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 5, 2015 | Committee Room | Transportation

Full MP3 Audio File

Committee members could you take your seats, we're five minutes over due to get started do a little house keeping and then we'll get right into our bill we're discussing today. Appreciate our pages and our sergeant in -Arms, our Sergeant-at-Arms today Carlton Adams, Joe Austin, David Leyton, and Martha Gadison. Our pages, we have [xx] of Orange County if you'll stand and wave, sponsored by Representative Chuck McGrady, Steve [xx] Representative Marine Avelo, Sarah Paser of Halves county, Representatives Marko Ray, and Hosea Parson of Nash county, representative Nash Richardson, thanks for being here and thanks for your help. Today ladies and gentlemen we have one bill, we're going to discuss it and it is a fairly long bill and it has also been under construction for several months may still be under construction. Representative Torbett is the first primary on it along with the other transportation chairs and Representative Torbett you have the floor to explain your bill and we'll have some brief comments from the public and also some questions from the committee later on. Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you for Representative Torbett saying it's still a work under construction much like most of our transportation projects when we come across the other counties along the highways, it seems like there always under construction. We're going to go back a step in history and tell you where we've come from, where we are and hopefully where we can get to. The intent of this is not to lay blame, not to curse versions on anyone, past or present just simply tell you what we believe to be the state of affairs on transportation on North Carolina Highways and by-ways, currently. What we're looking at in the future and how can we get there. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll start at ease, we'll start at the coast. Inside this bill we mentioned port modernization. US Senators, some local folks, our own sector of Transportation, several others writing letters to the Feds, your Port of Wilmington more or less would have closed within about the next 30 days. Due to filling in of the gate navigational channel reported more heat, which means that in the great state of North Carolina, your only bulk breakable port would have closed from in bound and out bound shipment. Needless to say you could imagine that would not be good thing for the great state of North Carolina. So we have to look at ways to improve upon that. You go down the port to the port in Wilmington, you currently have berth eight that's slowly sinking in the cape fear and has been doing so for at least a decade. As you can tell when you have a major piece of your port infrastructure sinking into a river, chances are we're going to have to get that fixed. The bill addresses a method to get there. As you drive the highways and byways to Great State of North Carolina coming West in virtually every city, town and [xx] across our Great State, you're starting to see as I'm hearing from my constituents and my county and many from your county they're looking at the highway situation. Is that the road sink or they just not been repaired and kept into the same state they used to be a couple of decades ago? you said more temporary fixtures put down that had become, for lack of better term, permanent fixtures that used to be temporary fixtures waiting for that new the fixture rose. Listen in no way blind any falls on BOT. BOT is doing [xx] with [xx] the money that they are funded we have been working on efficiencies and effectiveness and responsiveness [xx] the bill also addresses some of that. in the bill. What we're attempting to do is look at your pretty much for the first four yeas, you main secondary [xx] heavily traveled roads in North Carolina where most all North Carolineans use on a daily basis. What we're talking bring about, we're talking about the road that [xx] that your neighbors are going back and forth to work on, the ones that go back forth to school on, the ones that go back to church, grocery store that's the lot we're looking at impact. What this bill attempts to do is raise enough revenue that we could effectively address those needs over the next 4 years. and if any additional revenue that comes from the enactment of this bill after 4 years reverse back to the common way of funding which means go to highways, a portion goes to the Trust Fund. But for the first 4 years this bill focuses on fixing those needed, commitments, resurfacing In your areas and all of our areas across the State.

