Press Releases and Newsletters
Perdue benefits from Democratic OKs for NC budget (AP)
Perdue benefits from Democratic OKs for NC budget (AP)
By GARY D. ROBERTSON, Associated Press
RALEIGH, N.C. — Five conservative Democrats stirred North Carolina’s budget pot when they broke party ranks and joined House Republicans to support a spending plan that ends temporary sales and income tax increases but also threatens thousands of education and state jobs.
The defections raised the number of yes votes for the $19.3 billion proposal to 72 — the magic number the House would need to reach to cancel any veto by Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue if she balks at a final plan.
At first glance, last week’s switches seemed to weaken Perdue, who had won several partisan dust-ups earlier this session because House Democrats stayed united after her vetoes. It had Senate Republicans, who start in earnest this coming week writing their competing proposal and already have a veto-proof majority, considering whether to change strategy from a new position of GOP strength.
“We look at that as a very significant development,” said Sen. Pete Brunstetter, R-Forsyth, one of the Senate’s chief budget writers.
But the defections could be the best thing to happen to Perdue to engage a Republican Legislature.
Two of the five Democrats — Reps. Jim Crawford of Oxford and Bill Owens of Elizabeth City — are veterans of the budget battles when the Legislature was in Democratic hands and get along with Republicans. With their yes votes, they likely will be part of the final negotiations in the House and Senate and help fight for changes that Perdue could accept.
“We can be beneficial in helping negotiations take place and reach some middle ground,” Owens said, a close ally of the governor and fundraiser for Perdue’s re-election campaign. “We feel like we’re playing a valuable service to help negotiate from the middle.”
With one absent House Republican last week, four of the five defectors would have to remain in place to stay at 72 votes should Republicans decide to pass their own budget without Perdue’s input and override her veto. That’s a tall order for the GOP when there will be intense pressure by the five to back the governor.
It may explain why Perdue sounded confident last week the five Democrats would return to the fold.
“In no way does it affect my ability,” Perdue said at a Raleigh high school. “I have no reason at all to believe when hard choices are made about the future of North Carolina — about kids and teachers and community colleges and the future — that they won’t be with me if those choices have to be made. ”
That’s not to say Republicans got nothing from the defections, or the five Democrats voted with solely selfless intentions.
House Speaker Thom Tillis, R-Mecklenburg, got to brag about the bipartisan support for the bill that he said will encourage job creation through $1.6 billion in expiring taxes or new tax breaks. And by persuading some Democrats to vote with the Republicans, the GOP gained leverage over Perdue.
“It puts us in a better position,” said Rep. Mitch Gillespie, R-McDowell, co-chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
It also couldn’t hurt for the five eastern North Carolina Democrats to get publicity back home that they had approved a budget that contained the tax breaks. Four of the five had close races in 2010, so the votes could help them gain support from Republican voters.
Rep. Dewey Hill, D-Columbus, one of the five, said in an interview he voted for the bill in part because it did some good things for agriculture. Others acknowledged amendments that addressed public school construction or specific concerns in their districts.
For Rep. Bill Brisson, D-Bladen, it was the removal of his local minimum security prison from a list of four set for closure. Rep. Tim Spear, D-Washington, got a pair of amendments passed to benefit Ocracoke Island. Owens said he was treated well in the budget subcommittee on which he served.
“I had as much voice in it as I felt the Republicans did,” Owens said, but added the bill has shortcomings that would cause him to vote against a final plan unless they’re corrected. “Do I think there’s enough money in the budget for education? No.”
Owens said he’d just prefer to let an extra penny on the sales tax remain in place rather than expire to fix education cuts Democrats argue would eliminate more than 18,000 public school positions. That’s probably a nonstarter in negotiations because Republicans are resolute on eliminating the tax.
Gillespie said there’s pots of money available in the House budget — through emergency and government building repair reserves and the annual retirement contribution — that could be used to resolve spending differences with the Senate — and possibly in turn with Perdue — on things like education and the Smart Start child education initiative.
With the Democrats, Gillespie said he anticipates the Democrats who voted yes on the House budget — particularly Owens and Crawford — will have a significant role to play in the final negotiations to determine whether Perdue will veto or accept the spending plan.
“I guarantee that they will be in the room,” he said.
NC gov says Democrats will side with her on budget (AP)
North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue said Wednesday she’s confident she’ll have enough Democrats on her side before a final state budget gets to her desk although a handful of her House party members joined Republicans colleagues to support the GOP spending plan.
