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 | May 7, 2013 | Committee Room | Appropriations

Full MP3 Audio File

The amount of stuff that if the committee will come to work members will take their seats in this area 8 hour sessions in the back with precision taken this house of Berkeley’s data of course have with us on our service amounts from Adams bob Rossi Jesse H9 they should have an edge in the Marshall Le Statham winners helping us they are pages for the day or Corey Lewis,(SPEAKER CHANGES ) a county sponsored by the speaker Thomas Cameron for an unmatched county sponsored by Virginia college Shelby daily from Orange County sponsored by representatives, and Rachel when money collected and a New Hanover, sponsored by representative of catholic lease them is with this first bill that we will take up this morning I think this will make you want a the years house bill 30 transfer of 80 and the cultural center properties valued to have a PC as the basically the PCs states shall be a toll booth PM the money it was in the bill this week in an alleged way and how well like to do is to, recognize the person that Charles Graham two of its a few words if you would like to inform ocean the more they shared when the Middle East, noted to this mail on this one to?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) the members of this committee this is a good deal is a good tenant May 10 to be stored weapons integrity to the ball, the caucus and by the shooting was found that my command be a good worker of the way they wish to get over the last several months on their divorces of across the state pertaining to this property on the fate of messages made clear that the existing culture center should be developed and used the defense department's and that purpose was to promote the culture of the mechanism in North Carolina and specifically in Robeson county is a great opportunity to restore on an opportunity to celebrate the call from the state is a good opportunity for economic development and three assists a product to get back to celebrating on my call to the cultures of other by the state as a man as young man to enter the town of this year like to make a motion that which occurred as they are PCs that john birch and Cleveland nation's four for discussion purposes without objection PCs is for four singer a burgeoning the motions toward a just a little table or to the PCs, while still 69 through the racial bill on the trees four any questions about the schools and question coming soon nine ball is in favor of the bill say of those good in the motion picture slide that we wont to house bill 817 strategic transportation investments the governor's transportation bill and return a phone bill Brawley is the recognized two, presented the bill to assembly said he is showing the general guard and the thing for the formation, and we also have any of the PCs with four storm this bill Marchand affair calls news that the PCs be properly before be a committee without objection to nine million PCs are would force the burgeoning brawling budget is chairman, would like to start, count rodman to his chief operating officer of the NT to give an overview of the governor's transportation plan to slow as proposed that Mr. Norris and rolling ??....................

I’m going to go through a few of the slides in case you have not seen them yet, on… that the Governor and the Secretary used in the announcement of this initiative and proposal, and it’s entitled ‘Accelerating Infrastructure Investments for Economic Growth through a Strategic Mobility Formula’, and to set the stage, we have been using our existing trust fund revenues and existing formula since 1989, and when the Governor gave us the charge of developing a 25 to 30 year total and synchronized infrastructure plan that would not just deliver transportation but better coordinate transportation with the elements that are important in infrastructure and economic development, and that that he cited for us directly was water, power and communications and transportation, in working with economic developers, how do we better synchronize those efforts? Because we can’t be everything everywhere, so how do we strategically make sure that all of those elements are working together across the state and not at cross-purposes? One of the problems that we identified, and I’m sure you’re already aware by 2030 we anticipate 50% population growth in North Carolina. In the short-term in the ten years from today, we anticipate that we’ll have 1.3 million increase in population over that next ten years. Simultaneously, our three main revenue sources are motor fuels, DMV fees and highway use taxes. Of those three, the most significant one’s 60% comes from motor fuels, which we anticipate will continue to decline on average at 2% per year over the next ten years, so that will equal about a 1.7 billion dollar total reduction in revenues over the next ten years during the same time period we will see a 1.3 million population increase, which leads us to what the Secretary calls and is illustrated here the “infrastructure gap” that will not allow us to pursue better integration with business and all the elements of infrastructure and development as we’d like. So as we’re developing our 25-year plan, we want to make sure we have the right framework to deliver that plan, and one of the challenges we see now is with declining resources. We’ll be able to do less than we can today unless we change our current system and revenue sources. So part of the problem, as I said, is the revenue sources are limiting as we move forward. One of them, highway use, at the 3% sales on motor vehicles will slightly grow; however, that’s the one that has been hit the hardest with the recession. In the first two years of the recession, we saw 20% decrease in those revenues. So the challenge for us is how do we do that. Being the tenth-highest motor fuels tax state in the nation today, we can’t just increase the rates. We have to look out and say “What do we need to do in the future in transportation?” and relying just on those three we believe is not the right answer. However, our citizens know that before they’ll agree to any change in rates and sources, we have to show that we’re as efficient as we possibly can be, and we want to address the efficiency part first, so this slideshow’s part of that. Closing that gap will be from new and different revenues, but the other part will be from what I’m going to go over today and introduce you to, and that’s what we’re calling the ‘strategic mobility formula’. And so in simple, the proposal is that we will move our maintenance and operations accounts to the highway fund now. Now there’s a blend of maintenance and operations across both funds, and in the trust fund, that will be our capital program to deliver all our capital needs across the state irregardless of mode of transportation, and the proposal is that of those resources in the trust fund, we will allocate them 40% to a statewide level of competition for projects that meet criteria across the state. 40% of those revenues will go to each of the seven regions across the state, so you’ll get a regional distribution, and then 20% will go to each of the 14 divisions that we have that have been in existence since 1989. In our analysis that got