It also begins the process where our friends and neighbors are fellow citizens North Carolina's can help us, can help in CDOT, can help with their transportation needs by if they see something that needs to be repaired there is a pothole they would be able to contact the CDOT and in a period of time that it takes to get this system up and working, within 48 hours that pothole would be fixed. So can you imagine now you would have the capability as you come across potholes which has been here than hasn't come across a part hole in the last 48 hours, I don't see any hands. so now you could actually call and report that and within 48 hours that issue will be resolved. Now granted it will take some time as you can imagine the first couple of days once that's inactive what the bank calls DOT will be building, so we understand it will take a growing period of [xx] so we're estimating roughly about six months. So let me take you to the revenue. We looked across all the other 49 states, they are various and [xx] other states are being permitted to raise revenue. As you heard the talk, you've heard about miles driven charging people balance driven, you've heard about dedicated sales tank, you've heard about just an access phase, you've heard about different ways to raise revenue sells tax at the pump right now as you know DOT tonnages receives revenue from basically B&BP's howard fuel tanks and at the federal level did I miss one Bill? I don't think I did. That being said, we decided as chairs to look within the existing framework. What I mean by existing framework is to add nothing new but just look at what we were doing. What I'm fixing to tell you is not a necessary reason or any excuse to raise revenue. The reason we're looking at raising revenue is because unmet needs that are currently out there. On our new needs we're funding STI projects and on new roads, we're funding one-fifth of the needs that we didn't determine but that were determined back home about the local folks, were meeting 1/5 of those needs. On the resurfacing and maintenance of roads, an humble opinion, they have been deteriorated at least for the last decade. We have to do something, it's our obligation. When I say obligation let me explain what I mean, It's my understanding that the core functions of government, they are supposed to inform us the safety and security of citizens beyond our lips second is infrastructure, because without infrastructure, you lose that safety, security and commerce. So that's what we're focusing on. So let's get back to existing frame work of revenue and transportation. You have DMV fees, and there's numerous DMV fees out there. We looked at when was the last time they were adjusted, and this is neither a reason to raise nor an excuse to raise. But the last time they were adjusted was in 2005, nearing a decade ago. We also have highway use taxes I'll leave that a minute ago as a source of revenue which means a sale of a new car. We look back, it was last time they were adjusted and I'm going to link this to because I'm remembering 1992. What was the year of the last adjustment? Rodge do we have that? Leave that as actually we have to research that beforehand. I believe it was 1992, the last time that was adjusted here again I that's not a reason nor excuse to raise anything, just giving you dates and facts. So we say where can we raise a little bit this for for minimum impact to folks of North Carolina, but immediately impact that you make come across daily. Say will it would be kind of not been official if we look at revenues lets find a target where's our target that we're trying to get to, what the target will accomplish the speed and initial car target was $1 billion and at $1 billion comes from the raising of the fees in the bill with a sales tax or with a gas fuel tax of 36 cents per gallon. Wouldn't that roughly a billion plus we brought in some members suggestions Representative Bumgardner offered a bill during the session that pretty much offloads the money that's currently going to pay for how we patrol and some other means that some folks believe aren't transportation specific, so we incorporated that into the bill that nets about 250 million I believe somewhere in the neighborhood of that over a period of time. Then we looked at all DMV fees, remember the handman[sp?]

race of 2005, we said okay where do we need to go to meet a $1 billion? And we adjusted accordingly if you go do a registration on your vehicle today like all North Caroliner's have to do, average Joe and Jane North Carolina like you and like me, today is $28 if this bill passes it will be $42 that's an increase, so then if you start looking well can we do that and still look at the gas formula for out years and what if we bring the fields tanks down? If you recall some debate we had during senate bill 20 the natural fall of the gas tank would have placed in July at 30 cents or somewhere in that 29 and some change so we say what just let's look and see what happens if we put it at 30 cents. The offset out of pocket dollars for most North Carolinians that had to register their vehicle and buy tax every year. That would be a net gain to them of around $40, and I've said again, how can that happened? That's a net gain because every North Carolinian doesn't access every DMV fee out there. They don't buy a new car every year, so they're not hit with the total composite of all the increases. So then we said, we weren't quite at our target, then we started looking at automobile insurance as being something that touches transportation. I'm telling you right now, the piece in the bill that has a car insurance piece is wrong and it will be changed. We had some wrong numbers, we're looking at adjusting that. So whatever is in the bill right now referencing car insurance, you can pretty much just say that's not going to be in there, so I want to get that right in there too. So after we got through all the calculating we said, okay we've reached some of our target a billion dollars is no longer a billion dollars of course since we lowered it to 30. So what is our new revenue number? We estimate revenue being 530 million rise in incorrect. And four years of implementation, there the answer to ball answer. I'm sorry. You want Mr. Bell to answer. That will be one for Mr. Chairman thanks. Annual rise revenues net beginning in fiscal year 1016/17 around 485 increasing to the end of the fiscal net horizon