Perdue, speaking during a hastily arranged visit to a Raleigh high school, said she’s not concerned that five Democrats voted for the $19.3 billion House budget bill Tuesday night. The margin could give the GOP enough votes to withstand a potential veto by Perdue.
“They will be with me when the going gets tough,” Perdue said at Southeast Raleigh High School. “If we have to make hard decisions, I can take that to the bank.”
A final House vote on the spending plan was expected later Wednesday. Then the bill will go to the Senate, which will create its own budget version that’s likely to tinker with the balance of cuts between the universities and the public schools. The Senate’s GOP majority is already veto-proof as long as Republicans remain unified.
Perdue said she knew the House defections were going to happen but believed they won’t affect her ability to persuade Republicans to beef up the budget for public education. Democrats argue more than 20,000 jobs could be lost in the House budget. Republicans say that number is exaggerated.
“We’re not going to go backward on this,” Perdue said after talking with Southeast Raleigh students and an earth science teacher. “So I want to work with the General Assembly. I’m very hopeful that sooner or later … Republicans in the General Assembly will realize that we have to have resources in the public school system.”
The lynchpin of the House budget is the expiration of a pair of temporary tax increases — an extra penny on the sales tax and higher income tax bills for top wage earners. Republicans ran on doing away with the taxes during the fall campaign and will result in at least $1.3 billion in lost revenues.
“That budget and that tax increase is the reason that I’m here now,” said first-term Rep. Bill Cook, R-Beaufort. “I was sent here to bring some sanity to the budget process in Raleigh. I’m very proud of the budget that we’re about to pass.”
The plan spends $650 million less than Perdue proposed for the coming year in the public schools, the University of North Carolina system and community college system and 11 percent less than what was required to keep services running at current levels. Republicans argue the overall cut is less than half of that percentage when compared to projected annual spending this current fiscal year.
Rep. Jim Crawford, D-Granville, one of the five Democrats who voted for the budget Tuesday, said the GOP gave him no sweeteners in the spending plan to curry his vote.
“I’m trying to make things better for the people of our state,” Crawford said Wednesday. “I can do that a whole lot better on the inside than I can on the outside.”
Senate leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, said this week he expected the Senate version would spend less overall compared to the House bill when it comes to meeting spending targets set by Republicans leaders in both chambers in February.
The Senate also is likely to rework the level of reductions in the public schools and the UNC system, said Sen. Pete Brunstetter, D-Forsyth, a co-chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He said UNC system cuts of more than 15 percent will probably be lower at the expense of the public schools, which saw a 9 percent decrease.
“We have thought that the balance in the reductions needs to be a little more level,” Brunstetter said.
However, Brunstetter said, the Democratic defections on the House side have caused Senate Republicans to reassess how they will form the budget in the next few weeks.
“Some of the dynamics from the last 24 hours — particularly with how the vote went over there — has us taking a step back and thinking about our strategy,” Brunstetter said.
By GARY D. ROBERTSON
May 4, 2011
Susan Kluttz: Setting the record straight on good news for Fibrant (Salisbury Post)
Last week marked two milestones of success for the city of Salisbury. We signed up our 850th subscriber last week and we continue to grow strong. Also, we received full exemption from the Senate Finance Committee for our system and approval of a service area with the support of our surrounding towns and county officials.
Our city launched Fibrant in November and spent the first month turning live all of our volunteer beta testers. After five months of signups, the city has 850 subscribers and is growing. We are very pleased with that number, which puts us on track with where we need to be at this point. Like any new start- up, it takes time to grow your business. With the current pace of sign ups, we will be at 6,800 subscribers by the end of year four. Our current plan required 4,500 subscribers by year four to be successful.
Earlier last week, the Senate Finance Committee approved a full exemption for the city of Salisbury. This is an excellent result, and it is important that our citizens know that after four years of fighting legislation backed by the cable industry, this a successful resolution. We have to thank Rep. Harry Warren, Rep. Fred Steen, and Sen. Andrew Brock for their continued leadership in securing a full exemption for our city.
Many people do not know this, but under the current state law the city of Salisbury has no limitation on where Fibrant can go. We can serve any town inside or outside of Rowan County, and also any unincorporated area if service were desired. House Bill 129 identifies and defines service areas for community broadband systems for the first time. That is why many towns sent communication to Raleigh requesting to be in our service area, so that they could keep their current option to request service. If you are not in our service area, you will never be able to have our service extended to you; it shuts the door completely.
