[BLANK_AUDIO] I would respectfully ask members, go and take your seats so we can get our committee started on time which is ten minutes late. [BLANK_AUDIO]I didn't say it kept quiet but thank you[BLANK_AUDIO]>>Ladies and gentlemen good morning and welcome to the committee on transportation .We're happy today Were going to go in reverse or to hear we're happy today to have Sergeant in Arms, working with us, Young Bae, thank you Young Bae, Jim Moren, Martha Gardesen and you friend of mine Mr. Bill Riley. Bill thank you very much. Also joining us today is a Yeah. Slue of Pages. Guys, welcome and thank you for having transportation day. The first one I have is when I call your name if you would stand up and kinda give us a, whatever kind of wave you grow up with. Evans Boise, welcome. I'm gonna skip that one. Dolce McMilan, Eddie Owens III. I don't Eddie. Is Eddie in here? Dylan Windfit/g? I'm sure I've butchered that last name Dylan. Abby Young? And Carol, Carol how do you pronounce your last name? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> I'm sorry. Peter/g >> Oh, okay. Can you come up here for a minute? [NOISE] I need you to do me something please. You can walk faster than that, I know that Carol. Would you do me a favor and sit in this chair over here on the far side and keep your eye on your dad for me? Thank you. You. >>Mr. Chairman. Sir, I object. Bill Girder/g daughter is sufficient across the bear.>> [LAUGH] >> And we have a Carol Weir, is that correct? Substitute House pay super. Okay. So we will take Care of that, take care of that. Moving right on, our first bill today, if someone would tell me what Jimmy Dixon's bill number is. Well we're gonna change them around a little bit. Sorry. House bill 1003, DOT to study ACPA which is State Environmental Whatever it stands for, reform impact. Do we need any motion to bring the PC before us? We do. I have a motion to bring the PCS before us. Rep Boles provides that motion. All in favour say aye >> Aye >> Those opposed, no. The Is have it. PCS is before us. Representative Dixon. >> Thank you Mr Chair. Members of the committee, this bill directs the department of transportation to study the impact of the seeper/g that we passed in 2015. What this does is, say to the DOT, tell us how we did. Tell us the good Good the bad or the ugly, either one. I would appreciate your support. >> Any questions? Seeing none, looking for a motion. And the motion we need to incorporate the motion favor reports of PCS in favor of the original bill. So moved. Representative Adams to have a second All in favor say aye. >> aye. >> All opposed, no. Is have it and HB1003 is reported favorably. Thank you Rep Dixon. >> Thank you Mr Chair. >> Next bill is house bill 986, if I can remember my Greek, Zeta Phi Beta Special registration plate. Representative Gill how did I do on that one? Did I get my Greek correct? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Zeta. What did I say? Zeda. Okay, Zeta Phi Beta special registration plate. My apologies. Let's see. We're here for the presentation. Representative Gill you have the floor. The floor. >> Thank you very much. This is a very simple bill. The Zeta Phi Beta Sorority Incorporated was authorized under GS20-79.8 and that expired and now we have to do another bill to have Another re-authorization of the plate. All of the money and the number of plate holders have already been taken care of and we have met the guidelines and we just want to have our plate. I hope you would Products and vote yes. Are there any questions?
>> Wait one second we have a question, Representative Wader. [INAUDIBLE] We have a motion in a Hooper over here, we do. Thank you for your due diligence. Seeing no questions Looking for a motion, representative IIer. >> Move for approval for House Bill 96. >> Thank you. You heard the motion. Motion for a favorable report. Do I hear a second? Thank you, second by representative Shepard. All in favor of a single panel by saying I. >> I >> All opposed, No. I's have it. HB986 reported Favor with a re-referral to finance. >> Thank you very much. >> Or finance. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Okay this time along with the legal mind of Representative Stan myself represented in the next bill I'm going to ask chairman Eiler If he would present or chair over this presentation of Senate bill 778. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Thank you Mr chairman you are recognized as Representative Stan to present Your bill. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> We have a PCS before us, your motion PCS? >> who made that motion? Rep Jeter >> [INAUDIBLE] >>Well Jackson the PCS is in force. >> Sip didn't wanna be seen with me evidently, So.We can go wait for the next part. >> I do not have a hair cut. I used to have a haircut like his many many years ago. >> Ladies and gentlemen this bill is predominantly two parts. I'm gonna present the first part and Rep.Stan will represent second part. Both parts are equally good. I do take Take at least preference with the first part I'm gonna presenting. The nature of this bill and I'll just talk to you in layman's terms. What this bill does is.Let me give you the current. Currently if a new school is being build, maybe your town and, or county. It is responsibility of that school to pay for any necessary road improvements that That the egress and ingress of that school might cause to the highways surrounding that school. In early days those were usually addressed by turning lanes and just easing the ability for patrons of the school to get in and out school buses etc. It is It seems like some of those based on what I've heard in several places around the state, that now we're addressing issues that some feel are a little bit outside the scope of the project of the school. So the cost have been expanding over the years as [INAUDIBLE] But I said the jest of this is why are we transferring money out of one pocket simply to put into another Another pocket? So with ease and providing a little bit of relief of our county municipals for our public schools, and our public schools incorporate both public traditional and public charter, that have felt incumbent upon us that we just have DOT go ahead and pay for and build what Road improvements are needed to provide ample ingress and egress to the schools. And they would take all the responsibility. That is what the bill does, The fiscal impact on that roughly is around 1.3 million a year, which Which I think is totally within the grand scheme and also, it just puts little piece portions of roads back in responsibility of state DOT which ultimately has it together. What the bill also does is that since DOT will now be paying for these, should this bill pass, that if DOT pays for the improvement, they also have the final say-so on design I would not be expecting them as tax payers to pay for projects where they don't have some control over design. So the final check-off would be by the NCDOT and then they would pay the bills. If the school in a municipality, the municipality of course has authority over their roads. So So it would be simply refund, if you wanna think of it that way, where the municipal government would go ahead and pay for it as they do, but those dollars would be refunded. Also what it does is that back in 1975, when Kelly Alexander was just a mere babe It was determined at that time that NCDOT, Ronnie you probably weren't even born then but okay. In 1975 that it was determined that NCDOT would cover up to $50,000 for necessary improvements to the bus areas of schools. So we simply looked at that, kinda went back adjusted some math due to About, well yeah, 40 years of change so, we bumped that to $60,000