that got us to this point. We looked at that kind of structure, and we said okay, how do we believe our projects will fare and what kind of projects will be selected, and we looked at the projects that are currently in the draft, 10 year program and resource plan, or the transportation improvement plan, and then we looked at what the potential would be using this proposal. And summary, and we did this using something called the "Transportation and Economic Development and Infrastructure System," which is called TREDIS, which is a software package that we use to evaluate programs and projects. And running TREDIS through all of these projects in this analysis, we come up with, in the current plan we were delivering about 175 projects, and TREDIS estimates that will produce 174,000 both short term, which is primarily the construction and supporting industry related jobs, and long term jobs, 174,000 total, and then TREDIS also predicts, as we run it through all the candidate projects that we would anticipate could be selected just on the quantitative scores, not the inputs from the locals that you'll hear about later. We anticipate that using those funds in the trust fund, that would deliver about 260 projects over 10 years, for a total of about 240,000 short term and long term jobs. And so with the Governor's focus for us for how do we improve our synchronization with all of these infrastructure elements across the state, and how are we better partners in economic development and jobs creation, we believe that this proposal will do that, and in summary I believe that it's primarily the cause if its focus on improving travel time across the state, whether that's travel time in an existing urban congested corridor, or travel time from a small mill town that now is looking for its economic opportunities outside of that mill village in areas where jobs are growing and they are struggling to maintain those jobs. And so with that, Rep. Brawley, I would turn it back over to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, General. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if you would recognize Rep. Torbett for an amendment. If we could have the lights back on please. Thank you. Rep. Torbett? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized to present amendment 1, ARW-32 version 1, and that should be, is that passed out yet? Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If the gentleman would be recognized to explain the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well we'll just hold on that for just a moment while they pass it out. Okay, I believe most everybody has the amendment now. Rep. Torbett is recognized to present his amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I thought this was going to be my amendment to have it not go below 75 degrees for the rest of the year. But I see that this is not the one. I actually, this amendment provides what we

Representative: ..a remedy to some of the concern we heard to monies allocated at the local level. Essentially, what it does, it takes the division of funds from 40-20 to 40-30-30, which, of course, adds an addition 10% at the local level, and removes 10% at the regional level. That pretty much explains it Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Speaker: Representative Brawley? Representative: Thank you Mr. Chair. There were several members that raised concerns and wanted to offer amendments: Representative Wilkens, Shepherd, and others. There was concern that not enough money being under control at the division level, that the more rural areas may be somewhat shorted in the funds. The way allocations are done in projects: the statewide projects are going to be driven completely by data; regional projects, which are two paired districts, were 70% data, 30% local; a district project is 50% data, 50% local decision. Projects that are approved at a higher level can be funded at a lower. A state project can be funded by regional and district money; a regional project could be funded from regional and district money as well. So putting more money in control of local folks does not impact the ability of worthy regional projects from drawing support in being funded, but it does allow the local units to have more protection from concerns of the money being all sucked up in a few projects. Now along with this, already in the bill there is a cap that no single project can take more than 10% of the available money. So we were hopeful that this would address some of the concerns members may have. That districts that did not have a Charlotte or a Raleigh in it may be short changed on road money. I would recommend the approval Mr. Chairman. Speaker: Representative Wilkens? Representative: Thank you Mr. Chair. I do support this. it is a good starting point to try to address concerns that it think rural folks ought to have. I am about as country as it gets. Mr. Chair, I thank Representative Brawley and Tourbit in particular for the way they worked with me as they said they would. This does not allay every fear that I have on the impact on rural areas, and we will see that going forward. Thank you Mr. Chair. Speaker: Further questions or comments on the amendment? Seeing none, all those in favor of the amendment say aye [aye], all opposed, no [silence]. The aye’s have it and the amendment is adopted. At this time, Representative Brawley, before we would take some additional amendments, I would like to open it up if there are any questions with regard to General [xx]’s presentation on behalf of the members? Representative Cleveland? Representative: Thank you Mr. Chairman. The general mention does this tretis system that they are using, I have not heard of this system prior to this strategic investing coming forth. Is it something we have been using in the past and we just never talked about it, or are we building something new here? Representative: No, sir, it is commercially available. It originally came out of Harvard University, then a spin off company made it better, based out of Cambridge, MA. We have been using it to prioritize our loops and the strategic mobility fund projects, like [xx] river bridge in the past, and we have been using it internally, but now we are proposing to use it to evaluate our programs to make sure that we are getting the economic impact out of our programs that we think. So we have been using it internally, but this is the first time we have proposed to use it to show it as part of the benefits in programs and projects. Representative: Mr. Chairman, follow up? So what you are telling me is that the department is comfortable that this program