Under the defined service area in House Bill 129, the city of Salisbury can provide service to all Rowan County towns if and when they desire and vote to approve the service extension. Further, we can provide service to economic development sites, public safety sites, governmental facilities and schools and colleges that are located outside those towns. Our efforts to define Salisbury’s service area were focused on supporting our surrounding towns’ authority to be able to request service in the future, making sure we could recruit and provide jobs for our citizens, and continuing to support our schools.
Unfortunately, citizens living in unincorporated areas will not be able to request service in the future even if they want it under the current language in the bill. If this impacts you, I would suggest you contact your local representatives, and you are always welcome to call my office.
The defined service area does protect the Salisbury City Council’s original desire to bring new technology jobs and employers to Rowan County. Our ability to offer economic development sites up to 10 gigabit service is a strong recruitment tool for economic development. This ability can also support and improve education throughout Rowan County, as we will be able to provide these services to our schools and colleges. We have already seen the advantages that Fibrant’s technology is currently providing to area private schools. I did not want our public schools to be left out by this bill.
The Salisbury City Council voted to move forward with the fiber-to-the-home investment after five years of extensive study. This process included numerous focus groups, surveys, public hearings and consultation with leaders from the Salisbury business community.
Our Fibrant staff have shared with me that they continue to get several calls a day from citizens who live in surrounding communities and in the county wanting to sign up for Fibrant. I think that says a lot. I’m glad this bill allows those towns to explore that option. Typically, these citizens are looking for better customer service, faster Internet speeds and lower prices than what they have in their current area; where there is essentially no competition and no alternative.
It is not uncommon for us to save homeowners hundreds of dollars a year and businesses several thousand dollars a year off their current bill while providing them a faster, more reliable service — and one that is provided locally and owned by our community. Certainly, that is something we can all support.
Susan W. Kluttz is mayor of Salisbury. Contact her at City Hall, 704-638-5270.
Sunday, May 01, 2011
House plan will derail progress on N.C. trains (Charlotte Observer)
Proposal could slow travel, sidetrack Charlotte station.
Rep. Ric Killian, R-Mecklenburg, thinks passenger trains are little more than a “joy ride” and that spending taxpayers’ money on rail infrastructure does nothing to relieve traffic congestion or improve safety.
He’d have a hard time proving that to passengers on recent sold-out trains or those who sit in long lines while freight trains rumble by at grade crossings, but his campaign against passenger trains is more about politics than fiscal restraint. If this were about spending, he would push for legislative review and approval of every dime the N.C. Department of Transportation gets, not just acceptance of rail grants of $5 million or more that require state matches or significant maintenance costs.
Killian, co-chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, believes passenger trains rob the state highway budget of too much money helping maintain popular rail travel between Raleigh and Charlotte – launched with the bipartisan support of Govs. Jim Martin and Jim Hunt.
Killian failed in his attempt to stop a recent $461 million grant in federal funds that will help improve trackage, reduce travel times and boost railroad infrastructure. But he has gotten tentative approval for bureaucratic hurdles to receiving more rail money in two House bills, including the proposed state budget.
His objection to passenger rail displays a disdain for travelers who want more alternatives to $4-per-gallon automobile travel across the Piedmont Crescent. This is a narrow approach to transportation. By riding any of six daily trains between the state capitals of government and commerce, travelers can avoid the traffic crushes of the Research Triangle, the rush-hour congestion of the Triad area and the mind-boggling bumper-to-bumper traffic of I-85 and other major routes in the Charlotte area.
With the latest grant from the federal government, state rail officials say thousands of jobs will be created to improve rail facilities, and cut another 13 minutes from the rail trip. That’s not inconsequential: it represents a roughly 7 percent decrease in rail travel time. Anyone have a plan in mind for cutting auto travel time from Charlotte to Raleigh by 7 percent?
Widely overlooked in the overheated discussion of this project is the fact that much of the money will indeed go for traffic congestion relief and safety. The project involves building a dozen bridges and closing some 30 grade crossings that both pose a danger to car traffic and regularly result in long lines as drivers wait for passenger and freight trains to pass. The project will also pay for 28 miles of double tracks to speed rail traffic.
