increase, while instead I should say you have to report back at the end of November. [xx] We have the day to make that determination toll will be increased. The general report as in December 31st like to make that decision on December 30. Know that the [xx] the 40 has a fee increases and generally the 254 might review it but it is already approved, it's all encrypted to every year starting on January one each year approximately 30 years and the date simply said in annual quarter have to be done simply time and instead he said you have to give it three days noticed they help to send the register noble for it be equipped, starting back on page 41, section 34. 13 is identical, moving to page 46 section 29.14 the house portion as the establishment of the deal t report program, the senate version includes subdivision four, from the house version and that provision requires 1000 funding so as reserved positions to appropriation, representative Dan, thank you Mr. Chair their move was to strategic [xx] and [xx] any this reform package intended to enhance responsibility, making sure we're spending well the money we're no, not that I'm aware of, if you meet people that are some privileged in later on to be anti 10% reduction or anything like that. [xx] all coverage is coming out, I'm not Okay. Actually, well page 37 section 29.14A, the Senate only provision this goes back to what I believe [xx] and [xx] discussed earlier to eliminate 36 provisions specifies which provisions those are, and it also directs the Department of [xx] plan to eliminate 10% more physicians from, that are centrally originally based in a performance administrative, managerial, supervisory, or oversight functions.
Mr. Chair. Yes sir Representative Blackwell. I had asked somebody, I can't remember that was right now about getting a general description who the Senate bills will work specifically relative to their location. Is that being compounded? There are, give me a second, the majority of this divisions are are in Rally they were six who are located outside Rally. You've one employee in their county, one employee in Bradford, each element, every in Cleveland, the seven of the 56 are outside of the county. And are in a DIT rally. Thank you. I believe that this more of the provision this kind of ties back to Representative Tines question because it also calls for reorganization and consolidation in certain instances. Page 50, Section 29.15, the main readers are identical for the most part. The report day and the senate version is much 2016 instead of October 2015 in the house version, and the information requested in the Senate version is on a calendar year basis. while the house version is on fiscal year basis. Representative [xx] Go back and finish that was there ever expressions committee a philosophy behind, was there some sort of strategic for last year anything requesting committee you're openly that why they pick they changed the one regards to some sort of end goal. Representative [xx] you go met the previous. Yes sir, yes sir. The philosophy it was too [xx] wanted to say a central unit that and push those functions [xx] divisions level, and said that it will not be performed [xx] so it reduce there was many [xx] ways and then there was some house components there, and it was just the way forward when necessary quiet easy [xx] [xx] [xx] Study diagram on page 52 section 29.158A the Senate only provision, remove the Cap from a number of ten pipe projects that can be studied and increase it from nine to eleven the number five pipe projects will be established, in the meantime. This is [xx] we just included in [xx] the 188. Mr. Chairman, My gauze would only we already know what to the project, what project and where they are located? I'll start with [xx] projects, right now do you see how the authority to thirty design Bill and projects, you have Monroe Triangle Expressway, in the [xx] this is the lead project to change my [xx] reduces it down to one, so, we are at four projects now, you have I-77 and then you add project [xx] the project we added is UN74 which is independent, and that is a Main Slain project, you have an I-40 in wake in terms of county, another managed Wayne project, and you have an I-77, again a managed lane project, so, those who went third would be included in the existing nine, the problem, as CUC sees it, is that through the X high process there are more projects that actual project concluded in this is that that cannot be funded based on the law. The law has [xx] it says you can study unlimited in the senate version
that's a major point now the law say you can not study more than nine, so this removes that backpro provision. It also extends the projects to 11 so really it actually adds two more projects and you can do actually 11 because the try express one project if it was counted as three then of course you're really only doing nine projects still. So what are the new projects that cannot be be completed under the existing law and it's three or four depending how you break the projects up one is the big one says the continuation of the 540 complete project will [xx] county as one section goes from where it is which is at 55 up to 40 there are at the second phase that takes it from I-40 up to the the US 64 bypass, and next if you have express lane project on I-45 this is the continuation of the I-77 [xx] continuing on from [xx] up to 85, and you have a miniature project on independent boulevards into those [xx] as the three or four projects depending on how [xx] [xx] Mr Chairman yes sir [xx]. Thank you very [xx] graphical explanation or chronological explanation. What two projects are added in it, are you coming spoken at Way County both of them are continuations of the real project? Three projects are, We can only add to those page 9 to 11. But if you are refusing. Understand. The project this should actually allow you to add three projects, so you would be able to do in Wake counties the full I40 loop or MC540 loop. The full shall complete the loop. Possibly it's a treadmill is UTP count one section which would take you up to 540 or beyond 940 to do a complete connection. So that might