It is viable and will be something that's gonna produce what you say its suppose to produce. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir at this point,I think at this point my only reservation right now, its calibrated with national level data. And one of the things we wanna do, and so its predictions are based on national level trends. What we wanna do is calibrate it for North Carolina and one option is we can start collecting data on projects as we award them and then see how they evolve through time. Which would be a very long and time consuming process. The other options we are looking at is to go back 10 or 15 years ago and then every 5 years see what happened through that time and sort of calibrate it from historical data. And thats the direction that we're moving. To make sure we calibrate it before we use on a very robust method. For North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brisson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr Chair. General, would you mind just touching and giving a short update on how different the money is with this proposal in rural areas and what it will be with the new proposal. The way its funded now and the way its actually funded in the future. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir I don't know, do they have any handouts. Where there any left over? Are there any hand outs? I didn't see what was in your packed so I dont know if you have any. Well I can tell you basically the way we had allocated funds in the past is to the regions and then to the divisions within those regions. This basically is the same amount of money plus about 700 and 50 millions dollars more every 5 years. Because of the fact that we're moving the power bill allocation from. Part coming from high way fund and part coming from trustfund over to the high way. Is that they'll be another 750 that w cannot spend on road way improvements we will be spending on roadway improvements. However we didn't have a statewide pot. The only statewide pot that we had previously was the mobility fund which is only 58 million a year. And then lukes but that wasn't a statewide allocation that was only to the 10 Luke eligible cities. So by accumulating all of that money, I think across all the regions from their historical allocation they'll be on average about 100 million dollar's less direct but with that statewide allocation you'll more than offset that by about 2 more billion dollars roughly. That everyone can be eligible for on that statewide competition. And I see all the regions having the capability o competing because everyone of them has projects that I believe would score well in a statewide competition. And then each of the divisions will have a equal amount of ability to do so.[SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr Chairman [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mr chairman so in that pot could that pot be transferred maybe back. Or is it there for specifically that you sent it and it would be used in the rule. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is basically each allocation is to. Like the statewide is for all divisions to compete for and all projects to compete for. Then the region is only the projects coming out of those pair of divisions compete for those regional dollars and that division level only projects within that division. And so theres no transfer capability other than we still have an incentive for if you wanna bring other funds. Like local i mean purely local like municipal funds or if you have a toll project that everyone in the region wants and you agree to that. Theres an incentive provision that allows you to get half of that money back to the projects in your division for doing that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Vowler I believe you wanted to comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr chairman. If you look on page 31 of the bill near the back. When it gets to the actual formulas being used the DOT has to report back to the join transportation oversight committee no later than August 15, again no later than October 1st ..

M11 jammers first end of the concern about making the foremost, a collection on the Hartford message of the same way they should take your level of the possible the public wants to construct a beginning and end the following year the transition will be reported on March 1 to November 1 missile destroyer one delay us as well for most together by today's second, your dishes from the impacted by this is this is the own procedure this is a finalist next day not make the final picture willfulness and put this on TV and an apologist for this list to this list of staff that you can hold your questions for sex death warmed through the sections of the bill and that may answer some questions and we'll come back too will further questions said that some members have and,(SPEKER CHANGES ) we'll deal with the balance of the amendment should school staff is recognized as from 21 explain the bill that is the chairman Telstra from research division of the first a section of the 1.1 includes the form a listing specification are decision funding plan for transportation investments of this section as a new formula that would ever use of the mail on highway trust fund funds in Federal aid funds with some was some exceptions than they would be distributed 30% of the statewide projects 30% three small projects and 20% to a 403030 assessment of Beijing that you'll see a one page sheet from there's a chart that indicates how the funds will be distributed according to the formula in more detail against a waitress loan fund revenues and Federal aid funds I would think sections listed C Mac is fresh and Federal funds of our good service and you can see those from exceptions listed me to turn to page two of the handhelds George you'll see, the three of two years to say what we joined additional two year 4030 30th to go sponsor indicated the first statewide group will be scored on a percent quantitative data E ratio will be stored on 70% 32 local input and the division project sure will be scored up 50% of them to produce a local employment and you can see list of the various projects will be eligible for each of funding two sections on 2.1 of the bill through section 2.9(SPEAKER CANGES) the changes to the state's second are rich program of some good news sections they sell, was crestfallen about Califano should say the second director searching for an end requires a bipartisan issue for secondary live on paid leave pending sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the bill rate changes to the statement from the spell is also missed the call will the staff section 3.1 J just enough a little revenue allocated for state and spell news, from 1 3/4¢ per gallon of fuel starts to 10.4% of the Nobel producer in fiscal year of this should the is intended to hold harmless of the mouths allocated to the focus sessions 4.1 through 4.8 T and the bill are conforming changes to the changes are technical Howard section 4.8 does contain changes to be on our law concerning the funding for specified turnpike project of projects such as 5.12545 of the bill 5.6 Richter said the changes to the turnpike authority statutes of section 541 specifically women's to turn back the results are as project list and section 5.2 authorizes to you to turn a corner and 123 partnership agreements on which of private excuse for projects are also news from your local news section seven from possible 10 5/14 seven ??...........

