|
|
The article about my opposition to the bridge has been met with unfavorable comments from some County Commissioners. They have stated that there are only a few factions that oppose the bridge and that this may cost me the election. If that is the sentiment of the voters of Currituck County, then I will live with the results of the election.
Aside from the State Budget issues that were behind my opposition ( which I stated in part in the article ), there is also the Bonner Bridge that appears to be overlooked in this discussion. This bridge is essential and deteriorating rapidly, according to published reports. If you had to pick one, which would it be?
State Hwy money seems to be thought of as an off budget item. Just because money is earmarked or appropriated does not mean those funds are in a safe
deposit somewhere. The gas tax has been raided in order to balance the budget. So these funds can be as well.
We have a growing financial problem with the State Employees Health Plan and their retirement funds. The State Treasurer’s Office reveals that the pension system is underfunded, and already requires an additional $650 mill in appropriations over the next two years to make it once again fully funded.
These are but a few of the financial challenges that will face the next Legislature. We cannot continue to spend as if there were no tomorrow. Spending reductions must be part of the Budget planning for next year. Under those circumstances, do we think that this Bridge is a must have expenditure?
We are going to be making some difficult choices next year. The pain is likely to be felt widely. The price tag of $800 mill for this bridge is very high and may go higher. So I ask again, where will the money come from?
John Woodard
Please send John a donation that will help him get the word out. Checks should be payable to Woodard for the House and mailed to 623 Forest Park Dr ECNC 27909. Include the senders occupation.
By Reggie Ponder
Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The Republican candidate for the 1st District seat in the N.C. House of Representatives opposes the Mid-Currituck Bridge, saying it’s too costly and some Currituck residents oppose it.
John Woodard, who is challenging N.C. Rep. Bill Owens, D-Pasquotank, for the seat Owens has held since being elected in 1994, told The Daily Advance the bridge project costs too much in these tight economic times.
“The state doesn’t have the money to afford a $1 billion bridge,” Woodard said.
Woodard said the legislature will face a $3 billion deficit when it convenes next year “and this project is a good example of why that situation exists.”
He said the state has relied on more than $1.5 billion in non-recurring federal stimulus funds and $1.3 billion in temporary tax revenues. With slow revenue growth likely for fiscal year 2011-12 and mounting pressures from the state retirement and health plans, “where will the money come from to pay for” the bridge?” Woodard asked.
Owens told The Daily Advance much of the revenue for the project will come from tolls.
“We do have a public-private partnership,” Owens said. “Tolls will pay for the overwhelming majority of the cost of the bridge.”
Woodard is skeptical about how much revenue can be generated by bridge tolls.
“Very clearly we have some tourists that visit the island and I’m sure that traveling down to Kitty Hawk and then looping back up is not favorable to them,” he said. “But how many of them are we going to be able to generate tolls from if that bridge is an alternative?”
Owens said he’s not sure the $3 billion shortfall that Woodard cited will come to pass.
“We don’t know what we will face,” Owens said. “We do know it’s very difficult economic times.”
But Owens said he’s proud of the job state legislators have done with the budget in recent years.
“Right now the state of North Carolina is spending 8.7 percent less in its general fund budget than four years ago,” Owens said.
He said spending increased more than 25 percent when he first went into the General Assembly — and the legislature had Republican leadership at that time.
“We have to balance our budget,” Owns said, adding that difficult budget decisions can keep legislators awake at night.
Woodard remains critical of state spending.
“We’re already mortgaging the future of the state,” he said. “There has been no serious effort undertaken to reduce spending.”
Woodard also pointed to the division among county citizens as to whether the bridge is a good idea.
“This is for all intents and purposes a tourism issue,” Woodard said. “Most of the permanent residents of the island are split between those that are in favor and those that are opposed, and I certainly think that we ought to give consideration to the opposition forces. But in either case, whether you think that it’s a project that ought to go forward or not, the state simply lacks the money.”
Owens said he takes his cues on local issues from the local elected officials.
“My position has been the same for 16 years — that I support whatever the county board of commissioners supports,” Owens said. “They have always supported (the bridge) and I always support what the local officials want.”
Owens said he got lots of calls this year from people complaining about traffic being backed up in Currituck County.
“I’m convinced more than ever that the bridge is needed for a number of reasons — for safety reasons, for economic reasons, and in my opinion the majority of people in Currituck do favor it,” Owens said.
Owens said he understands there is opposition from residents in Corolla and Aydlett. He has met with citizens to discuss their concerns, he said.
Responding to Woodard’s criticism of state spending, Owens said the state cut more than $600 million in spending this year and more than $2 billion last year, he said.
The spending cuts have been made even as university and community college enrollments have risen. The state has fully funded education while consolidating programs and eliminating some programs, he said.
“We’ve been very frugal,” Owens said.
He added he’s proud the state has maintained its Triple A bond rating.
