Press Releases and Newsletters2021-07-29T15:50:07+00:00

Press Releases and Newsletters

NC Mobility Fund Update 6.15.10

We are now at the conference committee stage of the budget process. This is when the Chambers negotiate the differences between their two budgets. As you know, the House included the Mobility Fund in their budget, but the Senate did not. Below is a list of both the Appropriations co chairs and the transportation conferees. If you have a representative on this list please call them and ask them to include the Mobility Fund in the final budget and two add two of the Governor’s provisions to the Fund – supplemental Powell Bill monies and dedicated Interstate Maintenance funds.

We believe that dedicating 6.5 percent of the Mobility Fund to new additional Powell Bill revenues is critical to its overall support and success. Including the Powell Bill supplement ensures that every community across North Carolina receives some of these new transportation dollars.

We are also asking the conferees to dedicate $30 million dollars of the Mobility Fund to interstate maintenance. According to a June 2nd article in Stateline, “Letting a road deteriorate from excellent condition to fair condition makes it three times as costly to fix.” We need to be smart about investing in our roads at a time when bids are at historical lows. Additionally, having Mobility Funds spent on our interstates will free up equity fund dollars traditionally spent on interstate maintenance to be spent elsewhere in a highway division.

Transportation Conferees:
Senate: Goss, Graham, Jenkins, Shaw, Stein
House: Cole, Martin, Coates, Gill, Heagarty, May, Parfitt, Williams, Dockham

Appropriations Chairs:
Senior Chairman Rep. Michaux
Chairman Rep. Adams
Chairman Rep. M. Alexander
Chairman Rep. Crawford
Chairman Rep. Haire
Chairman Rep. Jeffus
Chairman Rep. Tolson
Chairman Rep. Yongue
Co-Chairman Sen. Charles W. Albertson
Co-Chairman Sen. Linda Garrou
Co-Chairman Sen. A. B Swindell
Co-Chairman Sen. Charlie S. Dannelly

Toll talk (News and Observer)

Toll talk (News and Observer)

Like holiday traffic jams, tolls on North Carolina’s 182-mile stretch of Interstate 95 appear increasingly inevitable.

The north-south route’s traditionally toll-free status is under pressure from heavy traffic, tight funding and new technologies that claim to eliminate some of tolling’s aggravations. Within a year, members of the General Assembly can expect a drive for legislation that would allow tolls on already constructed roadways – a prerequisite for authorizing user fees on I-95.

Much will depend on the specifics of the toll plan. If the proposal is carefully constructed to bring about a needed upgrading of the interstate, if it doesn’t unduly burden those North Carolinians who use the road every day and if the methods of collecting tolls are practical and enforceable, ending I-95’s toll-free era could be worth the price motorists would pay.

The case for taking the toll route on I-95 was reported Sunday by The N&O’s Bruce Siceloff, in an article that carried the sub-headline “Advocates say state’s deadliest interstate sorely needs rebuilding.” Siceloff quoted Marc Basnight, the Senate president pro tem, as saying “You should collect that toll now. There’s not a worse road in North Carolina.”

Not-so-golden oldie

Tar Heel drivers probably could come up with quite a list of contenders in any worst-road competition. But it’s true that I-95 outpaces other interstates in its fatality rate, particularly near the South Carolina border.

The road’s central section in Johnston and Harnett counties is notably antiquated. Drivers taking the upgraded U.S. 64-264 east from Raleigh (toward Basnight’s beloved coast) may well be struck by the contrast between the mostly modern U.S. highway and the 1960s-era interstate it crosses.

In all, the state DOT would like to see $5 billion in improvements on I-95. But the money is nowhere to be found in the existing system of road funding.

It’s not news that there’s a misfire in how the state and the nation fund interstate infrastructure. A key factor is that fuel taxes don’t go as far as they once did. Road-related costs are up but fuel taxes aren’t, while increasingly efficient vehicles don’t use as much gasoline and diesel as they once did.

In that sense, the talk of adding tolls is a substitute for what might be a more sensible option, raising fuel taxes across the board. That route would both boost highway-repair money overall and dampen oil imports – but anti-tax pressure led North Carolina to essentially cap its fuel taxes.