to around 592.81 Thank you Mr. Chairman, now are you wondering where is that money going to go? 60% of that will go contract resurfacing, that means black top on roads how will that money be allocated we are going to spread that money evenly between all 100 counties. So we can get everyone's roads back up the park. Has no bases on population simply 100 counties that money divided 100 wise. As far as it goes and of course if it is not needed can be used for painting rams on roads bringing roads goes back to where they should be so we can see them the lines at night under hash weather conditions, just making the things that you all seen at there need to be done. I doubt to think any of you haven't seen exact what I'm talking about is being repaired. Talked about the ports earlier we allocate paying 20% for modernization of sea ports and maintenance for dredging of inlets and navigational channels. We appreciate that the efforts the federal is complieying to doing our dredging on Eastern coast, but we can't rely on the veterity of the economics of the state for our dreading channels to close. So, we have to have some type of immediate access to bonding that if needed we can implement and keep our channel open plain and simple that's what it is. 10% we're going to offer for resurfacing of streets in municipalities now this means is in addition to current power bond money which they'll be able to get. As much as I sip it this is additional money for what you could consider power bill like application but it is curved out only specific to if you resurface roads. Has anyone driven through the state of Riley or streets of Riley in the last 48 hours and determined there's no roads they resurfaced a fixed in downtown Riley if you have been raise your hand. Thank you very much So we're pretty much asking the cities and telling the cities that if you're going to resurface road with this money here it is if you're not going to use to resurface roads you're not getting it. It's not mean it's just re-servicing roads, and 10% would be

for the continued effort we're having on bridge repair, rehabilitation and replacement and that's pretty much the allocation of the breakdown and Phill would you like to add any comments to this point? I would just add as said this is work in progress, it may not be the finished product and we're here to hear your response and hear response from the stakeholders in the Sate to see where we need to move to next. But I think we all realize that we need to do more for infrastructure and the Department of Transportation in the State of North Carolina and this is the first step. The good thing is that every everybody will be participating, everybody will be paying something to support what we're trying to do here. So we do appreciate your input and your thoughts on this as well. I will move on to committee questions and then after that we do have a short period of public comments coming up. Okay let me jot down a few names, Representative Blackwell. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have two questions, I think they would be short. With reference to the registration fee, can you or staff tell me what does a dollar added or subtracted on the registration fee equal in terms of revenue gain or loss? Staff answer that? First ball fiscal research it's approximately $8.9 million and my second question I think, from what I understood Representative [xx] correctly on the money that's to be set side for dredging I think you said if it's needed we'll have it maybe implying if the feds didn't continue to do things we'd have a source to do it with, is there some provision or understanding at what point might we determine the funds weren't needed and what then happens to that money?   Yes sir. Thank you for the question. We've in-cooperate that money pretty much addressing important modernization incooperate in that same item meaning specifically to be there while the ports are being modernized but for also stand by ready instance so we don't have inlets closing anymore we find inlets up and down the Eastern coast closed you [xx] inlets we almost had more head navigational channels closed we just can't allow that to happen no more that's done we have to have money in place to have rapid if that's needed and thank you for bringing up the Federal question because in part of the bill that didn't rebound we also had plugged in a Federal [xx] now what is the Federal trigger? I've also talked of our friends at the federal level and tried to get some type of understanding of [xx] out here fighting for federal transportation might be, if you've been following the news this young lady had just gotten from D. C was telling me earlier about all we can get substantial from D. C currently is six months continued resolutions or known as CRs so I say we we cant go there, they have if they continue to downsize they only have two large airways like a downsize and that's the department of defense department of transportation. So we want to have North Carolina for a parachute to be a federal defunding for transportation where we are not set back about that, that we have a trip figure in place that would make that funding up and then should the federal start to fund again, then that's additional money falls right back off it's kind of we got a day on alert incase there was a short fall from federal government, I'm sure you've heard about different conversations, we have to be prepared for that for our citizens and not to be held for for lack of a better term made by decisions made in the Bc OK. Representative Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've heard you talk about about the bogged dredging and re-servicing of roads and would not, is there anything in here that addresses is mass transit, buses, rail, that whole situation Thank you Representative, no there is not there is not, we are going to be addressing those items I the normal budget remember this is outside the depth and breath of the session budget we are working on, this is immediate impact step that needs to happen right this way automatic and as you know transits is still being worked on on every budgetary session. So those items are focused the budget other non, I hate to say non-transportation but non-vehicular traffic type, for cars and that type of way, that's a budget, answered. Representative Carney. Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you Chairman Torbett.