A and 5.7B concerning the expediting the southeast extension of the triangle expressway. And I believe Representative Iler whenever sections 6.1 and 6.2 which concern studies and reporting to the General Assembly. And finally section point, 7.1 provides the effective date July 1st and provides that this bill would not become effective unless the General Assembly appropriates funds in the operations, the current operations act to implement the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Questions from committee members and I had, I already had a few names down. Representative Baskerville. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Question for either the bill’s sponsor or General Tragon/g if that’s okay. I represent a district that has more than one MPO in it. It’s a rural district but we are included in an MPO with larger municipalities like Raleigh My question to the bill’s sponsor or General Tragon/g is are the funds that are appropriated to the MPOs, are all of those funds competed for equally by all areas that are inside the MPO? Are there dedicated funds only for that MPO? And then if other areas that are a part of that MPO but in a different highway division, are they not entitled to try to compete for those funds? Is that making any sense? [SPEAKER CHANGES] A very technical question and I will try not to give you too long and complicated answer. First there’s only one special category of funds that go directly to MPOs and those are Federal funds and they’re called STPDA or direct attributable funds. So they’re a very, very small portion of what we’re talking about. This is all state and Federal transportation funds, but very small percentage funds go directly to the MPOs. There is no direct funds going to RPOs. So that’s not part of Federal law nor state law. If a project is in an MPO or an RPO boundary, irregardless of which division that’s the projects that they will rank and put their points on projects in their boundary. So it’s irregardless of, if there’s two divisions that split an MPO or RPO, and MPOs and RPOs do not overlap. So there’s no duplication here. There’s no conflict. They will rank those projects and purpose those projects within their boundaries only. And there’s no conflict with the funding. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Mr. Chair. Thank you. So. All right. The capital area MPO receives about $13 million in STP funding and TA funding? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. STPDA. That’s direct attributable dollars from the Federal government. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you have one [CROSSTALK] follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] One more follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would my county of Vance county be able to compete for that $13 million? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No because the Federal government says it goes directly to that MPO. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Insko. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. And I, I have, I think I’m gonna to follow up on the same line of questions that’s been going. It has to do with the money that, that is competed for. And I’m, I’m, I’m assuming that what happens is that there are various projects that come within each region and they compete against each other. The regions don’t compete against each other. The, the competition is within each region. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct. And just as a note to Representative Baskerville this bill will no impact with that Federal MPO money. It, it can’t any impacts. So the issue that you’re addressing while real is totally beyond the scope of our bill to effect. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And a follow up Representative Dollar? [SPEAKER CHANGES] One follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And the, the decision will be made at the local level or at the state level? Will the decision be made by the MPOs or on, on the competition? How? When, when the projects come in, they get ranked, they compete against each other

Who does that ranking? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I thank the representative for a question. On the regional projects, seventy percent of the scoring for the project will be based on data-driven criteria. Thirty percent will be on the weighting by the MPOs and the local government bodies. On the district projects, fifty percent of the ratings will be purely on data, and fifty percent on the deliberations of the political bodies. And those will be within the regions and within the districts respectively. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My concern is I represent the mountain region of our state, and we have certain demographics that sometimes get overlooked in ??. We are relatively, have a relatively low population, but our highway projects are through the mountains. And they're very expensive. And we've had some federal Appalachian funds that have been allocated to our region, both due to the fact that our region is often considered poor and needing funds and the highways projects are expensive in this area. And I worry about those federal funds being put in a statewide basket and then allocated on criteria that, again, sort of neutralize the intent of having those federal funds in Appalachia. So, how do you anticipate dealing with our dilemma of getting our projects funded out west? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brock. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, there are two parts to the answer. Number one, the Appalachian highway funds are not touched by this so that all of those federal dollars are remaining exactly where they are, and the projects are not impacted. One of the other changes is statewide prioritization of unpaved roads versus county-by-county prioritization. The west has more unpaved roads as a percentage than do other areas of the state, which will allow DOT to pave more roads in the mountains. Currently, there are a lot more dirt roads in the mountains than there are in the rest of the state. And you need more paving money up there. This will allow us to address that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're going to be in much better shape on Corridor K. You know, your problem is with the federal government up there on environmental issues and what have you. Any further questions at this time? I want to get back to the amendments. Representative Floyd? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, maybe if we can do it at another time or at this particular point of time. I know we keep talking about MPOs. And there's many municipalities that have some concerns about how it's operate. And it may have effect, you know, some of this information that's in this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for the comment. Representative Bumgardner. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's one of the questions I had about this issue with the MPOs and the fact that we're voting on a bill that, it says here, "The department shall report by August 15th." This is May. We're voting on a bill, and we don't yet know how the information that makes the determination is going to be determined. We don't know where it's going to come from. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman's correct. It has not been completed. It will be reviewed by the general assembly. I think the difficulty with delaying the bill until we have it is I don't intend being in session in August. And I'm certainly hopeful the rest of us are all back home in the district too. Now, transportation oversight will view it. This does not go into effect until, with its full force, until 2015. So, parts of it will start in 2013, and the funding will need to go forward. This is a framework. This is not complete document. But the additional formulas, the implementation language will all come back before