Rail travel enables those who need to conduct business on the go to do so safely. The use of cell phones by car drivers may pose as much of a traffic hazard as drinking and driving. Rail travelers can sit back, relax and talk business for more than three hours if they wish without having to worry about hitting another vehicle – or getting hit by one.
Lawmakers who reject the suggestion they’re micromanaging transportation policy are disingenuous. The delays this hurdle will impose may jeopardize future rail grants that would help pay for a new rail station in uptown Charlotte. It likely will slow travel for citizens in the future who wish not to further foul the air and crowd N.C. highways driving back and forth across this state. It’s a bad idea.
Posted: Wednesday, Apr. 27, 2011
Revised Senate bill nixes digital billboards but would expand tree cutting (Indy Week)
A Senate bill expanding the law on outdoor billboards cleared a Senate committee Wednesday, but only after the bill was stripped of language that would have allowed billboard companies to replace traditional signs with electronic or digital ones.
Had the language remained and passed this legislative session, it would have superseded any local policies against digital billboards, including any opposition from Durham city leaders, who voted unanimously last summer not to permit such signs.
But the remaining language in the bill, (SB 183) which has been sent back to the full Senate for approval, still has representatives of cities and statewide organizations concerned. The proposal expands the amount of land billboard companies may clear of trees and other vegetation so their signs may be seen from the road. On state roads and highways, cleared swaths could increase from 250 feet to 340 feet. Outside city limits, the area that could be cleared would go up to 380 feet.
“These are the roads that shape how people perceive our communities,” said Ben Hitchings, president-elect of the N.C. Chapter of the American Planning Association. “Now we have a framework under the bill that would trade trees for billboards.” He pointed out that a poll released last month by the N.C. League of Conservation Voters showed that nearly 80 percent of respondents to the poll were opposed to the removal of more trees so billboards could be visible for a greater distance.
Representatives of the billboard industry, including the N.C. Outdoor Advertising Association, initially aimed a little higher with SB 183. Billboard proponents wanted even broader clearing allowances, said Senate Majority Leader Harry Brown, who sponsored the bill. But over the past month, Brown said he led about 15 hours of negotiations among interested groups including lobbyists for the billboard industry, the N.C. League of Municipalities and the N.C. Metropolitan Mayors Coalition.
The Senate bill might have died without compromise. A month ago, when the Senate Transportation Committee first reviewed it, members from both parties raised issue with proposed changes that would have overruled any local ordinances on signs and billboards across the state.
Several Democrats, including Sen. Floyd McKissick of Durham, commended Brown for his efforts to find compromise on the bill.
“I think you’ve come a long way,” McKissick said to Brown, adding that he felt more comfortable with the way the proposal was headed.
But there’s still more work to do, according to Hitchings and lobbyists Dana Fenton, representing the city of Charlotte, and Paul Meyer, representing the N.C. League of Municipalities. As Meyer spoke to the committee Wednesday, he likened current tree-cutting laws to being just enough to “picture-frame” billboards, or trim trees down just enough for signs to be viewable without clearing them entirely. The proposed law could open up wider areas to clear cutting, not just trimming, and would overrule tree-preservation measures towns have taken locally.
And there is one other notable change—and possible loophole— for signs using electricity, Hitchings pointed out. The bill would now prohibit cities or towns from denying electrical utility permits to billboards. This is currently an enforcement tool cities may use to prevent non-compliant billboards from having access to electricity, said Hitchings, also a town planner. If the bill passes, cities wouldn’t be able to deny permits if the N.C. DOT had issued a valid permit for that billboard under state law starting in October.
The bill also increases three permitting fees for billboard companies, doubling the rate for vegetation removal from $200 to $400, and allocating $30 a year from every legal billboard to an N.C. Department of Transportation beautification program. But, as Sen. Richard Stevens, R-Wake, pointed out to his fellow committee members, there was no language in the bill to suggest that trees removed from a particular highway would be restored to that same area, or phrases that defined what “beautification” projects were. An engineer with the N.C. DOT said his department intended on using the revenue for from those permit fees to plant decorative trees such as crape myrtles in highly visible spots including the landscapes that divide highways.
A companion bill in the N.C. House, (HB 309) is still pending review by the House Transportation Committee.
Posted by Samiha Khanna on Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:22 PM
Revised billboard bill moves along in Senate (News & Observer)
A compromise version of a controversial billboard bill passed a Senate committee Wednesday after losing provisions that could have led to more digital signs along North Carolina highways.