I have a couple of questions and some comments if you will Mr. Chairman. And mine is around Section 10 dealing with the elimination of the funding going to air and water quality, the water and air quality account. I did some check in an obviously I had some calls coming to my office about the impact to three counties that have the additional half cent sales tax and part of that money was to go for water and air quality. And in Mecklenburg County and we are going to, right now we are got 350, 000 and some point $450, 000 from that fund and that money goes towards a quality different initiative that are taking place in our counties, and Bunkom county they have received between 120 and 130, 000 an year and in Foresite county they are receiving their share of the tax money about $200, 000 and that's also used in air monitor and permitting programs. They also work with a grant, a federal grant, that they get matching money so my question is why, when we're having problems with air quality and certainly water quality, why are we eliminating rather to choose to eliminate that funding? That was one of the uploads of the transportation dollars that we are funding into general funds  we were trying to look to mitigate some of the off loading. This is why we're having this free discussion today to hear the impact some of these are having and thank you for bringing those to our attention and a follow up question. Thank you, and I'm glad you'll take a look at that and I'll be glad to share my information, I'm sure staff has it but just a quick question on the power bill money. My understanding is the cities are going to stand to loose in the long run, the way I'm understanding it, the gas tax will remain at the lower level, but they now will have to spend that money then a few years they'll receive money in the power bill for resurfacing but then each year after a few years, you certainly explain that to me, and a few years and the cities have to spend that a lot of money they get for resurface and within a year, all that money goes away, is that correct?  I apologize for not being clear, not being as specific as I can having not an actual working program in place. Currently cities and municipalities receive power bill monies and allocation and they can pretty much do what they will with that for transportation needs. That is still going to happen. That's not going away. The revenue that this brings in additional to normal budgetary revenue. For four years focuses on impact of additional revenue, specifically addressing the re-surfacing of roads to the point also that we have defined a way so cities can't use their power bill money, and don't pay any roads in order to get this money to pay any roads, don't be planted. We're trying to aid in a sea city so that they can get out there and actively pay more roads than they currently have available to power bill money. Was that clear as mine? Well, clear as concrete maybe. No, I understand what you're saying but my question is a follow up Mr. Chairman. My question is, in the new bill does the city now be put in a position of having to spend that additional money that you're saying the power bill will get for resurfacing do they have to do that within the year or they loose that funding. I don't know that where we specifying all of the statute we specify a span cycle if not we could but. I'm not saying that I'm advocated. I understand warren 10 is to make sure that everybody goes resurfacing roads, now granted if it's a 12 month allocation and they get in 13 month they had gotten that last project fix I don't think the entirent is come back and grab that money, the inten is to pave roads so we can work with whatever language that would make it more confident. Representative Todd do I understand this is an addition tool not so planning. Representative Dollar, representative Dollar. What this is saying is

they can't take that additional money and do other things with there has to be for resourcing streets. Representative Dollar. Thank you Mr. Chairman and first let me complement the bills hard work and know you have been looking at this issues not simply for number of mass, but actually a number of years you have been putting in a lot of hard working effort to bring this proposal before the general assembly this year. I think it's the thing there by realizes is that roads transportation is not free it has to be paid for in some shape form or fashion, and certainly user fees, which is the bulk of what you're attempting to do here is far better than what they do in some states that have really high local property taxes and funded that way. This is much better approach to try to actually really address an issue so I just want to say that in terms of complementing, obviously from appropriation standpoint we're going to have to look closely at the transfer, trying to transfer basically payment for the hourly patrol over the overtime out of the hourly finding into the the general fund which your bill contemplate obviously that's a major issue that we need to take a look at and see how affordable that is over a period of time and I would also complement this component, some people don't realize that just a couple of three years ago the transfers that were being done high way trust fund are no longer done, so that's been tremendous work and having taken care of that. So I did I just want to comment on all tremendous work that has been done and I think in general this is a real strong solution that would with refferement which we already some other considerations would have a possibility of really moving us forward into the future in terms of transportation and all that means for jobs in North Carolina's economy. Representative Torbett. Thank you Representative Dollar and he brought up to mention as we looked at so many items addressing transportation over the last years, would be remised but I did also mention a key ingredient of this which I don't think I touched on other in just really briefly is, part seven is to the establish DOT report program. And I've heard a lot from citizens about what is DOT doing with our money now? Is there enough money in DOT now to do this? What do we got to do to make them you know, you've all heard the stories. So we work with another one of our chairman who is not here with us today, Paul Turn and I pretty much challenged him to work on the reformation piece and it pretty much set a responsive thing that will allow senator to report promises to be addressed by the DOT within ten business day that's the overall problems and that is pretty much top of the ultimate repair fix efficiency procedure to streamline delivering collapsed construction project stages now what get the project done faster we're looking at everything we can to streamline that process and DOT establish a baseline unit plus infrastructure for transportation goods. Performance beginning October 1st 2015 DOT shall that annual job satisfaction surveys a DOT person they are and raw condition satisfaction surveys a North Carolina citizens and that saying DOT is doing a job, citizen of North Carolina how good of a job are they doing. Provide oversight which reclassify the planning source for all current full time positions that our receipt support it on the basis of charging the projects. That gets a little out of the ways to far how items are budgeted but we want to make sure everything is clear, precise and transparent on diverging the restructure is to join transport to all side to physical year we will loot at consultation  DOT pretty much of and efficiencies. And then transparency which I thought and I think is a very key ingredient is that now when this goes into place, that DOT must suggest an expanded performance of dashboard to include weekly progress if specified projects and include each highway divisions in counties specific data. So if you're a concerned citizen about your transportation needs of your general area, you'd be able to pretty much access any information online to see current stats and hopefully to have future bills. At the same time looks to collapse