be funding few projects and you couldn't do the I40 up to the newest 64 bypass. The other county, aile 485, the first project, the second one is independent Starting page on page 53, section 29.16 is the house only provision that directs increased responding for contractor servicing is to be allocated to each county based on pavement condition scores. Page 54 section 29.17, the senate version requires an explanation for unit cost that varied by 10% instead of 20% which is current law and that's actually included in sub section C which starts on page 54 and rolls over into page 55. I don't see any difference in that section, page 57 section 29.17 the house only provision is actually unnecessary now as included in the amendment draft differences between the bill and final report, it is also necessary page 59 section 29.7 seems the senate's only provision, Mr. Chairman, excuse me, I believe, you've got to back that down. Page 57 says no longer necessary to officiate, no longer necessary. Can you maybe ration it down 55 miles per hour instead of seven[x] Sure So sometime at the process you cannot and the money report and as typically when he has the floor, so when an amendment that creates a difference between the money report and the bill you have caution how they can file them and this is I was record five, our differences in going on to the conference before we handle the manual reports, is no longer necessary, Follow up. Hallo, this report is already in piece, isnt' contravening, yes sir,
and the senate on regression they have said yes is 25 million of this and the other. Page 59 section 29.17c is the Senate only provision from later sent subsection D1 on starting on line 12 is in cambering schedule similar to what's included for payment preservation and is essentially served at the department of transportation as to spend on camber all forms of progress in the fiscal year for which he funds were appropriated. Page 60 section 29.17D, Senate only provision, loose funding for state aid term being tied to more fuel excise tax rates to a level based on appropriation. Page 62 section 29.17E is another Senate only provision that direct the study on how to improve safety on secondary roads page 63 section 29.17 another senator on the provision direct 50, 000 dollars from the special registration plate account to the high county host for renovating or upsetting the business centre and [xx] county if it's relocated during this biennium. Mr. Chairman, Representative [xx] relative to on page 62, just for future reference have to remind me that if that go straight we will remain so we need to incorporate that, perhaps some of the safety reducing yield for time [xx] that make sure the line stay pegged on the road and fix potholes and pecs [xx] road improvement more so, I think I will be directly [xx] to the safety for secondary roads which has understand more North Carolinian's travel secondary roles or any other primary systems. Thank you Mr. Chair Starting back on page 64, section 29.18 is identical page 65, section 29.19 is a house only provision. It directs that any bonus given in FCI process for the bridge project goes to the highway division. Page 66, section 29.20 house only provision, language from house bill 771, directing how utility relocation costs ought to be paid. Page 67, section 29.21 is identical. Page 68, section 29.22 there's a minor difference between the Senate and house version on lines three through four. It owns or leases the rail equipment in the senate version and the house version it just says own's the rail equipment. This is basically to correct or disconnect between the leading language and the rest of the language division sort of very minor. Page 70, section 29.2 three is identical. Page 71, Section 29. 23A is a senate only provision it provides that receipts generated at the ships yard proceeds from the receipts generated at the ship yard maybe used for improvement for the ship yard including acquiring a placement equipment. Page 72 Section 29.23 fee is another senate only provision this is actually language from senate bill 540, it sets the fee for priority boarding on ferries, Excuse me, Mr Chairman Representative Torbet is there current fee for priority boarding on ferries? I don't believe [xx] There is none so basically what you're saying is anyone that wants to use the ferry in a [xx] would have to pay $150 for an annual pass is that right? If the priority was based off a fee it would have to be $150. It would have to be $150 so any North Carolinian that would be wanting to get on a ferry and let's say they had a sick child or trying to get their child to the doctor in a rush they would be able to priority express on ferry to go see the doctor, then you have to pass by a $150 path. This law just specifically says that if you get a priority passing you a thousand dollar figure to it it's got be $150 Okay With that being said that might be something that you do on yearly basis so you would have spend a [xx] you got this pretty much it. Representative Tine There's only one
route currently with [xx] is that correct? I think so. Any follow up yes sir And also the purpose or the reason for that [xx] is that does have a bridge or road and any other means of travel and so therefore it's the way that people commune, there's the school buses all those the emergency beef of all those other things they have the priority fast just for those people that don't have access I believe so I'm not sure. Is there [xx] for having that [xx] I don't believe so we could [xx] for transportation So basically you're adding a tax to the local people basically without a the access are being correct issues only if they don't want to wait for the client Right Mr. Chairman I call upon that is their any new estimate for this. Southhampton there hasn't been a bit of a willingness to make I represent [xx]. Thank you Mr. Sherrif of the house. [xx] I'm not allowed to have [xx] because [xx] [xx] of course, look on page 73, Section 29.23C and now the senator always provision with language from Senate bill 382 to direct the issue on to an RFI for privatizing the ferry system and also requires