and Mr. Chairman if you want to, I'll be more than happy to take questions prior to Representative Stan's comment on the other portions of the Bill. >> Okay, first thing thing that I have is Representative Adams. Yes thank you Mr Chairman, you refer to the DOT would have the final design approval. >> Correct. >> Okay, would that design approval be for the entire project, the layout of the school site, or would that be simply for the transportation improvements? >> All footprint Only the transportation improvements. >> Follow up. >> Follow up. >> I've seen an example in history, where there was a design for a 108 acre piece of property which would incorporate a school site, 25 acre school site. Local school board didn't like the site being in the lower part of the property but the whole design Design included transportation designs but the school board wanted to be on top of the hill. So they condemned that property and they built a school on top of the hill and created quite a number of transportation problems. And I'm trying to go through my mind as to what control DOT would have had, would they have had any control at all At all in looking at the development plan for the entire 108 acre site. Would they have any input to say, wait a minute folks, you're creating a real problem actually a number of problems or would they have to just solve the problems the school board creates. >> As a matter That they are involved in the initial discussions but they would not be nor should it be responsible for any build out of the school property on the footprint of the property but they would be relegated the responsibility of the necessary road improvements to that improved property now having a public or a traditional Public school. >> Follow up question. >> So they would have to solve problems the school boards created? That's my understanding of that's the answer? >>The answer is as they do today correct. But with the added caveat that they do to get final say so on the design. >> Okay, Rep Brown Thank you Mr Chair just a point of clarification. Would the municipalities have any control over the design unlike in the county? I just wanna make sure. >> Rep Brown thank you for that question. I in no way address the design of the school on the footprint. What I'm doing is trying to aid and assist off-site Improvements to the highway system. >> Follow up. >> I thought you said that the DOT would reimburse them that the municipality if they were built in the Ingress and the egress >> I'm sorry I wasn't clear. >> Okay Absolutely the only difference between cities and counties is that counties don't own roads, cities do own roads, okay so keep that in mind, If we'll reference a cities success won't you use, if a school is being built inside of municipality and there are necessary road improvements To accommodate that school, the DOT will have final say so on design of those road improvements and we'll reimburse the towns or cities for those road improvements. Does that answer your question. >> Do you understand my point. >> No [LAUGH] Okay. >> Okay. >> That's efficient okay. Representative Holy. >> Thank you Mr. chairman. I got a question you said that the school boards are normally the people who would determine whether the schools will go, will this also include charter and private schools and then will the municipalities be responsible for doing roads to To a school that may only house 100 kids my concern is we have a lot of new schools that are coming up and which we don't determine the site of because there may be a charter school or a private school will we then be expected to do the road improvement going to those schools as well Or will they be reserved for schools that are under the school board. >> If they are educating our children to the confines that we allow them to under the educational system of the state that is to me a bonified verified school, so if it is a public school or a public charter school then yes that would fall under those Confines they would not, those schools would not be subject to the cost of someone else determining for road improvements, the cause of those road improvements would be on the side of NCDOT as they have determined the necessary improvements to address that school. Representative Shepherd, Chairman Shepherd. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Representative Torbett,
as this pertains to the $1 million, is that $1 million per school or $1 million per state wide? >> Typically we asked for a running average. When I got presented it was about 1.3 million per school site. >> Okay Follow up, also will this include. [BLANK_AUDIO] Mrs Cameron they have. >> Can I have a [CROSSTALK] >> I may have my answer all. >> I am Cameron I am sorry could you repeat the question. >> The question was, Mr Chair do I have? >> Yes. >> Question was it that one million per school site or one million total? >> The average cost. >> Miss Cameron. >> [BLANK_AUDIO] The average cost is 43 $43,000 for each school site. Again restricted to the bus driveways and the bus parking lot. That is what DUT pays. >> Follow up >> Follow up. >> [INAUDIBLE] [BLANK_AUDIO] Miss Carmen/g I believe they are referring to the turn lanes possibly off site. Is that not correct representative Torbett. >> That would have been my understanding. Yes. >> Is there an estimate of that figure? >> I'm looking for that figure as we speak and its probably on my desk. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> I have a follow up [BLANK_AUDIO] >> You're trying to follow up. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Would you like to explain that? [BLANK_AUDIO] are you gonna to explain this part Representative Stam? >> Yeah. That part which is Section two part two and Section three. The estimated cost will be about 18 million a year for DOT, but it's also a less of a cost of 18.4 million to the LEAs. So basically this is a transportation cost not an education cost for the off site. The on site stuff is I believe Section two part 1 which average is about 2.7 million a year. [BLANK_AUDIO] [CROSSTALK] >> And that comes to the average if I may follow up Mr. Chairman, that comes to the average 47 per school and if you build 18 new schools it's gonna be 18 million dollars . >> Follow up >> Follow up >> Representative Torbett. >> So in conclusion, this mostly will not pay for any parking lots or anything like that on school property unless the buses are parked there or it's the driveway for the bus. >> That's correct. >> Unless they Like the school in my district for instance the buses are parked in the school parking lot as well as the driveway to getting in there as a part of it. So that would be covered in that situation then right? >> That's correct. >> Thank you. >> Representative Cleveland did you have a question? >> Thank you Mr Chairman. I have trouble with cost shifting. And that's all we're doing here. And I don't understand why you're shifting the cost to the state. Could you explain that? >> I'll be more than happy to sir. The first thought was we're simply passing dollars out of one pocket into another pocket when it comes to transportation necessities for a school being built. And in doing so it is my opinion after looking at pretty much extensive research about different schools being built that once upon a time if you would. Those road modifications may only encompass what was abating the school property. Now schools are being asked to, in my opinion, to provide transportation needs Somewhat away form the school districts such as three miles or five miles. Or in one case I'm aware of they've actually been asked to provide road improvements that were already determined to be needed prior to a school even being thought about putting on a site. So I'm thinking the cost for schools has started to expand somewhat And I'm trying to rein it in to the point where it's actually more economical and efficient for both tax payers and schools. >> Follow up. >> Who is it that is requiring the schools to improvements [INAUDIBLE] from the school? >> It could be a collection of some It could be a county, it could be a city, that might add those needed improvements. >> Representative Stan [INAUDIBLE] >> I give it an example of county in my area that the bill [INAUDIBLE] high school The city require the school board to do improvements to the 540 ramps on and off miles away,
that's happening all over the state, the cities, we are going to help the cities by this bill, but the cities are not going to Gonna get to do the transportation needs of their own at the cost of the school boards. It's truly a transportation cost not an education cost. >> Just one minute. Does DOT representative, here by any chance [UNKNOWN] anyone want to comment I've been informed you might wanna comment on this issue. Is that correct? >> Opportunity to inform us. Identify yourself please. >> Mr. Chair, members of committee. Thank you for allowing me to address the committee. Was there Well, let me say that- >> Can you identify yourself although we know you? >> My [UNKNOWN] chief engineer of North Carolina Department of Transportation. First of all, let me say that we worked very cooperatively and collaboratively with Rep Stan's, [UNKNOWN] and his office personnel in drafting this bill. We've also worked with Rep Torbett very collaboratively on it. I would be glad to address any specific question but relative comments on this, I'm gonna ask if I can Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask Representative Torbett to clarify the question first if that's permissible. >> You're recognized for that. >> Okay, thank you. Is the bill required DOT reimburse improvements adjacent to the school site itself or does it require that DOT only reimburse recommended improvements that are off site from the property line of the school? >> It is my understanding and I'll be more than happy to go to staff, but Mr Holder it is my Is my understanding that DOT will be responsible to reimburse those items subject to road improvements determined by DOT. >> Okay. [BLANK_AUDIO] Microphone. [BLANK_AUDIO] So that could include road improvements adjacent to the school site itself then, if that was That was required as part of the traffic impact analysis. >>. It's my understanding that is correct sir. >> There's a comment by Rep Cleveland for another question. [UNKNOWN] >> Yes. Just as a matter of protocol, the department works with the School boards and developers throughout the state and in the counties. Some school boards will come to us and ask us for assistance in serving schools relevant to minimization or traffic impacts. We had a very successful project that we exercise that particular Math and all in Gaston county with a new [INAUDIBLE] High school. And the department school board worked very collectively. However, in that case the budget for the school was included in the over all budget for the school construction itself. And then the department work with the school board contractor and implementing those particular improvements. Now, the department has a school traffic specialist that does work with existing school sites and proposed school sites to maximize the traffic flow and minimize the required improvements on the State Highway System to get ingress and egress out of the site in the most efficient way possible. We do offer that service to all school systems. However, if the department does or you do pass this particular bill, we are all looking at about a $1 million cost per site or per new construction site within the state. Okay. Representative Cleveland. Additional on follow-up? >> Thank you. You said earlier something to the effect that road improvements were done in schools without DOT's oversight or approval. I've always labored under the assumption at any time you did anything on a state road it had to be approved by the Department of Transportation. Is that true? >> That's correct. >> Just a comment. >> Comment. >> I'm having a lot of problems with this bill. I'm having a problem with number, the cause shifting. It's not taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. There's different people responsible for different things. And to shift $18 million of cost to the state for building schools I think is wrong. >> Okay, Representative Alexander. >> Thank you Mr Chairman. I I've got a couple of things. The methodology that this bill seems to reflect might not be the most cost effective way of getting to what you actually wanna do.