This body before a settlement that we will have a chance for this is not a case of where we're passing a bill pending in a rumor and never seeing it again I don't know what the regulations or until they applied to miss this is one where we are creating a framework that will allow the creation of the implementing web of regulations and then we will have the opportunity to review those before they are implemented well without creating the flame or four of those regulations the regulations cannot be created or ?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) example until this bill passes now they did know what the distribution was, they would be 404020 which was their proposal or 403030 which is what we are currently in the courts and acting days like that are born to be relevant to what the regulations couple met until we have a bill they don't know what you're trying to accomplish with the regulations so this is unfair to process and I are involved at this point sets a framework for them to the regulations to implement the policy we determined then we would you the regulations to make sure they're doing all we want them to bed and I would also end, Gellman if the regulations are way off the reservation I'm sure he'll join me in sponsoring a bill that correct in which we would certainly be able to play by 15% of Wilkinson’s recognized, 274 amendment gives some in the number two AR give you 23 version of taking this chair members those of you, (SPEAKER CHANGES) Sherwood mail transfer the issue of already heard meals by almost bet the house to your Home Mortgage program will to two are roller years and am it's good that it's something that, in my district and we live with already in my district where the wheel highway division with clay county and Orange County National home where accustomed to ?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) Sonoma for waiting for the home to fourth triple if you will look at the home amendment people , correct 221 to page from my wall first direct to the page four to give you some context where Mrs. Gandhi the school of nonmembers with and home and number 52 division leads projects mother worked with torpedoes of old homeless man and with amendment to limit the supply of 16,000,000 all our fiscal year or useful or PLO's their 16 RPM from the state will the 16,000,000 would be distributed only per capita basis of home this would go this money would likely be use four will spark safety projects four will highway and ends with roger and I understand that potential men when designates a bit beyond what the bill's sponsors home would like to say but also believe that the most memorable help rural North Carolina Alexa bush's own addition, pearlman much better manner in which chairman of the option of them and are several top of this chairman awarded a Fontana Cameron from the school research could be recognized to fight with bill's impact on the medicine, as I can bet that scale Richard and thank you and everyone fiscal research the first 1020. T. Byrne to sponsors are works of 5 C.E. SPI students performed nightly five remain there for me, the local exchange spell of the essentially a wide array based ID population estimates on its way around a key Iraq international banking arm went largely through a way district's 567818 , instead of two areas around why my point of mount a ??...

One second please. One point of note, also is this applies to the division category, and all divisions are based on equal share, so this creates another formula to say that a portion of the equal shares would therefore be distributed to the RPOs. Those amount to be $1.4 million in divisions 1 and 4, $1.9 million in 2 and 3, $3.4 in 5 and 6, $2.7 in 7 and 9, $3.1 million in 8 and 10, and $1.8 million in 11 and 12, and $1.4 million in division 13 and 14. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask that this amendment be defeated for a couple of reasons. It would make more sense if we had not changed the allocation at the division level, but we've increase the money that the divisions have. While it's 10% of the total, it's a 50% increase of the money that's directly under the control of the division, and that's more than $16 million, so we've already more addressed this issue. Part of the justification being it's not spot safety. What I would just ask is that this be defeated. This issue's been addressed by Representative Torbett's amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just going to ask if the sponsor, or someone could identify those numbers by county, I'm just wondering if my county's in one of those numbers somewhere. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I think you're a donor. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I thought so. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I think that's what you wanted to know. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Absolutely, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Further questions? Further questions or comments on the amendment? Seeing none, all those in favor of the amendment say aye. All those opposed say no. [SPEAKER CHANGES]No. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The no's have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. The next amendment is Amendment Number 3, ARW-28, Version 2, and before I recognize Representative Bumgardner to present his amendment, I will remind the committee, I think there are a couple of other people who wanted to send some amendments up here, we will vote on this bill at 9:45, so we will have a vote on this bill at 9:45. Representative Bumgardner, you're recognized to explain your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is a simple, friendly little amendment that keeps my district from becoming a part of, what I hate to see happen, and that is a North Carolina kind of turning into a toll road state. And I would like to avoid that if I possible can, and I would love to have a recorded vote on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, a I ask you to support it. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mrs. Cameron could address the fiscal impact. [SPEAKER CHANGES]To give a brief understanding of what this amendment does, this amendment essentially says the Garden Parkway can be built, it can be tolled, but the only state funds allowable is through the division dollars, the division needs category. DOT estimates this project will cost the state $541 million, this is outside of toll revenues, based on the 40-30-30 split, in a 5 year period, the division will have access to $181 million. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Brawley is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Bumgardner and I have had a lot of discussions about the Garden Parkway, also known as the Gaston East-West Connector. This is a very controversial road in Gaston County. It's divided the county. There are people on both sides, I understand the Representative Bumgardner wants to kill this project and I'm sympathetic to it. My difficulty with this is this is not about tolls, this is about legislating the outcome of a road that has not yet been decided by the local people. It