project delivery time or the length of time it takes the bill to road. And if you remember last year or last session, we started on collapsing some of the contracting period as well. So we're working real hard and the office has been very aggressive, very forthcoming to aid and assist, to just save tax payers dollars. Thank you Representative Torbett. We have about eight people still in the queue, we're all going to make sometime just a minute for some publican but try to keep your questions and answers as brief as possible, Representative Faircloth.   Thank you Mr. Chair I mean, Representative Torbett we talked about the, I think it was 50 miles per county allocated to every county equally and then, I believe you call it power bill light. The extra extra money plus then, was any rationale that sort of balances out what each county will get, because they sit in one of the largest cities, they're going to get more money for the city streets. If I can hear you say. And everybody is going to get the money for 50 miles of paving. So, they calculate that somewhat balances out the difference there will be if the power money weren't there. You're absolutely right Representative, are there less some concerns, we won't focus on population, but we're focused on equity across the state we are one state as against the other 49. If you were, and, that was our focus. It does provide a balancing act and as Representative the time we tell you they don't have any municipal governance in his division. And so, he does not have access to additional power bill money, but also the population doesn't exist in his area so it might  in your area, for example. So, you would get access to power bill, so it sort of balances that population question but all counties received that additional funds. Followup. One other comment if I might, I know we're discussing how I patrol situation and I think it's a strong argument that bad poor roads we would need highway patrol. So it's hard in my mind foe us to take highway patrol away from being a highway cost, so I hope you'll sought of hink that. Mr. Chairman that is the on going question sir, we have folks from this side that believe it's a drain on transportation road building needs and we have folks from this side that believe it should be in-cooperated into a transportation needs and that's a determination at some point term simply to have to say it either it is or it isn't at some point in time this bill, does it reflect on that? Okay we still have seven on the queue. We're going to open up for public comments or we're going to run out of time if we don't. Recommission the good one will have to speak. mr.governor identify yourself and turn on the microphone. Thanks Chairman name is Wayne Goodman, I'm a State Insurance Commissioner and it's great to be back here with the house, I'm a past member as you may recall. mr.commissioner we qualify that we're trying to control our communist about two minutes. Yes Sir. Thank you. This is certainly a weighty topic and as I assured Representative Torbett opposed a particular provision and I'm very pleased to hear that it is being removed I did not want to state for the record why I opposed the provision that would tax any part of our automobile insurance premiums. It would be a definitely an increase in car insurance calls promotion on drivers, it would amount to the highest across the board increase on car insurance in our State in 30 years, the last time we had anything close to 6.5% was 1985. The timing of this is also a concern, just this past week we received National acclaim, that North Carolina was ranked as having the lowest car insurance cost in the Country, and that this bill if it weren't changed, Representative Torbett said it will be, if it weren't changed, it would change that. We would no longer have the lowest car insurance rates, and in closing the three reasons I oppose that provision that's going to be removed, this 6.5% or higher increase would definitely be passed on to drivers by insurance companies regardless of the driving records of drivers and regardless of how much or how little they drive. North Carolina personal and commercial auto insurance policy holders would collectively pay more than $400 million more for insurance to cover the tax and the final reason Mr. Chairman is that this new tax in the increase cost will potentially drive car insurance company offices and headquarters and jobs that are in North Carolina. Because this new tax will do something that most people aren't familiar with, it will trigger what's called retaliatory taxes by other states, against insurance companies that are located here in the state, so I'm very pleased that this is going

to be removed Mr. Chairman and the bill sponsor but I want to make sure it's clear on the record that as our state insurance commissioner opposed the provision or any provision that taxes are automobile insurance premiums. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you. [xx] commission of Representative Torbbert[sp?] do you have a comment? Thank you Mr. Chairman. It's a good thing we're taking out commissioner so all that won't happen. Yes sir thank you. Mr Jerry Cowen[sp?] is Jerry still here? There we're good. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and committee members. My name is Jerry Callen[sp?] I represent Enterprise Holdings parent of Enterprise rental and sales, Enterprise has over 2500 employees in North Carolina, operates a 179 locations, only nine of which are at airports. It's business largely as for short-term rentals and sales during auto-servising, my message to you, a short one, is about proportionate taxation. We understand that more revenues are needed. 