For instance, we could have limited the impact to let's say a one mile radius around the site of the school. We would immediately stop somebody from going three or four miles out and claiming an impact. That's one thing. Another would be to require that with all new construction or conversion of existing facilities into a school that they talk with DOT about Traffic impacts and minimization of impacts on the state roads. [BLANK_AUDIO] Lastly, it's kind of a philosophical thing. If you don't have any skin in the game, you might decide that this is wonderful side in the middle of this nice piece of property that you can get that happens to be three miles from the nearest road. And if I understand the [UNKNOWN] here somebody is gonna be on the hook for building an, access road down to that school site and whoever has the responsibility for deciding that I want that school there, whether it's the school board or whether it's some other entity, there's no effective way to stop that from being utilized. Or am I missing something. >> Thank you. You're missing something representative. What we're saying is, number one, DOT is only responsible for the highway system. We're not talking about DOT's responsible for building roads on the footprint of a property of a school. If a school purchased a piece of property three miles away from the nearest road, then they have to have right away ownership of the access road that goes to that school. We're talking about the highways and by-ways that are the periphery of that school. If you need to have a turning lane or a stop light or stop sign or exit ramp off the interstate for example. That's what we're referencing. We're trying to reduce the cost associated with those, lay in my opinion, that the financial responsibilities on the most dues diligent people and that would be NCDOT as they deal with road improvements. And your option of picking a diameter from a school facility such as one mile I think as you said, would be an arbitrary guess at best with no scientific background behind it. >> [INAUDIBLE] Alexander. Follow up. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. So if I understand you correctly, it is possible for a school board to pick the site of a school in the middle of this property that is bounded on all sided by state roads. But under your bill, DOT would have no financial responsibility other than a curb cut on the periphery to get a road to the center of that site. >> That would be correct. Not fully understanding what your curb/g cut. DOT would have responsibility for improvements of the roads existing to get to that school not on the school property. Nothing on the property of the school. Except for the bus area. That's maintained/g Which is current stand. >> Okay Representative Jeter. >> Thank you Mr chair. It seems to me the bill and correct me if I am wrong Representative Torbett, it seems to me that what this bill is saying is if NCDOT decides that road improvements on the municipal are state owned road are requirement by their definition, their requirement that they should pay for it, not the school board. >> Correct. >> When I was a Huntersville town commissioner, and it happened a couple of weeks ago in Huntersville, DOT has become notorious for having a new school being built and deciding that an intersection four miles away needs to be improved, and they're using the school board as a personal piggy bank. It is my opinion that money is spent best when those who have to determine how to spend it, spend it on their own Personal money. My guess is the NCDOT will make more effective decisions when they have to pay for those required improvements on our municipal roadways, which is what this bill does. All it's saying is, if NCDOT mandates you have to do this NCDOT pays for it.
And it's really not about education, it's about the impact of that facility, a public facility, on our road network. And so to me, this bill is brilliant and will probably reduce cost over all because NCDOT is probably going to be more cautious in their demands when they know they've gotta pay for their personal demands. >> Mr Chairman, could I get a recording of that sent to my office later in the day please? >> Thank you Rep Geda very well said. >> Okay, committee will come to order. >> [LAUGH] >> Rep Holley once again All right thank you Mr Speaker. I'm still a little fuzzy. I understand what you're trying to do and you're trying to get DOT to be responsible. Generally when a school is built, the school board contacts or they in conjunction with the rogues and it's done collaboratively. Now My concern is with a charter school or a school that is not they get to pick with where they wanna go wherever, and in some instances if you talking about a million dollar road we can be paying a million dollars for a road to a school that only houses a 100 students and is that That cost effective for us to be re-doing roads for small entities that aren't determined in a group like a school board who determines where all of this schools are going in conjunction with DOT, that's what my concern is can they be abused all over sudden like Representative Alexander He was saying in the middle of nowhere a school that has not even good secondary roads to it, could we be responsible then for improving all of those secondary roads. Mr chairman [INAUDIBLE] >> If it is a verified bonified school within Within the confines of the structure of North Carolina law then to answer your question would be yes. Just as it would be paid for a very large school if it was a very small school, as long as they're educating our children then we would be responsible for the road improvements as long as those improvements were determined by the Department of Transportation since they are, as Rep says, putting the bill under this law. >> Let me comment one on that particular issue. Obvious a lot of schools, 19 in my county and also have being the lion, I believe that the late Norman Charter a while back to be the representative of that school is here. Cuz I've [UNKNOWN] but The point is I've been in some of these lines to pick up children and take children or drop children off. I think the quantity of children expected in the school would dictate what kind of roadways, what kind of stacking area and turn lanes are gonna be needed. I also believe that DOT has the foresight to do an appropriate and not Too large since they'll be paying for it. I think that would maybe fit the bill as far as the bill is concerned. So just to comment [UNKNOWN] reasonableness I suppose. But again, this is wide open but I think it'll be reasonable once it's done and what's required will actually be what is required. Just a comment from the chair. >> Okay, Representative Adams, okay Representative Stan, okay Representative Shepherd. >> Thank you Mr Chair. I guess it's just a comment from me because it's been my experience in our local A local area where school boards and Department of Transportation when they're building new school as representative Holley said. They usually get together and collaborate on that and they decide if they need to have turn lanes, or two entrances in and out and so forth. And they work together to bring all that about. So I'm little bit confused as to where we're going and maybe it's just me. But in looking at it, I thought we were already doing some of this. The Department of Transportation was already doing what they could to assist the local school systems, and so forth. So, like I said, I'm a little confused as to where we were going because I felt like we were already getting those things done. So thank you Representative Torbett. >> Okay, Representative Bamgardener. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Reading over this bill looks to me like It's very vague, a lot of it and I don't like a lot of this stuff. And this section three here on page three says, that the city can require Street improvements and the DOT is gonna put the bill forward and approve the plan. And so we're giving them the authority to say here's what we want, and here's what we want you to do. And this is not going to a good place I don't think. >> Mr. Chairman can I refer address that to staff. >> Staff is gonna approach that.