And so, in the historically toll-averse South, officeholders are talking seriously about charging for the privilege of driving on I-95. Virginia’s governor kicked off the most recent round a few weeks back with a proposal to charge tolls at a new plaza just north of the North Carolina line.

Bake until done

That plan has obvious shortcomings. For one thing, the charge would bear no relation to distance actually traveled on the interstate. Plus, economy-minded drivers might simply bypass the sole toll station.

Whatever North Carolina does, it’s vital that officials don’t propose a half-baked tolling plan. For example, word is that there would be no traditional-style toll plazas. That’s good for traffic flow. But what about fair and equitable revenue collection?

Some drivers would pay via electronic payment systems such as E-Z Pass. The rest, however, would have their license plates identified by photo equipment; bills would be sent in the mail. Faith in the honesty of the American consumer is touching, but you have to wonder about that one.

Drivers may come to accept the inevitability of I-95 tolls. But the any such setup must be purposeful and, above all, practical.

Published Tue, Jun 15, 2010 02:00 AM
Modified Tue, Jun 15, 2010 06:52 AM

New Director of the N.C. Division of Air Quality

Hello Everyone:

I am pleased to announce that Sheila Holman has agreed to become the new director of the N.C. Division of Air Quality, following the retirement later this month of Keith Overcash. This appointment comes after a nationwide recruitment and the consideration of a number of interested candidates for this important position.

Sheila has worked at DENR since 1993, and has been deputy director of the Division of Air Quality since August 2008. From 2003 to 2008, she served as chief of the division’s Planning section, where she addressed implementation issues of the 1997 8-hour ozone and the fine particulate matter standards in North Carolina. Holman began her tenure at DAQ as chief of the Attainment Planning Branch, where she directed the development of the state implementation plans for the nonattainment areas in North Carolina, and also coordinated the development and implementation of the North Carolina Air Awareness Program. Prior to her time at DENR, Holman worked for the EPA on national policy for ozone and carbon monoxide.

Sheila’s experience and professionalism are assets she will bring to bear in her new position. Her understanding of the department’s new strategic direction will make her a valuable member of DENR’s senior management team. Please join me in congratulating Sheila on this appointment and to welcoming her as the new DAQ Director.

DENR Secretary Dee Freeman

BUDGET TARGETS (Part of an AP story)

BUDGET TARGETS (Part of an AP story)

Budget subcommittee leaders have received spending targets they must meet to work out differences between competing House and Senate spending plans. The chief budget-writers for both chambers gave out the marching orders to the subcommittees and told them to report back next week with recommendations. Sen. Linda Garrou, D-Forsyth, co-chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, want the lawmakers to remain on schedule so that a final plan can be voted on and sent to Gov. Beverly Perdue before July 1. The targets essentially split the difference between the House and Senate plans on education spending but is closer to the Senate plan on the categories of health and human services and justice and public safety. Those areas alone comprise nearly 90 percent of spending in state government.

Congress looks at making cities more “livable” (Reuters)

Congress looks at making cities more “livable” (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Senate moved closer on Wednesday to making the concept of “livable communities” a part of national law that would provide federal grants to help local governments implement comprehensive city planning.

Almost a year after Sen. Chris Dodd, the Banking Committee chairman from Connecticut, introduced a bill, the committee held its first hearing. The bill proposes giving livability grants to metropolitan organizations and creating an interagency office on sustainable communities within the executive branch.

The grant amounts would depend on the size of the city and the use of the money. The bill would authorize $100 million in total each year through 2013 for planning grants and $3.75 billion through 2013 for implementation grants.

A similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in February.

Dodd described the bill as combining housing development, public transit, and infrastructure and land-use planning into one comprehensive approach to city development. Currently, many of those decisions are made separately from one another, and Dodd and others said the partitions have led to urban sprawl.

Livability advocates promote public transportation and bike paths and building energy efficient homes. The payoff of combining city planning will be great, according to Dodd.

“Our nation is facing a number of significant problems, including a struggling economy, an explosion in home foreclosures, the looming threat of climate change, an increasingly worrisome dependence on foreign oil, deteriorating infrastructure, and, yes, worsening traffic congestion,” he said.