But critics say the bill still would allow too much tree-cutting around billboards and override local regulations.
“We worked very hard at a final product that was fair to everybody, and I think we did that,” said Tony Adams, executive director of the N.C. Outdoor Advertising Association.
The original bill would have allowed advertisers to replace existing billboards with electronic ones and expand the area around them that could be cleared of trees from 250 feet to 400 feet.
The current bill reduces that to 340 feet in municipalities and 380 feet in unincorporated areas. It no longer includes any provisions about digital billboards.
The bill would apply to signs on interstate highways and federally assisted roads such as U.S. 64 and 70 in Wake and other counties.
“It is better than it was before but not something we could support,” said Ben Hitchings, president-elect of the North Carolina chapter of the American Planning Association. “The view from the roadways shape how people feel about our communities … The more we cut down the trees and trade trees for signs … the more we degrade that strategic asset.”
Adams said the industry worked hard in an effort to placate critics.”There are those who would love the industry to disappear,” he said. “But that’s not a fair thing to think.”
Compiled by Jim Morrill of the Charlotte Observer and staff writers Craig Jarvis and John Murawski
Published Thu, Apr 28, 2011 02:00 AM Modified Thu, Apr 28, 2011 06:19 AM
Ex-prosecutor Grannis interested in Board of Transportation seat (Fayetteville Observer)
Cumberland County’s former district attorney says he would like to serve on the N.C. Board of Transportation.
Ed Grannis, the county’s top prosecutor from 1975 until his retirement in December, confirmed Monday his interest in the politically appointed board that approves highway construction contracts and helps sets transportation priorities.
Fayetteville’s current representative on the board, Gary Ciccone, said he wants to step down as soon as his replacement is chosen so he can devote more time to his businesses. He is waiting on Gov. Bev Perdue to make the appointment.
“I know that she is working on it,” Ciccone said. “It’s a slow process.”
Ciccone is a partner in the commercial real estate brokerage firm of Nimocks, Ciccone & Townsend. He owns Ciccone Development LLC and is the board chairman of New Century Bancorp, which is based in Dunn.
Perdue’s spokeswoman, Chris Mackey, said the governor has not decided yet who will replace Ciccone. But Perdue intends in the next few weeks to compile a list of nominees to fill 10 slots on the board, including Ciccone’s seat, Mackey said. Some of the positions include reappointing board members to second four-year terms.
According to sources familiar with the appointment process, Grannis is considered a leading contender to replace Ciccone. Both men are Democrats, as is Perdue.
Transportation Board members aren’t paid, but they receive travel and lodging reimbursements and a $15 per diem when conducting board business.
Grannis declined to comment about any potential appointment, but he acknowledged his interest in serving. Road issues are a growing concern, he said.
“It’s pretty clear to all of us that this community is going through a profound transformation through Fort Bragg, and that process has made it clear to everyone how important the road system is to the community,” Grannis said.
During his brief tenure, Ciccone helped secure the Transportation Board’s commitment in December to keep funding the expansion of Fayetteville’s Outer Loop – the future Interstate 295 – along the Fayetteville-Fort Bragg border. Officials say the loop is needed to ease congestion around Fort Bragg.
In February, the N.C. Board of Transportation approved a $55 million contract to build the loop’s next segment, from Murchison Road to Ramsey Street.
Ciccone represents Division 6, which comprises Bladen, Cumberland, Columbus, Harnett and Robeson counties. He was appointed in November 2009 to fill the unexpired term of Mac Campbell of Elizabethtown, who resigned in April 2009.
Ciccone said he has enjoyed serving but told Perdue in December he couldn’t commit to a four-year term. The term he was tapped to fill expired in January, he said, but he has continued to serve.
The governor is required by state law to submit the nominees to state lawmakers on the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee to receive feedback for 30 days. Afterward, Perdue makes the appointments.
Perdue’s spokeswoman said the governor would submit the list of names to the committee “over the next few weeks.”
Published: 06:42 AM, Tue Apr 26, 2011
By Andrew Barksdale
Staff writer
ADVANCED ENERGY RELEASES CHARGING STATION INSTALLATION GUIDEBOOK FOR ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS AND INSPECTORS AT 2011 EDTA CONFERENCE
Raleigh, N.C. — Advanced Energy, a nonprofit committed to helping communities understand, plan-for and implement electric transportation initiatives, will release Version One of its Charging Station Installation Handbook for Electrical Contractors and Inspectors at the Electric Drive Transportation Association’s 2011 Conference and Annual Meeting, April 19-21, in Washington, D.C.