>> Mr. chairman >> Approach that, >> Inquiry the chair. >> State your inquiry >> Could representative Bumgardner point out where he is looking at in the bill the reference point cuz I don't see it on my page three. >> Representative Bumgardner. >> Okay. It's this page right here. >> Is that summary? >> It says this is summary senate PCS 778 page thee, section three, first little bullet point there. >> Okay does the [INAUDIBLE] understand the question that they're address it? >> Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. [UNKNOWN] I'm staff section three limits what cities can require related to schools only. Street improvements that are required or safe ingress and egress to the municipal street system and that are physically connected to a driveway at a school site. And yes, those would be paid by DOT. >> Mr Chairman. >> Representative [INAUDIBLE] >> Question for the staff. Who has the final say so on those determining factors? >> DOT would have final design authority under those. >> Representative Bumgardener >> Follow up. Yes. Final design authority but not the authority to decide whether it's done or not. >> The question. >> I'm just making a comment about this where, muddy on the water here in my opinion, this is not clear on. Where we are trying to get to. >> Representative Torbett you wanna address that or not. >> I'm not familiar where representative Bumgardner. But it's my understanding we are trying to get to the most effective and efficient and expeditious means to provide safe, and expeditious travel of the public at the most affordable cost. This bill effectively address that. It does address most affordable cost, it does have the final say so if a municipality want to have a Roman fountain with a Grecian arch, DOT would simply say no, that's not the best effective and efficient means for tax payers, North Carolina. Therefore that plan would not be approved and they would be collaboratively working with addressing Representative Sheppard's question as they do today, that we'll continue to do. But since DOT will be writing the check, they won't be responsible for the final design decision. >> Representative Faircloth. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just one question. There are Some schools are built, particularly high schools, that have a lot of athletic facilities, stadiums even and buildings must have gymnasiums and what have you. And that involves a lot of parking and it involves a lot of additional impact on the surrounding roads. Can you comment as to how that fits in? >> It has no impact on that parking. Excuse me for jumping in Mr. Chairman. It only has to do with highways and by-ways accessing that schools for proper ingress and egress. So once again, the school will be responsible for those transportation improvements to the property on the footprint of the property. DOT will be responsible for those needed as determined by DOT, modification to the highway system accessing that property. >> Okay Representative Browley. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask questions about Section 4 and Section 5 both of which amend the general statute to say that schools shall be permitted as a matter of right in all zoning districts to include relocatable [UNKNOWN] units as either accessory primary facilities and then also allows lighting and other things for larger athletic venues. And I'm taking this as a matter of right. I wanted to make sure that I was really understanding this. Cuz I understand, this is not state law currently, that all school systems have the right to trump all local zoning ->> Representative Stam I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> The school board is also an elected body, and generally, it's a school board's building large facilities and that schools should be close to people. And some counties say well, it can't be an industrial district, or it can't be in a commercial or it can't be here or there, but we just don't believe that's good policy. They can very well exist in any of this districts. But it does have a special use permit where you have a large athletic facility.