Other senators said the bill will reduce the rates of asthma in children, draw younger people back to abandoned downtown areas, reduce obesity by promoting walking and bicycling, and get workers to their jobs on time.

Critics say the bill is vague, extends the reach of the federal government too far into the dealings of local governments and costs too much.

Support may also wane, as fiscal conservatives in Congress pledge to cut back on spending programs and have recently fought other measures to send money to state and local governments.

“Livability” has been percolating as a theme within the executive branch.

The Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation have formed a partnership to better coordinate their programs. Their leaders spent most of the winter touting livability at national conferences of city, county and state leaders held in Washington.

“Rural, suburban and urban counties have been pursuing local strategies to create livable communities and implement sustainable development for decades,” Julia Gouge, a county commissioner from Maryland representing the National Association of Counties, told the hearing.

Last month, the Ford Foundation announced a five-year $200 million plan to promote “a new metropolitan approach that interweaves housing, transportation and land-use policy to foster greater economic growth.”

(Editing by Andrea Ricci)
Wed, Jun 9 2010
By Lisa Lambert

Beltway delay (Winston Salem JOURNAL EDITORIAL)

Beltway delay (Winston Salem JOURNAL EDITORIAL)

Aprioritization process for urban-loop projects that state officials are proposing could well put Forsyth County’s long-awaited Northern Beltway near, or at, the bottom of the list of projects competing for funds. Area residents should urge the N.C. Department of Transportation to adjust the process so that it allows projects like the Northern Beltway to be given fair consideration.

A dozen local business leaders, mainly from the Greater Winston-Salem Chamber of Commerce and the Winston-Salem Alliance, as well as community activists, met with Gov. Bev. Perdue Friday and voiced their concerns.

“We are trying to show the state that the process is patently flawed,” Mayor Allen Joines of Winston-Salem told the Journal’s Wesley Young. “It creates points for things like congestion, safety and economic impact, which we score very well on. It takes that score and divides it by the total cost of the project. When you divide that number into our raw scores our points go way, way down.”

The process is unfair to Forsyth County because lawsuits held up construction of any beltway segments for 10 years as road-building costs steadily rose. Thus, the total cost of the segments is larger and could make the beltway score low on the priority scale. The prioritization process should take such delays into account, as well as the fact that some areas have partially built loops while areas such as Forsyth have none.

If Forsyth County had proceeded with the western leg of the Northern Beltway in 1999, as it had been approved to do, it would have obtained the money it needed for the project and be almost done with it by now. But a lawsuit filed in 1999, followed by another in 2008, killed that scenario. Last month, a federal judge dismissed the two suits, which contended that state and federal highway officials had failed to demonstrate that the road was needed, and that the officials had failed to properly gauge the highway’s impact on the environment.

Now the plan is to start with the eastern leg of the beltway, a stretch of about 17 miles from U.S. 52 to U.S. 311, that will cost about $869 million. The project is crucial to ease congestion and enhance safety by getting traffic off heavily traveled Interstate-40 Business and U.S. 52. It’s important for economic development. And landowners in the path of the beltway have been left in limbo for too long.

The DOT is working on a draft of a priority list. Once it comes out, DOT officials say, there will be an extended period of public comment. But local officials are right to worry that even a draft list will start looking permanent to state officials.

The Chamber of Commerce is asking its members to e-mail letters of support for the beltway to state officials. Other residents of Winston-Salem and Forsyth County should also let Perdue and other state officials know how important the beltway is to the growth and security of our region. One way to do that is through a form letter at the chamber website, winstonsalem.com.

We’ve waited long enough for the beltway.

Published: June 9, 2010

Liquor law changes approved by NC house panel (Associated Press)

Liquor law changes approved by NC house panel (Associated Press)

RALEIGH, N.C. — Local ABC boards would have to meet financial and customer service standards in its liquor sales or they could face closure, and all its members would be subject to a gift ban and other ethics rules in legislation approved Tuesday by a state House panel.

The bill that left the House’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Committee went beyond the recommendations of a special study commission completed last month before the session began. The state ABC Commission also would receive more power to monitor the activities of the local, largely independent boards that sell liquor in cities or counties.

The study commission examined the ABC rules following news reports about the high salaries of local board administrators and meals paid for by liquor companies to local ABC leaders. Gov. Beverly Perdue had sought changes, too.