a study Representative Ted, I know you don't [xx] I have a couple of questions the first one is they say the General Assembly finds that the privatization will provide more cost effective service model, but there's [xx] study that has been done, just on tenth statement. Okay, it said that they find then the prime conversation done, so I was just wondering if there was any sort of out there whatsoever, that has [xx] then we'll do the results at the center. That would probably just be a question for the members. Will this put any of the federal funding that we get towards the ferry system in jeopardy by privatizing? Not entirely sure. Not to our knowledge at this point in time. If they privatize. I would say that through the [xx] process there are multiple forms of privatization that can ultimately be entertained [xx] Representative Torbet Thank you Mr. Chairman, serious request please, let's say they study and they find out that there is some main and they pretty much get the wheel of the general assembly and pass this and privatize the ferry system, that means to be handled by independent provider vendor, how do you going to categorize that? Now for that happening to make a profit or just break even. You're now operating a ferry system, can anyone explain to me what there, how they would garner revenue for operation and pay employees and do all the recommendations to maintain the safety to that vessel for the people using it going back and forth? How can it non-profit remain like holding three systems in place impact and still operate a profitable business, does anybody got a new math they can help me with that on? You have a question Representative Stan? Yeah, followed system research, there's not a presumed framework associated with this proposition, study or thought of the but essentially engage private and Operating system parts on the system, that scenario can range for us, state subsidized operation but for a private operator which should appear part of the
operation but not essentially not the provision for state employees, or essentaily the state wait, or ranging all the way to scenario which there is a session for responsibility for charging or accepting see that quite often so there is a slight range or [xx]. Thank you for follow up it's an interesting concept when you read it. [xx] if, well use part of this as an example other than that they were they looked at their whole DOT system pretty much from an aspect of what if you just privatize the whole system where you could reduce state staff down the point and just having some operating, some booth keepers, some oversight and letting of contracts to the following up with the projects. I'm wondering if that's what the senate is leaning is just, are they thinking. I'll address that with them to safe looking at perhaps in for many on something at the very system that could easily evolve something that can beat this sudden and can be just departmentation and reduce I think our compliments around in that great and reduce that compliment down it might be a 1000 or 2000 employs the bill to you and just pretty much provide oversight for project delivery. It's an interesting concept, I look forward to our conversations from them so that I can understand ration maths I do want to say that I think the discussion is about 15 minutes so we got to I think they are done, push on A are we going to have another meeting Mr. Chair? Yeah, we can have another meeting but I mean we're about halfway through this I think Page 74 starting back, section 29.24 is the house only provision, kind of law provided the establishment of totals is subject to chapter 150B of the general statute, the house provision removes that ramson, page 75 section 29.25, house only provision moves their reversal replacement of the STI to the brain which program? Page 77, section 29.26 another provision clarify that the acquisition of walk on fery [xx] is not subject to STI. Page 78 section 21.27 as plays omission by Braise, certain funds allocated or given to the division of aviation are going to be allocated for Cape Fear Regional Jet port and the Albert J Ellis Airport and that's the only reference from the House provision. Page 80 Section 29.27 A as a Senate only provision, the main difference is this allows a portion of proceeds from the municipal vehicle tax to be used from pruting public streets or the tax as levy and for your reference that will be on lines 23 through 26 on page 80 subdivision three, page 82 section 29.27B and [xx] makes the appropriate of funds to the highway fund and the highway trust fund the 70, 30 split instead of the 75, 25 split and eliminates the distribution of gas tax to non-commercial lust[sp?] which as Bryce[sp?] referenced earlier is handled by the NER Section. Page 83 section 29.28 is a house [xx] provision this has been a line motion [xx] and expect prior application to the [xx] aircraft [xx] page 86 section 29.29 house only. It sets the diesel rate at 36 cents and tax rate for motor fuel at 33 cents per 2016 and 2017 reversed back to the formula that was implemented in senate bill 20 Page 87, section 29.30 we have a considerable number of pages left, a lot of this being with the BMB fee increases and additional revenues but I suggest we include for the day reschedule the next meeting to get over the remainder of the topic and give us sometime to think and provide and I guess we're putting questions now and we must have about the implementation we've already received, we have gone through it a ton of information today, [xx] as come in, come in and stand there, ok, we'll adjourn this committee and we'll see in the next year intown, we might as a mender we think if
we don't have a thing after session today, I'm moving, now we are going to want 12 but after that okay, well we'll look at the schedule and see what we can do may be tomorrow morning. July 7th a person from there would want to meet with you. I mean that's fine with me, I don't know I'm meeting tomorrow, but I didn't know that, I didn't know John didn't want to leave [xx] figure it out Yeah, we'll work it out, we'll get [xx]. Thank you all, staff. Appreciate your help