H267 - George Orwell comes to Raleigh

Today, the General Assembly added insult to injury for those opposed to tolling I-77 via HOT lanes.  Once again this regards House Bill 267 - the bill which mysteriously changed names and intent during last week's House Transportation Committee. See Tuesday's post for the original story - NC House Hides from Voting on Toll Roads in North Carolina...Government Transparency is a Casualty.

The insult comes in the form of the Fiscal Note added to the bill today - Wednesday, May 15th.  Here's the selected excerpt from the note that applies to this local project...

"Based on current law, this bill applies to the project selected under S.L. 2012-104, which the DOT has determined will be used to construct high occupancy tolling (HOT) lanes on I-77.

The I-77 toll project is expected to open to traffic in FY2017 and current plans have the toll revenues paying for related upgrades to existing lanes and constructing new portions of the highway that will not be tolled to replace the affected existing lanes, as required in Section 1(a)(2). Eliminating the language on lines 22-23 in Section 1 (a)(3) and adding the restriction to limit the use of toll revenues to increase capacity will cause DOT to shift funds from another project for these impacted sections of I-77. It is not known how many sections will be impacted or the cost that will need to be shifted."

The reference to S.L. 2012-104 is likely a typo that should read S.L 2012-184.  A call is in to the Fiscal Research Division to verify, but since 104 refers to Deannexation and 184 is the law that authorizes a pilot Public Private Partnership DOT project that is almost certainly the case.

The reason this is such a slap at voters in North Mecklenburg is that when H267 was initially filed as a measure requiring a General Assembly vote on toll projects, local pols were downright adamant that H267 would not apply to I-77.

In an Orwellian move straight out of Nineteen Eighty-Four, a bill that had nothing to do with I-77 HOT Lanes now has everything to do with I-77 Hot Lanes.

This is our government.

NC House Hides from Voting on Toll Roads in North Carolina...Government Transparency is a Casualty

Something happened quietly at the last meeting of the NC House Transportation Committee which should disturb and anger anyone who believes our government should operate in an open an honest manner.  There's simply no other way to put it.

As readers of aShortChronicle know, House Bill 267 was filed in early March with the title - NCGA Prior Approval/Interstate Tolling.  This bill would have required an "act of the general assembly" before any tolling could take place on an existing interstate road in North Carolina.  The initial story was covered here and a follow-up was covered here when Committee Chair and Mecklenburg Representative, Bill Brawley, signed on to the bill as a sponsor.

As has been reported previously, upon its initial filing opponents of the I-77 HOT lanes project initially thought this bill might provide an opening to stop this effort to implement tolls locally.  However, Rep Brawley as well as Co-Sponsor John Torbett of Gaston County immediately began to backpedal on the bill's impact to I-77 saying, without any solid or documented justification, that I-77 would in fact not be impacted by the bill.  No additional vote would be required. (See here for more on that.)

Last Thursday this bill finally was heard in Committee, but the NCLEG.net page for the bill was not updated.  Friday night, aShortChronicle received this response from legislative staff as to the status of the bill.

"The bill passed with a couple of changes.  It will be reported out Monday and the new version will be on the internet after that." (Emphasis added.)

Today, that report came.

Here's the new version of the bill with a new title - Limit Tolling on Existing Interstates. 

This is a completely new bill with no mention of the NCGA voting.  "Only a couple of changes" becomes something "completely and totally different".  This new bill now focuses on how tolls can be implemented rather than the General Assembly voting on when they can be implemented.

Unfortunately, this type of activity has become par for the course in this debate about tolls on I77.  Transparency and dealing in good faith went out the window some time ago for tolling supporters. 

Here are some other examples:

• See this story for details on a public meeting between transportation officials, consultants, and municipal elected leaders conveniently organized to avoid State open meetings laws.
• See this story for how constituents were treated on a visit to Raleigh to discuss the I77 project with the Speaker of the House.
• See this story about the surprise vote in Cornelius which prematurely cut off debate on the topic in the only town with elected officials willing to speak out aggressively against the project.

If this is what stands for good, clean government, we are in trouble.  It's more like win at all costs even if that means destroying the public's trust.

At that, our leaders are being more than successful.

Logjam breaks for H267!!! Where will it go?

Good news arrived today for those wanting to see where the Legislature truly sits with tolling projects in the State.

Whether in response to the prodding in the previous post here at aShortChronicle or as just a fortunate coincidence, H267 was added to the agenda for next week's House Transportation Committee meeting.  The original agenda for the meeting sent out at 3:51 this afternoon did not include the bill, but 15 minutes later at 4:06pm a "correction" arrived that added H267 to the bottom of the May 7th agenda.

It will now be the 15th  bill on the agenda - making for a very busy afternoon.

Whether the brakes get applied again after this hearing or the bill keeps moving is anybody's guess, but at least the public will get to hear some real feedback on the bill from legislators.

That's a good thing for citizens, for voters, to hear.

H267 Being Slow Rolled to Help Toll Roads?