“It puts the ABC Commission in a new role in providing more direct oversight and setting performance standards,” said state commission Chairman Jon Williams. a Perdue appointee. “All told, it looks like that we will emerge with a much stronger, more reliable ABC system and the public will have more assurance these public enterprises are run with the high ethical standards that the public deserves.”

North Carolina is among 18 “control” states where government directly controls wholesale and retail liquor distribution, but it’s the only one where local ABC boards sell the spirits and essentially run their own operations.

The measure went beyond the study commission’s recommendations to require the state’s nearly 170 local ABC boards to create their own ethics codes. It also would prohibit local board members from accepting gifts from contractors doing business with their panel or stores and to avoid conflicts of interest that could financially benefit themselves or family members.

Each local board would be subject to performance standards set by the state ABC Commission, including store operating efficiency, solvency and customer service and enforcement of the alcohol laws. Lawmakers avoided the word “profitability” although some poorly performing stores don’t make money. Other lawmakers and advocates of the current system argue the purpose of the nearly 75-year-old ABC system and its more than 400 stores is to control liquor sales, not to make a profit.

The state ABC Commission could close stores or force a local board to merge with one nearby if standards aren’t met, but the local board could have up to 20 months to fix the problems. An amendment offered by Rep. Pryor Gibson, D-Anson, raised that period of time from 12 months.

“On balance, having more time is a very important part of the proposal,” said Jon Carr, lobbyist for the North Carolina Association of ABC Boards. “We’d ask for time to improve.”

Rep. Edgar Starnes, R-Caldwell, said 12 months was already enough time: “If you don’t meet your performance standards, there needs to be a consequence.”

The measure, which now goes to another House committee, would require local boards to follow the same rules local governments do in carrying out their annual budgets, including making their spending proposals public records. Local boards also would have to hold a public hearing before it can be adopted.

The bill also would:

_ limit the compensation of local ABC general managers to the pay that local Clerks of Superior Court receive, up to $112,607 in the most populous counties. But pay can go higher if a county commission or town council approves it.

_ prohibit an employee from having direct supervision over a family member in a local ABC board.

The two changes are in response to reports that the father-and-son store administrators in New Hanover County received more than $400,000 in combined compensation.

By GARY D. ROBERTSON , 06.09.10, 08:15 AM EDT

A tale of two counties (The Washington Post) (Collective Bargaining story)

A tale of two counties (The Washington Post) (Collective Bargaining story)

MONTGOMERY COUNTY has just completed a nightmarish budget year. Stressed, squabbling and besieged elected officials savaged services and programs and jacked up taxes to eliminate an eye-popping deficit of almost $1 billion in a $4.3 billion spending plan. Meanwhile, across the Potomac River in Fairfax County, all was sweetness and light by comparison. With a budget roughly equal to Montgomery’s, Fairfax officials erased a deficit a quarter as large with relative ease and far less drama.

The picture isn’t likely to change anytime soon. Montgomery, having already pruned the low-, medium- and some high-hanging budgetary fruit, is facing annual deficits in the hundreds of millions of dollars as far as the eye can see. Fairfax, though facing tough choices and further cuts in an economy clouded by recession, has a brighter future.

The region’s two largest jurisdictions — demographic cousins with populations around 1 million, school systems among the nation’s biggest and best, and public spending equal to that of small countries — have parted ways. To put it bluntly, Montgomery is lurching under the weight of irresponsible governance, unsustainable commitments and political spinelessness — particularly in the face of politically powerful public employees unions.

Over the past few months, some readers have asked why we lately have devoted attention to those unions. The diverging paths of Montgomery and Fairfax provide one explanation. We respect the public employees in both counties and their dedication to public service. Clean parks, cheerful classrooms, safe streets, bustling libraries — the work of these employees helps keep these counties such attractive places to live. But when 80 percent of all outlays are related to personnel, labor contracts that get out of whack can endanger the public welfare.

Take a snapshot of one year, 2006, when times were flush. In Fairfax, the county executive, an unelected technocrat, proposed a budget with a relatively robust spending increase of about 6 percent. In Montgomery, County Executive Douglas M. Duncan, a career politician then running in the Democratic primary for governor, pitched a gold-plated, pork-laden grab bag of political largess that drove county spending up by 11 percent.