Is politics deciding roads, not data deciding roads, and it defeats the very purpose of this bill. I ask you to defeat this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Just to representative Hastings over here, just a point of interest. I'm not trying to leave your committee or get out of votes but we do have rules at 9:30 so I just wanted to get an excuse to go to rules committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If a member needs to leave for a purpose then they'll be able to leave for their purposes. Representative Jeter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I could just make a brief comment on the amendment. One of the things I think that's so brilliant about this concept is it does away with statutory set asides, more commonly referred to as earmarks. Earmarks can work both ways. They can mandate a project or they can mandate the elimination of a project. To me we've got to go away from that process. This amendment puts us right back to what I think we're trying to avoid and I don't think it's something that we should pass. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Other members wishing - Representative Bumgardner. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. This amendment is not a mandate, it simply says - it's a suggestion on how things could be done, that's all it is. And I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further comments? Representative Harrison. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair, I've been watching this debate about this project for years. I think that this is a good amendment and I'd urge members to support it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further - Representative Pittman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I personally believe we need to move away from toll roads altogether. This is a good opportunity to start doing that so I'm going to support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further comments? Representative Brawley. Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thanks. I'm opposed to this amendment. I voted with representative Bumgardener a couple of days ago when he was taking the high road with the tie-in [??] amendment in finance, but here he's doing the exact opposite. Again I agree with representative Brawley, we don't need mandates from the legislature to DOT to mess up the data driven decisions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila. Further comments? All in favor of the amendment say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed say no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The aye's clearly have it, the aye's have it and the amendment is not a - excuse me, the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Sorry. Just seeing if you're on your toes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amendment number four, representative Bungardener. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I ask for a division on that vote please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think that in the interest of time and the clarity of the vote I don't think that we need to do that at this time. Representative McGrady is recognized to send forward amendment number 4MAH12 version 1. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. My amendment I hope I view it as just a transparency amendment. We're now going to a really data driven process and if that's so then I think its important that folks be able to figure out what that data is, how the scoring is done, the calculations and modelling processes that are involved. And so that's what my amendment does. I just want to give a shot out to representative Glazier and I were working on the same amendment and so he allowed me to ruin [??] it. But this bill has nothing to do with formulas or anything else, it's just to make sure that the process is transparent. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would the gentleman yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] IO yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would it be of the gentleman's intent that discussions on the models interim [??] things in the process of discussion would be revealed, or is it the intent of the amendment that when a project is rating the rating score and process behind that be revealed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] All of the process leading up to whatever the final result is, I understand there will be drafts and all of that. I'm looking to see what the final result is, the final data, the final scoring is, not the whole process that goes forward. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler is recognized.

Tough military respect of assembly of operation a good idea trespassing will Martin sent a story one on that day will come back to the tour oversight committee and the only public in the town this is the name as a public should they decide to local school restructuring of the arsonist or(SPEAKER CHANGES) thank you Mr. Chairman, five speed up on this I think is my understanding weeded out literature protections was my understanding 10 this bill is the one we established always strive to do next is transparently open issue make off with decision-making that I would hire spadework in the body just a different ideas understanding of the bill is no defined language and use that we actually cost if anything the circuit, would this agents during the day the Dean process of evaluation that we would make it public gets as promptly as possible by the CD-ROM they can (SPEAKER CHANGES) Mr. Ballard wrote status pointed out that the home page 31 line in 1940 and alliances for that topic will include a statement on the putt of six used by the department to develop the formulas including a listing of external partners and are consulted that during the process including feedback from Mr. Cuomo workgroup partners only for a spark a proposed recommendation to misunderstand that information can be a long factors that are there days, like the bills already doing what you want to , represented a great guy us in the body that's a process within a legislative process launched and in the process of talking about is the data scoring on a bed of India is our pianos of a range of others are gonna see through on law and is the on the market research projects and decisions are being made I guess I don't see the problem on live on adding reporting back to the legislative process by having on the language and I'm suggesting here are gender glacier peak year much as chairman, also supportive of residents support person agrees a minimal think of that age is referred to on reporting the back of deal exactly within a few minutes trying to get a file that this was a calculation from profs not everything that went to four with a final data that we're making decisions on since the process of appropriately is moving to a downturn process. The public as well as members of all the direction now with the calculations are being based on a 10 Z can see a problem all six of its own an issue, and one?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) except to make sure that all we know what decisions are being based on unapproved anything is so I think this bill is transparent transportation bill was either side of the original budget is chairman of my concern is on the slopes innocuous but my concern is actually this to be a temptation and the idea would be as soon as this is in the bill passes people start demanding information bills as soon as practical all know everything you need to nine while we're working through formulas and modeling anything that's the school honors will formally no weather not it works is immediately seized upon by the opponents and use the web of opposition and not two years of using a couple of really good bills the feel of the year on Serbian bell also we did know how stupid they were until we're actually confirm their stupidity but its pullout as the health that's what you're gonna do call your represented the next thing you need of 500 emails to reading your reelection because of something above because the question somebody has its we're talking about disclosing the information the rights of project when the project is writing is that if that's what we're talking about that's one to if we're talking about disclosing the formulas that comeback that's another question but this as all modeling processes everything will be put out as soon as practical with the judge not cited as soon as you have an ideal piece of paper you Gotta publish it whether it's just so far ??.............