>> Representative Blowley follow up. Well not as follow up but to debate the bill. I recognize that cities can sometimes require road improvements only slightly related to a particular project for which they will hold hostage under a conditional use district, and to prevent them from doing this to schools I think is lovable but I'm not sure we need to stop there. state being involved in supporting transportation project for education I think we can make a good argument for that. I do have concern about completely pre-emptying all local zoning and while I recognize that school boards are also elected bodies and should be close to the people I know of a particular school board that's so close to the people in my District that they are urging me to allow them to suceed/g from that school board. And they would be a potential here for a lot of conflict. I wanna express concern on this, section four and section five that the long unintended consequences at least in Mecklenberg county will be severe. Thank you. >> Okay Representative Stone/g. >> Couple of quick questions on this to try to clarify and then general comment. Will this apply to all, roads in all schools being built, or is it only counties that are not in cities or is it includes all? Is it only state roads? Several questions wrapped in a riddle. >> I'll try to hit the height of your question which is we have two types of roads dominating the state which is state owned roads, and municipal roads, it addresses both of those. >> Okay. Follow up Mr Chairman. I think where some of this is coming from is a couple of different things. One, there are circumstances where cities, or local municipalities or school boards are putting requirements on that would not be the most cost effective perhaps, in what the road would be in the road issues. There are also scenarios where NCDOT has put on excessive requirements on the local municipalities on their state roads and there is a battle, there is a conflict sometimes between the two. So that's where it gets to be a challenge sometimes in these issues is who's got final authority. You'd indicated that the state would have final to sign authority. The challenge gets to be sometimes particularly in say Mecklenburg County or Wake County, where you've got high growth. Quite often NCDOT tries to put extra requirements on a road improvement to not just accommodate the user, in this case, the school but all the future use and all the future demand on that road. I've had a personal experience recently where NCDOT wanted us to design a roundabout, in my non-legislative life, that would accommodate future traffic for 2040 in the projected demands. And so that's where some of this, there is, and Representative Shepherd talked about collaboration I would say that some of the concerns that I'm hearing I think the underlying issue that comes out is that the collaboration probably isn't as good as it should be. And sometimes it's two bodies that are batting and head against each other, And so who's got the final say continues to be a challenge sometimes because sometimes even if the nerve section the state roads and the city road, they just they will agree to disagree and the project six or nine months later down the road. So that's where some of this comes from and finally I think to the mixing and matching, so forth. I think they're, one way around this could be I'm not offering an amendment or anything like that but one suggestion is giving if it's an average I know it can be different for different schools may be it's a set amount of money per school. Because per lane mile and per if you've got an increase, you've got a, curb cut for a bus travel, you've got a turning lane. You know it's gonna be, maybe it's 300 feet, maybe it's 400 feet. You shouldn't have the requirements of something a mile and a half away. Maybe it's a certain amount of money that's allowed per school each time so we don't have to get into the back and forth and just block to that school board for their use in designing that the transportation elements as it relates to the state road or the intersection, so this might. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your comment representative Stone'g here once again I just have to go back to, out of 120 member my guess is if there could be 120 different ways to approach this This is how I chose to approach it and a selection of a certain dollar amount per school would be once again, with all due respect, an arbitrary number based on no scientific study. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Okay. We are approaching our deadline of meeting,
and Representative Stam has a chance to explain Section 1 as I'm understanding. >> I'd like to. >> Would you take less than two minutes? to explain Section 1? >> Yes. >> That's how much time we have left. >> Yes. Section 1 addresses a different problem. Again, we have had innumerable discussions on this with DOT, with county planners. It only relates to counties. And it addresses the fact that we have lots and lots of unaccepted subdivision roads all throughout the state. Some of these have been completed correctly as far back as 10, 15, 20 years ago, and have never been accepted. We cannot find a practical way to deal with ones that's done that far back. But we are to deal with a way to do it correctly going forward, and then gradually work the back log of one's that were approved in the last six years. So let me just walk you through the Bill, not real fast but fairly fast. This starts from page one. you notice on line 14 it's only county sub division streets, not in city jurisdictions and notice on line seven 17 and 18. That these roads is to which there's an offer of dedication and the roads have been constructed, and opened for travel and are fully completed. We're not talking about paper roads or half dove roads, but finished roads. All right, then the next page and a half deals with the difference during performance guarantees and residual guarantees. County's have different ways of approaching this. Some have performance guarantee where you put up 125% of the road costs. You can then record your map. You then build it, which means you've got a have twice as much money to do it. And then once you build it, forms guarantee is released. Then you record your map. What this does is it allows counties either to have performance guarantees or not, builders to have performance guarantees or not. But if they don't do it, then they don't actually get to have building permits issued until the road is actually built. So there is a control that is there in lines 31 to 33. Prior for the instance of any building permit. At that point, you have what you call a residual guarantee. That is what's left over to keep it in repair for a period of time until it is accepted. Now if you go to page two, a lot of that deals with the amount of the performance guarantee. A 125% is fairly typical and we also talk about the release of it. At this point by the way, we have a technical amendment. You wanna do that or wait for another- >> It's been passed out. >> It's been passed out. >> Representative Torbett is when you talk about release of the performance guarantee in [INAUDIBLE] there was a left out when you post your residual guarantee, would you release your performance? >> Representative Torbett