Developed as a best practices guide intended to ensure uniformity in how charging stations are installed across the United States, this handbook includes overviews, guidelines and checklists to help contractors and inspectors deal with the influx of requests for charging station installations.
“It’s not a question of if plug-in electric vehicles are adopted into mainstream culture – it’s knowing that your local government, public utilities, permitting offices, electricians and code inspectors and other key stakeholders will be ready to support the demand when it occurs,” says Jeff Barghout, director, Electric Transportation Initiatives, Advanced Energy. “With this evolving technology, electrical inspectors will be challenged as requests for approvals increase and the scope of installation varies. In addition to guidelines and checklists, this handbook also provides electrical contractors and inspectors with an overview of charging levels, installation locations and the installation process.”
To download your copy today, visit our website.
This online tool was made possible through the support of Duke Energy, Progress Energy, the North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation and Dominion Virginia Power.
About Advanced Energy
Advanced Energy, a Raleigh, N.C.-based nonprofit serving as a North Carolina and national resource, focuses on industrial process technologies, motors and drives testing, transportation and applied building science, creating economic, environmental and societal benefits through innovative and market-based approaches to energy issues. The organization continues to work collaboratively to demonstrate that industry, government and non-profits can successfully work together to improve the environment and encourage the economy.
Advanced Energy’s Electric Transportation sector is working to assist communities in understanding, planning and implementing electric transportation initiatives. An established figure in the development and deployment of plug-in electric vehicle technologies, Advanced Energy successfully facilitated the creation the world’s first commercially available plug-in hybrid vehicle in 2007. Advanced Energy also works with municipalities, electric utilities and National Laboratories monitoring and evaluating the performance of numerous fleets of plug-in hybrid vehicles across the country, including the Public Hybrid Electric School Bus program. Advanced Energy currently manages the NC Get Ready program to accelerate the adoption of electrified transportation in North Carolina – one of the key initiatives in the nation making a true commitment to the widespread acceptance of electrified transportation. For more information, visit www.AdvancedEnergy.org.
April 18, 2011
Allyson Beback
Communications Specialist
Loop funds may be victim to new rankings (The Herald Sun)
DURHAM — Budget-writers in the state House appear intent on forcing the N.C. Department of Transportation to redo a ranking of so-called “urban loop” projects that appeared to make funding Durham’s East End Connector all but certain last year.
During a redrafting of the 2011-12 budget last week, a House Appropriations Committee panel added language that requires the agency to assess the loops’ value based on the a measure of “mobility benefits” that it’s preparing to use on a broader array of projects.
The new yardstick would put a heavier emphasis on travel-time savings than the ranking system DOT engineers employed while assessing the East End Connector and other loop projects around the state last year.
DOT officials are monitoring the budget bill but have already concluded they’ll have to redo their rankings — and the spending plans they shaped — “if the legislation ends up as it’s currently written,” agency chief spokesman Ted Vaden said.
That’s a big “if,” as the budget has to survive a series of House floor votes, a review by the N.C. Senate and the scrutiny of Gov. Beverly Perdue.
Members of the House panel signaled earlier this month that they want to begin winding down the loop program, which since 1989 has reserved money each year for big new roads for Asheville, Charlotte, Durham, Fayetteville, Gastonia, Greensboro, Greenville, Raleigh, Wilmington and Winston-Salem.
Instead, they want to channel money into the “mobility fund” the General Assembly set up last year at Perdue’s urging to pay for major transportation projects across the state.
Advocates of the switch acted last week to blunt worries that the state would walk away from the loop projects entirely. Those advocates added a provision to the draft budget that says money reserved until now for loops should remain earmarked for them.
If it holds, that decision would be good news for the East End Connector, as the project appears to create greater travel-time-savings than many other proposed loops.
But if legislators soften or eliminate the grandfathering provision, the $182 million connector might not fare well.
DOT engineers have already done some back-of-the-envelope work comparing potential travel-time savings to likely construction costs. It suggests the connector could fall behind other projects that haven’t enjoyed the loop label.