my concern is not a lack of transparency in the bill but a fact of too much premature disclosure of some of the things that we are working through, of the problems that have not been solved. I mean in all candor I think that the idea that we wear coats is good in the General Assembly and ties because if I didn't have coat you would see how my belly done lopped over my belt. There is full disclosure of the important information but some processes, people need to be able to speak freely without everything they say being broadcast to the entire world so would I would ask is that the committee not support the amendment, that we go forward with coming back to the General Assembly which will publish before enactment of the proposed rules once they have been developed and if we want to talk about putting the information on the projects with scoring sheets which are public, that's a different issue. That's not what this bill does so I would ask that you defeat the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ramsey. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if this is a question for the bill sponsor or the ?? of the amendment. Would there be a legal basis for someone litigating the scoring of these projects, arguing we didn't follow statute because what we are getting into, since we have a data driven process, are we creating another basis for litigation? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can I recognize staff to respond to that, Mr. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Perry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the department didn't follow statutory processes that have been enacted as currently the case, they could be challenged, of course. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have had some conversations with environmental groups that have challenged roads, not on environmental paperwork saying the roads shouldn't be built for environmental reasons but simply because it wasn't done in complete accordance with the law. Currently there are two roads in my general area that are being delayed because the paperwork on the environmental assessment of the Monroe bypass was challenged in court and found to be deficient. If we set up an excess of reporting requirements of all the information, yes, road projects will be challenged based on the paperwork not being done correctly and roads delayed which otherwise would have been built simply because we didn't properly follow all of the notice requirements so I am actually seeing roads delayed for no other reason than the paperwork was done wrong. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess, I need clarification on when these formulas are used and the reporting is asked for. Section 6.1, the formulas there, I am assuming are the ones we developed and are going to be used across the board for any project, is that correct? Okay, initially when I read the amendment I was under the assumption that they were asking about disclosure after the fact so people could see how it was done and why that particular project was ruled over another and not that you would disclose that sort of information before you would even begin the process. Is that what we are talking about? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me recognize staff to respond to that question, Ms. Cameron. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am ?? Fiscal Research. DOT has a prioritization office which is leading this effort and they have a work group formed with NPO's, RPO's, representatives of the counties and the cities and their deadline is to formulate these scores for highways plus the non-highway modes and report this to the Board of Transportation in July of this year to report to the Legislature in August. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair and I think I am following up on what Representative Avila said. Would it be a more palatable amendment to the sponsor if really what we are looking for is data scores and calculations that were used to determine which project would be approved and it would only come out afterwards but not necessarily the modeling process in advance