73% of enterprise rentals are home city, and 54% of those at airports are commercial. Only 13% are out-of-town tourists. Enterprise also sells its cars as they come out of the fleet. The effective state and local tax rate on short term rentals is already a low as 11% and up to 28% in North Carolina. House bill 927 raises nine different taxes and fees and really disproportionately treats the rental car interest rate, because of the kind of the business it's in, they will resolve in ineffective rate, above 30% in many locations if 927 is enacted as it is and has an effect on enterprise, bottom line of over $7 million with the nine different taxes and fees. Brings us the basic rental registration for you driving a rental car is already an 80% surcharge over the normal passenger location and it's pegged for a 50% increase here we ask simply that no class of taxpayer be hit for a disproportionate increase in rates and we'll have a written statement entered in the record from it tomorrow. thank you very much for your time. Thank you Mr. [xx]. A comment Rep. [xx]? Thank you for your comments Jerry. Do you have a proposal in mind that would be ore of an equity-based? Again, we recognize that more revenues are needed for that and recognized for intensive registration fees are going up on passenger vehicles that will pass on everyone but not that it is proportionate share of that and the line of this is it proposes, while not working for no taxes but to be traded fairly unlike the rest of North Carolina. Thank you I will be very interested in what that consideration are off the fields, thank you, Mr. Jammen Millern who is next? Thank you Mr. Chairman I want to thank representative Torbett for talking with us about the issue I represent Insurance Federation of North Carolina, Trade Association of Property and Cash Insurance companies, including some of the largest in the country and including some domestic companies. We wanted to talk to him about the retaliatory tax mentioned by the Commissioner, if anybody wants to know more about the retaliatory tax, I'll be glad to talk to you about, that but since Representative Torbett it going to take that out, it's just nice to be on his side and the Commissioner's side at the same time, thank you. Thank you Sir and thank you for [xx] Next, Mr. John Policastro. Identify yourself and who you represent. Thank you Mr Chairman, John Policastro. I'm here for the North Carolina Automobile Dealers Association representing nearly 600 franchise new car and track in our videos and the state and they are nearly 33, 000 employees. We would like to commend the sponsors of the bill for their efforts on this very important issue it's a very important issue for our state to address. We are a little disappointed that it's not a multi-stakeholder solution to this point. We understand the bill is a work in progress under construction as Representative Torbett said. But we've encouraged the General Assembly to look more also at options that focus on usage. Basically right now this bill almost entirely focuses on anyone who buys or owns an automobile and doesn't really address the usage of automobile, how much the roads are actually being used and that would be something we'd encourage to be looked as well as what's in the bill already. And we look forward to further discussion on this bill and I appreciate the opportunity to talk Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. I understand we have several people representing DMV and DOT is Mr. Thomas or anyone else want to Mr. Chairman can you ask if everybody is in support of the bill?   Yes, may we

have someone come to the microphone for now, maybe and support Senator Tennessen Mr. Chairman I'm Nick Tennessee, the Chief Secretary I appreciate your mention that we're here but we were just here just as resources not as as asking for time specifically and we certainly commended the General Assembly on working on a serious problem at a serious scale. This is a scale with actually is the problem working together, thank you. Representative Johnson, gentlemen right behind him I recognize the face but not the name. Barrey Jassons I'm representing the davy transportation avenue coalition also part of the NC Chambers Coalition for a prosperous future. I want to commend the bill sponsors for having the political fortitude or guts to introduce this bill. I think you recognize it was not going to be 100% well received by everybody, but if you look at what our history of North Carolina, when we've made significant transportation investments, it's taken a lot of vision and a lot of interest forth to do the right thing for the state, we are on a growth mode everybody knows it, and we've got to start dealing with it. I like the fact you've tried to spread the pain around. Nobody wants their ox gored and I'm sure if you pulled everybody in here, everybody have a reason why you taking out of his budget, but I commend you for doing it and we want to work with you any way we can and I think you are on the right track. It's going to be tough, but I think we can get it done and we appreciate the effort. Representative Torbbert. Thank you the only one we did not hear from is the buggy wheat manufacture, so thank you for your comments. Thank you we are going to move back to one more gentleman wants to speak okay? Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Name's Jake Kerrashian[sp?], North Carolina Chamber. We appreciate the work of Representative Torbett and his colleagues appreciate the transportation committee for listening to this today, we commend the bills sponsors for their work we look forward to working with them through this process and hopefully see success at the end of the day. We commissioned a report on number months ago that recommended a lot of this items, report has a good economic number in it of ten to one return on investment for additional investment in North Carolina transportation network, so we just encourage you all to continue to work to this process and we thank you for your time.  Thank you. I got seven in the key right now and we have a very four minutes so I want to recognize one person I saw really on if I may and then other six will wait till next week I suppose, those present the great of your hand is that of which your running here or you got listed in the middle of the list Maybe I'll move to quickly I just want to also commend the sponsors, Representative Dollar took most of my points so obviously appropriations issues they're still looking but having worked on this [xx] issue for over a decade I like the breath of what you're proposing I share though also Representative Collins interest in and how the funds that you mentioned in the 10B section of the bill and I'd like to get that information. Thank you Okay, your permission you got five minutes longer, Representative Speciale. I just want to well and as we going to put a lot of working in the same and a lot of people n this state doesn't realize we are between a rocky and a hard place, a lot of roads need to be fixed only Texas has more roads than we do, the quantity of roads, we build roads year after year, and seem to forget that once you have build you have to maintain them, so and this is a great start, I just have one quick question, I noticed that the allocation, the appropriation allocation of the fiscal years are different and I'm just curious as to why, they differ from year to year. On page 16 you understand for that I think I know but, I was in the reference the parliamentarian have the question. In revenue such as car sales and the like, fuel purchases they're pretty much estimates that's just a clarification was the question dealing with revenue estimates or the appropriation [xx] over the four years period the percentages like 65% to contact, I'm sorry it changes from year to year and was just curios why.