Mr. Duncan’s budget that year capped a three-year spree in which county spending rose by almost 30 percent. It reflected major multiyear increases in pay and benefits that he had negotiated for police, firefighters and other county workers. At the same time, Jerry D. Weast, Montgomery’s schools superintendent, negotiated a contract that promised pay increases for most teachers of 26 to 29 percent over three years — about twice the raise Fairfax teachers got — plus health benefits virtually unmatched in the region. Montgomery County Council members, most of whom were hoping for union endorsements in the fall elections, rubber-stamped Mr. Duncan’s contracts. The Board of Education, equally beholden to the teachers union, did the same for Mr. Weast.

The primary culprits here, as this account should make clear, are not the unions, which are supposed to represent their workers energetically, but county leaders. These include an inexperienced and now all-Democratic County Council, whose current members’ average tenure, less than six years, is half that of the members of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors; a politically agile schools superintendent who has rallied support by striking generous deals with the teachers union; and successive county executives who signed their own unaffordable contracts with police, firefighters and other public employees unions.

The results have been striking — and strikingly unaffordable — in a county where more than half of all spending goes to public schools. The average teacher salary in Montgomery today is $76,483, the highest in the region. Average pay for teachers is now almost 20 percent higher in Montgomery than in Fairfax and has increased much faster than in most local suburban school systems. Since 2000, salaries for Montgomery teachers, as for many other county employees, have nearly doubled, rising at almost triple the rate of inflation.

Teachers are pillars of any community, and Montgomery’s are highly rated. But their compensation has outstripped the marketplace. Today, Montgomery schools spend about 20 percent more per pupil than Fairfax schools; they consume a greater share of the public spending than in any other locality in the region. The spending gap is not about classroom quality and student achievement; in those terms the two school systems are comparable. Rather, the difference is compensation, which accounts for 90 percent of Montgomery’s education spending.

Virginia law denies public employees collective bargaining rights; that’s helped Fairfax resist budget-busting wage and benefit demands. As revenue dipped two years ago, Fairfax officials froze all salaries for county government and school employees with little ado. By contrast, Montgomery leaders were badly equipped to cope with recession. County Executive Isiah Leggett took office proposing fat budgets and negotiating openhanded union deals after he succeeded Mr. Duncan. Then, as economic storm clouds gathered, he shifted gears and cut spending — while still trying to appease the unions.

Notoriously, one such deal guaranteed almost $300 million in pension benefits over 40 years to thousands of employees based on salary increases they never received. The giveaway became known as “Phantom COLAs,” for the cost-of-living raises that were never paid. And even when Montgomery’s teachers agreed to give up cost-of-living raises last year, about two-thirds of them continued to receive step increases of up to 4 percent.

The cozy ties between elected officials and public employees unions in Montgomery have formed the backdrop for a drumbeat of reports about county employees’ bountiful benefits, perks and abuses. In the past few years we’ve learned about county police officers who helped themselves to hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars to secure cut-rate weapons for personal use. More than half the officers who retired recently from the police force left claiming “severe disabilities,” some of them dubious, entitling them to huge taxpayer-funded benefits for life. Veteran firefighters may retire at age 46 and continue working for three years while simultaneously accruing pension payments that increase at a taxpayer-guaranteed rate of 8.25 percent annually, regardless of market performance. Meanwhile, Montgomery’s teachers union has wielded such outsized electoral clout that politicians who received the teachers’ endorsement in the most recent elections reached into their pockets and wrote checks to the union. As far as we know, this occurs nowhere else in America.

Some of Montgomery’s problem is also structural. It has relied for more than a quarter of its revenue on a local income tax, an option available to localities in Maryland but not in Virginia. The income tax is volatile: In good times it yielded windfalls for Montgomery — and no-holds-barred spending sprees — but in the current downturn it has meant a cruel collapse in revenue. Over the past two years, Montgomery’s take from the income tax has plummeted by $400 million — by itself the equivalent of 10 percent of all county revenue.