has a amendment before us it's technical in nature. Sending back your amendment or okay if I copies of the amendment. Okay, questions on the amendment Representative Jeter. >> Move approval. >> Excuse me? >> Move approval of the amendment. >> You've heard the motion. All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed no. The amendment's approved. Representative Stam you have been recognized again. >> Okay. Also this can involve a lot of money. This performance guarantees so the provisions that as you spend a half a million and you got a half a million to go, you can have your guarantee reduced because say for example it's being secured by letter of credit, that letter of credit costs money. So you can some of it released as you perform, the residual guarantee that's at the bottom of page two, and over at the top of page three and this is during that time period, at the top of page three, after two years. DOT would have to accept it for maintenance or not, according to their normal, criteria and then in section K, talks about a release of that residual performance guarantee after it's been there a while, it's been accepted,
it's been completed, it just can't stay there forever. In other words beginning for roads completed after October/g 2016. DOT needs to do something either accept it or not and this gives all the procedure there and then also if you go to line 30 on page three, they will gradually begin having to do that for roads completed after October 1, 2010. As I said we would like to been able to go back 10 or 15, 20 years but there wasn't a practical way to do it, but the long story short is those retroactive once will gradually be accepted into the system. But there criteria, for example in line 35, it has to be the road that has been fully constructed according to the plans and specifications approved. Line 37 it has to be in proper condition, line 38 has to be opened for public except for the once after October 1 2016 the state would be immediate. Then if DOT still hasn't done it after that two year period then there is a lesser density standard for which they would have to accept it. If you go to the next page there are exceptions lines 16 through 27 things you can't just deal with, terms notice that road construction completion in line 30 refers to all of the [INAUDIBLE] constructed components of the road within the designated right of way including that long list of things. We're talking about roads that are completed, we're not talking about half baked roads and then in line 40 through the end of that page are ways that DOT could not deny it. In other words the grass is too tall or you don't have a side walk something like that. So that's the let me leave at least a couple of minutes for a question or two. It would be a great thing for the people out in the county to finally have their roads. I've got to mention one thing, very important is the street database which is on page five line 2 to 21. DOT will provide information but the Counties will have this database so that people buying property know what they're buying. Is it a straight estate road, is it a town road, is it accepted, is it not accepted and that's important. Thank you very much. >> Representative Stam here's what we gonna do, we have people that traveled to speak, we'll give them about two minutes and then we're gonna go back to questions. I still have Wadell, Cornnie and Adams on my list and we'll take questions on the entire bill. We're gonna push the envelope as much as we can here given the approval of the Committee. So we have please speakers that have special interest. A gentleman from Lake Norman Charter School, Scott Abel is that correct? And he'll take about ten minutes Sir and please be as concise as you can we're actually overtime on our Committee. Good Afternoon my name is Scott Abel. I'm the Director of Facilities for Lake Norman Charter School based at Huntersville, North Carolina. We just recently were denied building a new elementary school. We're one of the oldest chartered schools in the state forming in 1998. We currently house five through 12 at our current campus. About 1600 students. We're looking to expand to the elementary k through 4. We're looking to purchase 39 acres and then a district that was on commercial. We start out our search of 22 sites. And based on this has 22 sites we narrowed down to three out of those three there seem to be the best site for our needs. We were required to do traffic improvement analysis which was made up about 22 intersections at a cost about $50,000. Out of that traffic improvement analysis, there was fours off-site intersections that were identified. One improvement being directly in front of the site. The total of the off-site improvements was gonna be approximately $500,000. One of the improvements already had an approved, funded and scheduled DOT improvement. Unfortunately, it was just slightly outside of the time frame allotted in the town ordinates. As you can imagine, this would have been a huge impact on our school as church schools are not funded for capital improvements. Number one Number two, allocating tax dollars that are supposedly be utilized to educate students are now being utilized for off-site road improvement. That just doesn't seem very prudent to use those tax dollars as they were not intended. Based on that, we went through the whole process of going through
public hearings, going through the planning board, and then final action in front of our County Commissioners. Which because we were not able to fully meet the ordinates based on the traffic impact analysis, unfortunately that's why we were denied at that point in time. We were trying to find a compromise we were able to step up with about $175,000 towards offset road improvements, but unfortunately that was just not received well, so we had to move forward. We are currently still in negotiations with the town commissioners to see if there's some sort of compromise we can meet as the elementary site is needed. The two closest elementary schools are definitely overpopulated. One I believe is 135% enrollment, the other is 119% enrollment, and almost the exact amount of the over enrollment would be the exact amount of over enrollment of about 500 students. Maybe some clarification on how this works. The traffic impact analysis is based on the number of students that will attend the school. So there were several intersection that were not impacted with 500 students traffic impact analysis. >> So if I ask you to keep it concise next few sentences. [INAUDIBLE]? >> Sure. So basically if you have a school of 100 students, more than likely you would not impact certain intersections based from that towns ordinates. Based on 500 we have what we had, so I appreciate the opportunity to speak in front of you today. >> And you identified yourself as a principal. >> I am director of facilities for [INAUDIBLE] >> Okay I appreciate what you did my grand daughter graduated there last here and she's doing well [INAUDIBLE] thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Chairman, what town was denying them the right to build the school? >> Question sir what town is denying the right to build the school? >> Huntsville. >> Huntsville okay. >> Shawn Bradford is part of Huntsville just to be technical, >> Thank you