My Chairman I apologize you kind of gauge the impact no one asked they start resurface roads if one would think that if some point and time you need to resurface less roads, we to figure as our port modernization comes into focus what's the best time to have that availability ready focus on that, we look at the bridge for example where did it go, 10% for the first year kind of get ramped up the bridge thing and then we felt like a 5% reduction would be sufficient enough to carry the bridge performance on it's just trying to gauge your dollars and best use of your dollar so you don't have them sitting collecting dust somewhere. Representative Robinson, Thank you Mr. Chairman and and again thank the members of the committee for all the hard work, I know its been a problem. On the bank loan money going to re-servicing which is a good certainly or good idea in view of that, will those determination be made by the agency and will they be done on a priority basis? thank you Mr Chairman last year Representative Shepherd herself we kind of did if you would a STI inside existing roads, we asked the OT to get those roads in order of where, when they need to be repaired, how they need to be repaired, that's not the thing in kind of leading up to what we thought we were bring forward with this so that they have helpfully have captured or in the process of capturing so I'm allowing your local division to terminate to make those decisions Representive Queen yes thank you I'm planning to get a couple of thing straight that I may have wronged in my mind but I was here when we developed our formular for gastag and the rational at that time was we were in the four dollar gas era, where a lot of Citizens couldn't afford gas, they would drive in fewer miles and buying less gas gallons of gas for being sold. So our revenues were off because of that, so we had to raise the tax to hold our revenues dream somewhat level. Now that we're down from $4 into the $2 range I would assume w're selling a lot more gallons of gas is that correct Mr. Chairman I got to answer that actually no gas consumption is down and continues looking a decade out continues to spiral down because of more efficient vehicle and actually I won't go on a limp and say fewer people are driving but by more efficient vehicles the gas consumption continues to decline and then the other was originally decided and created I'm sure it was working for it's current day and time but I assess that in todays' world as banking transportation future needs on a globally traded highly vaultal[sp?] commodity if you would you could equate that point education funding, on say on corn futures, and perhaps health care on sweet potatoes and soyabean. It's not on a good proper physical way to govern when you have something that raises so high in its peak times then dips so low in those volatile times, that swing is way too much and especially when we will come in and not allow and to go up, and stop it, and allow it to go down we simply over time, last decade or two did not allow the formula to work as it was originally designed. The new formula replaces that formula based on population growth. Population growth is a direct impact on transportation needs so they're  based on a population growth of only 25%, pretty much equated to the price of oil. Very Representative Shepherd. I just wanted to say to Representative Queen that you helped to contribute to that. I did. I was driving a suburban in the George W Bush years and I'm driving in a Plears the moment. Thank for the information  representative Queen, I will make it three I'm going to push the envelop to one o'clock here  representative Goodman. Thank you Mr. Chairman  representative Torbett we've talked about this in your office several times and I know while sleep out trying to figure out the best way to do this but and maybe I missing something here but on the reduction in the gas tags, I know its index to inflataion or index at the CPI and Population

Growth and that sort of thing but at the same time there's still pretty good a lot of revenue here. Yesterday would yo go anyway to answer but we should go in Huawei you're thinking on your decision on the for insance.  I'd be happy to answer but would you go We're up here for a reason. The reason we're up here is to serve people as sinners here. We had to be ever ever mindful of the impact that whatever we do has on the forks and citizens whether it's positive impact or negative impact, so what we are trying to their is knowing that the needs are active just obviously knowing the needs are out their is to try and do it with the least impact on our citizens that we possibly can and still accomplish somewhere to where the goes on it's not magic it's not pulling a rabbit out of a hat, it's simply we looked at your basic North Carolina person like me like you and the other forks and notice that if you rest your car each year which is pretty much the extend up activity local DMD I buy gas driving back port Rolla we buy a lot of gas that if you look at the variable right from 36 and bring it down to 30 and then adjust it with the fair increases in DMV right from that it was still a net positive for your basic every day North Carolina and we though that's a good thing especialy while it appears that South Carolina's tax is going to be abbing up within two stands of our tax if they pass the consolation that's currently being addressed in South Carolina George had just raised an additional million dollars for the transportation needs, he again has no reason or excuse but in that sense will put us much closer within two stands, closer that I think