Just in Durham, agency analysts suspect it would be more cost-effective to do an as-yet undesigned, $80 million widening of N.C. 54 from Interstate 40 to N.C. 55 than to build the East End Connector, which would link the Durham Freeway to U.S. 70.
The travel-time gauge could yield some results that legislators may not intend.
In Charlotte, for example, it would imply that DOT should get behind a planned commuter rail link between that city’s downtown and the northern Mecklenburg County suburbs near Davidson College. But some of the House members pushing the use of travel-time benchmarks are known to be opposed to rail projects.
Relatively low-dollar projects could also get a leg up.
For instance, there’s enough potential travel-time savings over the years for pedestrians in south Durham that a $7.8 million bridge carrying the American Tobacco Trail over I-40 might rate higher than several costly loop projects, especially since the state mobility fund would only have to cough up $1.6 million for the crossing, according to DOT’s figures.
Vaden cautioned that the engineers’ preliminary scan “is not official, exhaustive, complete or final,” not the least because they aren’t sure about how the budget will read, what projects will get mobility-fund consideration or the exact rating formula they’ll have to use.
Not to mention, of course, that they also have to wait to see “how much funding is available,” he said.
April 26, 2011
By Ray Gronberg
Chair City council stays neutral on state gas tax (The Dispatch)
THOMASVILLE | The Thomasville City Council ultimately took no action Monday night on resolutions that would oppose or support N.C. Senate Bill 235 and N.C. House Bill 399 — bills that either suspend the state’s gas tax altogether or look to cap it at its current rate of 32.5 cents per gallon.
The council opted not to approve a resolution presented to them that would have opposed the two bills by a 6-1 vote. Councilman Neal Grimes cast the lone nay vote.
Senate Bill 235 proposes to suspend the gas tax and look for other economic incentives and tax expenditures to offset and help fund road maintenance and construction while House Bill 399 would cap the tax. The bill would place a 15-cent tax on the portion of the gas tax that is adjusted every six months according to wholesale gas changes. A flat rate of 17.5 cents is also added and does not fluctuate.
In essence, the council agreed to disagree on each bill and subsequently opted not to endorse either one.
“I think their sentiment was they were in disagreement with one or both,” said Thomasville City Manager Kelly Craver. “They felt like the proposed resolution as it stood, they could not support it.”
By capping the tax, drivers would save an average of 20 cents per week, and the state would lose around $100 million, according to the N.C. Metropolitan Mayors Coalition.
Grimes, who also chairs the city’s transportation committee, warned that not adjusting the gas tax could put pressure on dwindling maintenance dollars for road repairs.
“North Carolina does have a tremendous amount of mileage of state-maintained roads,” he said, “second only in the nation to Texas. And the alternative to the state maintaining roads and being able to get revenue to maintain the roads is passing a lot of that maintenance to the municipalities and the counties. Instead of paying a couple of cents more for a gallon of gas, you may be taxed a little more on your property in order to generate some revenue for road maintenance if we had to do it locally. While it’s not a popular thing, I would be in favor of allowing the gas tax ceiling to rise.”
Councilman Scott Styers hesitated to speak for the council as a whole, despite the overwhelming vote to dismiss the resolutions, but said a unified council voice on such matters can be beneficial to legislators.
“We got caught up trying to support or oppose it, and probably the truth is if you poll the seven council people, they each have individual feelings about what point that tax should be capped if it all,” he said. “Frankly that’s the job of the Legislature to determine what that cap would be. Legislators hear from individuals, as they should. What sometimes doesn’t happen is they don’t always hear from individual communities on how those individual communities might be impacted.”
Speaking to the fears of every local government that would come with the responsibility of funding secondary roads if gas tax money is shortened, Styers said a classic catch-22 emerges.
“What you’ve done is lowered the state gas tax, but you may put cities and counties in a situation where they have to find other ways to raise that same revenue,” he said. “You’re robbing Peter to pay Paul. Somebody in the state of North Carolina is going to have to pay for it, and it’s just a matter of what way.”
Councilman David Yemm said he would have voted to cap the tax given the opportunity.
“We have one of the highest tax rates on gasoline, and reports come out that say we have the second rated worse roads in the nation,” Yemm said. “Where is all that money going? Where are they (the state) wasting it? Fix the wasteful spending first before taxing everyone more money to fix a problem.”
By David Bodenheimer
Published: Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 3:36 p.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 3:36 p.m.