representative [UNKNOWN. We have Betty Parker, Wake county schools. Somebody wrote this it's hard to read please identify yourself. >> Thank you sir, thank you for the opportunity to present today my name is Betty Parker I'm a senior director of real estate services Wake County public school system I appreciate the collaboration with Representative Stam's office to take a look at this legislation this helps LEAs in a number of ways , the flexibility that we so desperately need for the use of mobile modular/g re-relocatable units is I think going to be a just a significantly with the allowance and a number of zoning areas. Kids don't come in nice classroom size clusters when we have growth and crowding we need to be able to be as flexible as possible we think that's a big help. we especially appreciate the increase in the funding potential for the on site bus groups that's not been increased in quite a while. And with the assistance in collaboration we have with DOT for better onside designs for traffic, we are seeing those bus lanes getting more expensive and longer. So the additional funding there is quite a help as to probably the most important issue of this for us. The offside road improvements, we've seen from our Caplin improvement program in 2006 to 2013. And increase on offsite road improvement cost of nearly 100% for schools. We think it's not merely inflation and the economy so much as it is the increased scopes that we're seeing. And we're seeing those benefits. The communities, the towns, the DOT roads that they're being paid for with the funding that should be building schools. So to focus the funding power on what it was intended for, we would appreciate support of this and we appreciate it everyone's points today. I think they were well made, I don't think I can add any more. >> Thank you ma'am. >> Thank you so much. >> Third and last speaker I have, in the public Lee Tee please identify yourself and who you represent. >> Thank you my name is Lee Tee I'm the executive director of the North Carolina Public Charter School Association, and in the interest of time I'll be here brief first let me point out it should send a message probably surprise many of you that traditional schools and chatter schools can't agree on anything, but we agree upon this Bill. The General Assembly is often criticized for not providing enough funding for K 12 schools, but this is one thing you can do to make that funding go further. And that, is why we support it and urge you to pass it and one thing Representative [UNKNOWN] comments, small schools has small traffic impact. So, the problem you suggest is possible but not probable. So thank you very much for your time. >> Thanks sir, okay, I believe that's places a public comment questions on the entire bill as you have representative Wadell on the list
next. >> Thank you Mr chair and I'll be brief I don't have any direct questions I understand the last part of this bill, my question is directed towards section one that representative Stam did a really good job on his as Representative Torbett will attest, I've been an advocate of trying to get something done to somebody sub-division roads, and somebodies counties that were really built after 75 and before that counties had a really big input I guess or woken up to the fact that they need to have more input into making sure that developer follow through on things. Is there any way I guess I am asking you that we can move, we've done reasonably good job here with 2010 and 2016, is there any way that we could possibly look at trying to move The envelope a little bit further based. And my premises based on the safety personnel that tried to get into somebody's sub divisions that are really, really already developed, they were given a line model developer that they can get the roads done and you've got a lot of people living on those roads. Representative Wadell I am in favor of that and will work with DOT to try to improve that situation. What you have in the bill is what we could agree to, and it's a dance with the Senate and the Governor and DOT, but I thoroughly agree with you that it should be done. Follow up Mr. Chair. >> Follow up. >> I notice on page 4 on line 10. Set County assessments for necessary improvements and then also in the next on line 16, in the third part down says that any road completed after October 1st, that's the exception to it. Is there anyway that we can at least grant the counties some authority to do some kind of assessment. I guess to try and get those roads passable for person to get in and out of it? >> [INAUDIBLE AUDIO] line 13, To GS 153 A which is counties I believe that's an existing assessment statute so I think that is possible today of it actually benefits benefited property. The date for the exception of October 1, 1975, that's when the DOT standards changed, where we actually had the pave road instead of gravel. >> Okay we are gonna vote in about five minutes. I have got three questions I like to get it extremely brief. Representative Connie. >> Thank you Mr. chairman this is probably for representative Torbett. Do I understand that if by making schools of schools by right of use. Does it preclude neighbors from having a say in the project. >> Representative Torbett. >> Excuse me Mr. chairman. Representative Connie you know I have actually asked that question but I could go on record to say that if they are having the part of the project today will be part of the project after this bill passes. >> Okay and a follow up question. >> Follow up. >> So if DOT has the final design is that correct? >> Correct. >> They have the final design. Authority so they are now going to have that authority over ingresst for mini-spoil roads. >> From municipal roads. From municipal roads, state roads on to a school property. >> Okay representative Hardister. >> Thank you Mr. Chair, she wanted to say that after reading the bill and listening to the discussion I think this bill makes a lot of sense. I think it's the right thing to do and I'll be happy to make a motion if you need one. >> Okay we've got someone I believe is offered to do that. Thank you. Representative Adams [INAUDIBLE] >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. So the cost that we are talking about shifting to DOT or presently cost would be responsibility, local school board local county. I'm I correct? >> Actually it'll be the responsibility of the local tax payers. But yes your your correct. >> Follow up. >> Follow up >> There is a net cost averaging about 2.7 million a year. But most of it is just shifting from one factor to another. >> What I'm to wrap my head around is this, are we shifting the cost of the expense to the county, to the state through the DOT? From the county to the state. Correct, with final design approval. >> Right.
So the counties will benefit from this? [INAUDIBLE] Okay, thank you. >> Okay, I believe we had a contest between Representative Hardistaer Jeter/g would you like to make a motion. >> Yes Mr. Chair I would move for a favorable Report to the PCS for Senate bill 778 as amended rolled into a new committee substitute unfavorable to the original. >> Okay have a second. Representative Hardister, there one hard the motion. All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Oppose no. The ayes have it. The bill passes.