Back in early March, H267 - NCGA Prior Approval/Interstate Tolling - was submitted and promptly sent to the House Transportation Committee.

Upon its submission, those opposing the I77 HOT lanes project were initially encouraged that this may be an effort to find a way off the toll road track by allowing the General Assembly a way save face and put a stop to these efforts at double taxation (gas taxes as well as tolls) for driving on some of our roads.  Hopes were even higher when House Transportation Committee Chairman, Rep. Bill Brawley (R-Meck) of Matthews, signed onto the bill.  (See here and here for earlier posts on this story.)

However, that encouragement and those hopes were short-lived.

Rep. Brawley argued in this Charlotte Observer article soon after the bill was filed that "the General Assembly approved high-occupancy toll lanes for Interstate 77 in 2012 'because it was the only way to get additional capacity to I-77 North in the next 25 years'" - reiterating the pro-toll position heard from many of the project's supporters and also implying that this bill would not pertain to I77.

aShortChronicle received this response from one of the bills original sponsors, John Torbett (R-Gaston) regarding if I77 would be covered by this bill.

"I feel I-77 has already been determined and changing it would be a step backward. This bill should take effect on any new thoughts relative to tolling additional Interstates"

The exact action in 2012 which specifically authorizes tolls on I-77 has not been identified to date.  That does not mean one does not exist, but it also does not clearly mean that H267 would not apply if it was passed in time to impact the I77 tolling project.  In 2012, the NCGA did provide the authority for a pilot Public Private Partnership tolling project with H1077 - the definition of a project that would fit the I77 HOT lanes.  However, that session law does not specifically mention I77.

If the HOT lane supporters are intending to use H1077 as the reason H267 would not apply to the project, that would seem to splitting some pretty fine legal hairs.  Here's why.

If the intent of H267 is to require a vote before implementing tolls on a specific highway only when the planning for the project starts after a certain date, there is no date in H267 which would exempt I77 in the proposed bill.  Also, if the intent of H267 is to require a vote on each and every specific highway toll project if it touches existing lanes then it would apply to I77 as written because the I77 toll project uses at least a portion of an exiting lane slated to be converted to tolling.  That would be the existing HOV section of the road.  Finally, in the event H267 was passed as worded, to insulate the I77 project from any legal challenge for not having an additional vote on it, the prudent thing to do would be include language to specifically exclude I77 from being covered by the bill.

However, all of that is irrelevant if H267 just languishes in committee and never sees the light of day.  Unfortunately, that appears to be what is happening.

Since H267 was introduced in early March and sent to the House Transportation Committee, there have been no less than 7 scheduled meeting of the committee on these dates - March 19, March 26, April 2, April 9, April 16, April 23, and April 30.  The five most recent meetings all considered bills introduced after H267, including the highly complex H817 which covers Governor McCrory's proposed new plans for State transportation expenditures.  That highly complex bill was considered and passed through the House Transportation Committee mere days after the Governor announced the sweeping changes to how transportation money is spent in this state.

So, why has H267 languished?  Why can't a very simple bill that asks for an up or down vote by the Legislature on toll projects even get through committee?  One has to wonder why it has not been given the green light?

Certainly, toll road supporters know why.


Update: The day after this post, H267 started to move - being scheduled for the May 7th House Transportation Committee meeting.  See Logjam breaks for H267!!! Where will it go?

NC House Files to Require NCGA Approval of Tolls on "Existing" Interstates

Following on the heals of the NC Senate bill to stop any potential toll plans on I-95, the NC House filed a bill on Thursday that could stop actual plans for tolls on any interstate highway.  Bi-partisan H267 filed by two Republicans and two Democrats would require an NCGA vote of approval before implementing tolls on any "existing" road.

Questions are out to the Bill's sponsors as to whether this bill would impact the decision to toll I-77 via High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes.  A simple straight forward reading of the bill, would indicated that it should since the existing HOV lanes will be converted to HOT as part of the project.  However, since the I-77 HOT project is a combination of HOV conversion and new construction, that opens the door for interpretation.

If those who support the HOT project are willing to engage in Bill Clintonesque splitting of linguistic hairs, they could try to say the HOT facility is new and not existing. The inclusion and exact meaning of the word "existing" in this bill is important.

A second important point with this bill is the last statement which is common to most bills in the Legislature..."This act is effective when it becomes law."

When it comes to giant government construction efforts, the I-77 HOT Lanes project is on the fast track.  The plan is to select a concessionaire and get the contract underway this year.  If H267 is not equally fast tracked, it will not become law before a contract may be signed - making it irrelevant to such a contract.

If those who support the HOT project are willing to play the standard political game of "run out the clock", they will stall this bill just long enough to not impact this project.  

To be very clear, if the Legislature was able to pass complex and controversial bills on Medicaid expansion and unemployment insurance in a matter of weeks, they could most certainly pass a simple bill that requires a vote on a simple subject such as tolls.  Not doing so will be very, very intentional.

Keep an eye on this one.  It will be interesting to see where it goes.

Update: Looks like the Legislators are going the route of splitting those very fine political hairs.  See here.