The recession has had a bracing effect on Montgomery’s elected officials, some of whom now express contrition about their spendthrift ways and deference to unions. This year council members, along with Mr. Leggett, by necessity turned into cost-cutters. A year ago, just one council member, Phil Andrews (D-Gaithersburg-Rockville), voted against the phantom COLAs; this month Mr. Andrews was able to muster a unanimous vote on the council to overturn them. Even Mr. Leggett, who negotiated the phantom COLAs, endorsed the council’s action to scrap them — a rare instance of government repealing an entitlement.

Contrition is fine as long as it’s accompanied by concrete steps to reform. The county has just about run out of revenue-raising options, having boosted nearly its entire menu of taxes to the legal or practical limit. Montgomery’s higher taxes already put it at a competitive disadvantage with Fairfax, which has a wide lead in attracting business and creating high-wage jobs; now Montgomery risks a downward spiral. To avoid that, a cultural shift must take place. Some helpful measures would include:

— Candidates for council and school board in Montgomery should foreswear all donations to or from public employees unions. This is a minimum necessary step to sever the cozy ties that have indebted officeholders to the employees they are supposed to oversee and whose compensation forms a critical aspect of the county’s fiscal integrity.

— Candidates for public office, who are routinely asked to fill out questionnaires from public employees unions and other special interests in election years, should refuse to answer any question that would commit them to undefined future spending.

— The county should beef up its rainy-day reserve funds as a means to protect against future downturns, provide an incentive to fiscal restraint and safeguard the county’s shaky AAA bond rating.

Nancy Floreen (D-At Large), president of the County Council, has asked the county staff to prepare options for shrinking future deficits. County officials will encounter inevitable pushback from unions and other interests warning that more cost-cutting will have dire consequences. They may find that their best counter-arguments are close at hand, just across the river.

Sunday, May 30, 2010; A16

The Collective Bargaining Fight (NC Insider)

The Collective Bargaining Fight (NC Insider)

RALEIGH – Perhaps Harry Reid may think better of the idea.

Or, maybe not.

In late April , the leader of the U.S. Senate re-introduced a bill that would force states to negotiate with unions for police, firefighters and other emergency workers.

The move prompted a flurry of activity from business and municipal government folks back in North Carolina who consider this sort of thing akin to spitting in apple pie and slapping your mama.

North Carolina is one of just two states that specifically bans collective bargaining by state and local government workers. About 32,000 government employees in the state would be affected by the federal legislation.

More importantly, removing the roadblock for union negotiation with one group of public employees would surely lead to calls for lifting the ban for all. The first slip on the slope would have happened.

So these business groups and local governments, which formed something called the Coalition for North Carolina Jobs back in 2006, rolled out a radio ad to try to hold Democratic North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan to her word.

The radio ad actually used Hagan’s words during her 2008 campaign in which she said she would never do anything to undermine the ability of states to determine whether they will allow public employee collective bargaining.

The coalition fears that North Carolina’s ban on public employee collective bargaining is more threatened than ever.

The federal legislation, though, predates Hagan’s time in the U.S. Senate. Similar bills have been filed for nearly a decade without success, with both Democratic and Republican sponsors.

Still, a bill can fail many times. If it succeeds once, it’s law. Local government officials worry that if the legislation becomes law, it would be mean greater payroll costs. That could mean higher taxes.

Business groups simply don’t want to see North Carolina become more union-friendly, not in a state that has had strong right-to-work laws and traditionally been suspicious of unions.

Hagan, in stating her opposition, put her finger on a bigger problem: Why does the federal government have an interest in dictating that states negotiate with their employees? Can a pattern of state and local government dealing unfairly with employees over wages and benefits be demonstrated?

Through executive orders signed by former Gov. Mike Easley and current Gov. Beverly Perdue, groups representing state workers now have the right to at least be consulted as budgets with salaries and benefits are put together. Those rights of consultation stop far short of collective bargaining, and Perdue says she remains opposed.

Business groups and local government may not be happy with the executive orders, but they reflect the times.

North Carolina’s populace, with its influx of transplants more comfortable with unions, is not as hostile toward organized labor as it once was. National control of politics and political parties also has caused Democrats here to increasingly look to labor as an ally, just as they do in other states.

Those trends, though, are quite different than mandates from Washington.

By Scott Mooneyham
June 7, 2010

Bitnami