ever to South Carolina to recover some of those dollars we lost [xx]. Thank you Mr chairman, I don't know why things are doing that but, representative Tobart[sp?], on page seven of the fiscal note, I'm just curious about the difference and the amounts here, contract resurfacing versus port modernization and 17, 18 and 18, 19, they are pretty close to equal and municipal resurfacing is pretty static but all of this years and a structurally deficient bridges. After what I've heard in the transportation committee how many bridges have better structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, I just wonder if that's anywhere near enough money dedicated to that Representative Torbet or Stein, Price fall begin with fiscal research if you look within the body of the bill reflect as a high level powedization[sp?] of the additional the incremental funds that will be generated by the bill and so the percentage allocations in this Representative Torbet explained earlier the strategy with respect to front loading certain expenditures and the expectation that a certain another activity will be achieved within that time period and the declining for certain items as well with the back loading of the port modernization trenching implicit in that is the formulation of business plan relating to the specific improvements of e-funding. And as for the bridge funding, Representative Fully understand that if you add up all the needs that one could address right now, there is absolutely no way we could address revenue to meet the needs that we have. So our best selection, our best pick, based on talking to the much smarter folks than myself in the room and using their advice some of the addition money for bridges usually number that was associated with the bridge program to help them get further down the road. Okay we come back the circle for representative Buck remember you question. I did Mr. Chairman quickly. Rep. Torbett yo were talking earlier about reform aspects of the legislation that I think Rep. Turner has focused on in particular. Is there anything in the bill, and if not, is there anything maybe in the works somewhere else that as a part of the reform would take a look at the extent to which the department factors future maintenance cost as between concrete and asphalt

for example, into its leading of the repaving and paving of new roads. Is anything in there about that or is that to be dealt with separately or is that off the table? Nothing's off the table there is no mention of what you're referencing to big life sample costs between concrete and asphalt in this bill, particular to one over the other, there just isn't. It is always in the mindset to get the best economic outcome of the people paying their hard-earned taxed dollars for the roads. So to me that should always be part of the equation. Did that answer your question? As far as I know, yes. Representative Torbett we're going to allow Representative Carney one little bitty question, she says.  Representative Carney one little bitty question and then you can wrap up if you like. Well you can define bitty. But in looking through as you've gone through the presentation and I too want to join with everyone saying thank you for putting something together that's comprehensive that everybody has got a piece in it, and willing to work with everybody as you move forward so thank you for that as long overdue. One question that I have is in section one that we're doing I think it's the motor fuels tax rate and discount for timely payments. In there, I understand that we are going to repeal the discounts for distributors and for some importers where all of the, we're repealing the monthly hold harmless[sp?] refunds for these distributors. So, when we repeal those discounts what is going to stop them from passing on now the costs, the revenue they're losing for those discounts, passing that on to the pump? When I don't have an answer I turn to look for staff, Representative Carney. Do we have any comments? None? I don't have an answer, I'd be more than happy to get that for you. Representative Hall[sp?], you want to wrap up in the next 30 seconds or less? Yes, I will be happy to because I'm sitting in between our lunch time and going to other meetings. Ladies and gentlemen, we touched on the SS[sp?] Number one, we can do a couple of things. We can decide to, well, we can't kick this can down the road because it kick for longer not much of it can live, all we have to get new can kicking again. So choose to do something, we choose do nothing it is telling in exclusion of the this body. I will remind you about something we said, I don't have to tell you the condition of the roads. You drive on them. You see them every day of the week. I told you about the you may not have known about the ports. Most popes, they don't know that. They don't understand that our ports can be a vital economic engine for this state and one of our mammals is closed, if it had not been for the emergency directing fund put in from the federal government which I might add will fix it only one time. So we have serious issues we have to address we're the bunch that came up here to address those serious issues so they don't prolong, they don't continue being issues. So I'd ask you to consider this, please, our doors are open for any changes or modifications, advise, considerations that you'd like to ask and talk. Please come, just call us and we'll, our doors are open that it's time we do something. I appreciate your time, your energy, your effort, your consideration. Thank you Mr. Chair. We're out of time, thank you for your patience, meeting adjourned