Only a disclosure afterwards of the calculations scores that were done. I don't know the word, modelling process needs to be there and if it's made clear that it's only after the project has already been granted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will recognize General Trogdon right back here to respond. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Jim Trogdon, DOT. It may be helpful if I explain what we currently do and then everyone can understand that. What we're proposing to go out to all of our NPO's, RPO's, through our work group to first gather the factors that need to be used for the state wide level of competition, then regional and then each division. Then once we get agreement on those factors and weights then we'll go and actually apply those to all the projects, and we have 2000 projects in our project list today. We'll apply those factors to those projects and do all the measures based on those factors. Send those back out to all of the NPO's and RPO's first to verify our date and the measures that we get, then we'll run all the analysis, then send that back out for them to rank them. Both of their votes on the factors and the ranking will be public because each of the NPO's has a public agenda and those will be public meetings, and they'll post those as well with their agenda items. Then once we get the rankings back we'll come back again, now this will be after January but we'll come back again with all the rankings and all the data. And then we post all of that on our website and well, and then we produce our ten year program. So there's probably I would say at least three or four major opportunities for public engagement through this process awareness, and then we make sure we maintain all of this on our website at anytime for any public level information. Whether it's an individual. Whether it's an interest group, it makes no difference. So we have an extensive plan and that's exactly what we've been executing and it's been successful and so we don't propose changing that because we believe that kind of engagement and openness is necessary to achieve significant broad-base support across out state. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bumgardener. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, thank you Mr. Chairman. It seems to me like the point of this entire bill is openness and transparency and so more information is better and this amendment seems too be in trying to help more information become available sooner and I support it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Faircloth. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, if I may ask a question of the amendment sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady, it seems very difficult to sit here and vote for something that would not make things available to the public. I'm reading your amendment to say that after a decision has been made the process and the data and everything, as the general was just saying, used to make that decision would then be public. Is that the intent of your memo? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're correct in your understanding. I'm just trying to get to not all the work papers and anything that led up to but when we get up to the point when decisions are being made upon some set of data then I wan to make sure it's transparent. Now General Trogdon's comments would suggest that the department is already fully compliant with my amendment, and if so then I again don't see what the issue is with the amendment. I don't know if I've been responsive to your questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator [??] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The amendment's sponsor has pulled the amendment at this time. We have one final amendment.

[Speaker Changes] And Representative Baskerville, you’re going to have to explain this one very quickly. Amendment number 5, AMH 13, version 1. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Chair. Highway divisions are allocated a certain amount of money from the federal government. If you are a small area and you are part of a highway division that also includes big MPO’s. Only those big MPO’s are going to be able to compete for a certain amount of that money that comes into your highway division. For example, I am in division 5, henderson, north Carolina. That includes Durham, Carboro, Chapel Hill, and Raleigh. Thirteen million dollars that comes down to division five has to go to Raleigh. Three million dollars has to go to Durham Carboro, so that leaves four million dollars out of the 21 million dollars left for that highway division for all other areas in division 5. If we move the federal surface transportation program funds and the federal transportation alternative funds into the exempt status from the transportation funding formula. All the areas in the is highway divisions will be able to compete for the funds. Otherwise, the little guys that are in these big MPO’s are not going to be able to compete, they are going to be left behind. And so that is the purpose of this amendment. I know a lot of you are similarly situated, and i ask for your support. [Speaker Changes] Miss Cameron is recognized from the state. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Chair. From the fiscal perspective, number 8 totals about 61 million a year, number 9 totals about 5 million a year. And therefore if you look at the handout that gives you the 40, 30, 30 distribution this will reduce the statewide category by 26.4 million dollars in the regional and division categories by 19.8 million dollars each year. [Speaker Changes] Further questions, comments on the amendment? Representative Brawley, briefly. [Speaker Changes] Yes, I think this is another one where a lot of places are just turning into donors. This is addressing the same issue that was addressed by the change in the percentage and I would ask for the defeat of the amendment. [Speaker Changes] All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. [Speaker Changes] No. [Speaker Changes] The no’s clearly have it and the amendment is not agreed to. We are back on the bill and I failed to recognized Representative Michaux earlier. If you can make it brief Representative, we will try to get you in before the vote. [Speaker Changes] I appreciate that Mr. Chairmen. But I’m confused a little but because I understood Representative Brawley or someone to say that what we’re going is passing a bill thats going to set up some regulations that have to come back and vote on later on to put into effect. Did i hear that right? [Speaker Changes] Representative Brawley. [Speaker Changes] Representative Michaux, I said that the DOT will bring back the implementing regulations and and if we don’t approve of them, we certainly have the adoption of changing them in statute. But I think if they come back with the regulations and we’re okay with them, they would not be voted on, they would just be approved by the joint transportation oversight. I think that is more accurately reflecting the process. But what I did want to make clear was this is not a case of we pass this bill and at that point its completely hands off and we don’t know whats going to happen until it does. DOT will have to come back and consult and get permission, at least from a subset of the house before moving forward. [Speaker Changes] So, I’ll be quick Mr. Chairmen. [Speaker Changes] Brief follow up. [Speaker Changes] Yeah, so I guess my problem is, does anything go into effect once they work out these plans and these problems, I guess thats my question. [Speaker Changes] Do you have a brief response for that? [Speaker Changes] Not until 2015. [Speaker Changes] Alright. Representative Iler is recognized for a motion. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Chairmen, I move that the committee substitute for house bill 817 as amended and rolled into a new committee substitute be given a favorable report unfavorable to the original. [Speaker Changes] You have heard the motion, further discussion, further debate? All those in favor...

of the motion please signify by saying aye. All opposed signify by saying no. The ayes clearly have it. The motion is agreed to and, before we adjourn the committee, we will likely have a meeting this Thursday of the full Appropriations Committee at 8:30. We're trying to work through those bills that might need to make crossover, so just have that for planning purposes. Thank you. We're adjourned.