Contact Reggie Ponder at rponder@dailyadvance.com
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY E. PERDUE TURNPIKE AUTHORITY EUGENE A. CONTI, JR. GOVERNOR SECRETARY
NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
1578 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1578
TELEPHONE: 919-571-3000 FAX: 919-571-3015
July 30, 2010
To: Members of the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee
From: Transportation Secretary Gene Conti and Turnpike Authority Director David Joyner
Subject: 2010 Mid-Year Report
________________________________________________________________
In accordance with General Statute 136-89.193 (c), we are pleased to present the following report on the Turnpike Authority’s activities during the first half of 2010.
The Authority continues to make significant progress on six toll projects across North Carolina, each of which will improve mobility, reduce congestion and help ensure that our state’s highway infrastructure meets the growing demands of our motorists.
As North Carolina continues to face economic hardship, toll revenues have taken on an increasingly important role in providing valuable funding for vital improvements across the state that cannot be paid for through traditional financing alone. These revenues not only help pay for the highways on which they are collected, but they also free up money for other much-needed projects that will benefit travelers throughout North Carolina.
In recognition of the growing need to utilize innovative financing options and a more diverse array of operational tools to optimize the performance of our transportation infrastructure, the N.C. Turnpike Authority was fully integrated into the N.C. Department of Transportation this past June. This
transition began in 2009 at the direction of Gov. Bev Perdue to improve the efficiency of both agencies and provide better coordination of our closely related missions. House Bill 1734, “DOT Powers and Duties Changes,” solidified this transition by clarifying that the Turnpike Authority is
now a part of the Department of Transportation, which is critical to our future efforts to obtain bond financing.
It is our expectation that the integration of the Turnpike Authority into NCDOT will provide valuable knowledge and experience as we work to upgrade our transportation system. The Turnpike Authority is on the cutting edge of implementing both alternative financing tools, such as careful consideration of North Carolina’s first public-private partnership for the Mid-Currituck Bridge in Currituck County, and in system operation technology, as demonstrated by the first all-electronic toll collection contract for a start-up toll agency awarded in May for the Triangle Expressway in Wake and Durham counties.
The Turnpike Authority continues to conduct significant outreach efforts to educate North Carolinians on the value of toll roads and the many benefits they offer to our motorists and our communities. We are also taking steps to mitigate the effect of our current budget situation on these projects and ensure that they are completed in a timely and cost-effective manner.
Below is an update on each of the Authority’s six projects:
Turnpike Authority 2010 Mid-Year Report
The Daily Advance has sided with the bridge supporters. They have outlined the various issues that are being discussed by the relevant parties. However, I must say right up front that I oppose this bridge in the strongest terms because we simply do not have the money to build this or any other non-essential public project.
Our legislature faces a $3 billion deficit when they convene next year and this project is a good example of why that situation exists. The fact is, our elected leaders have failed to implement meaningful spending reform. We continue to spend at greater rates than what the State has available from revenue sources. To fill this gap the legislature has relied on more than $1.5 billion of non-recurring federal stimulus funds and $1.3 billion in temporary tax revenues. To make matters worse, the economy is expected to remain sluggish with slowing revenue growth for fiscal year 2011 — 12. The legislature faces an additional $200 million to fund the State Health Plan and an additional $450 million above this year’s appropriations in order to keep the retired teachers and state workers fund fully funded. So where will the money come from to pay for this project?
These are but a few of the serious financial problems that face our legislature. How anyone can claim that the State has any money with which to build this project, under the circumstances, is a mystery. And the Federal Government is no better, if not worse.
The Daily Advance article states that the $800 million cost of the bridge will both relieve traffic congestion and give residents an additional way out in the event of a hurricane. The actual cost does not include road improvements for access to the bridge. But even without those costs, to suggest that tolls will help pay for the project does not include the fact that this is a seasonal only situation and that the tolls themselves will tie up traffic.
The residents of Corolla are split between those that favor the bridge and those that oppose it. Therefore forcing this bridge on the opposing residents is not justified under normal circumstances and should be opposed until State and Federal Finances are improved. Additional deficit spending at the Federal level is un warranted and the State lacks the revenue.If proponents want to bring this issue back up and debate it after the State budget is under control, then we can consider it further with the improved finances being a consideration
John Woodard
Candidate for N.C. House of Representatives
http://www.woodardforthehouse.com/index.htm
EPA questions bridge project
Unclear if objections will put halt on project
By Cindy Beamon
Staff Writer
The Daily Advance
Even though state lawmakers have appropriated funding for a
mid-county bridge in Currituck, a federal agency is questioning the
need for the project at all. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says a bridge joining Currituck’s mainland to the Outer Banks would have “significant environmental impacts” and recommends the North Carolina Turnpike Authority rethink its plan to build a $800 million bridge altogether.
Widening U.S. Highway 158 and N.C. Highway 12 would be the better
alternative — both economically and environmentally, said Chris
Militscher, environmental scientist for EPA. Adding a costly, seven-mile bridge across Currituck Sound does not make sense, Militscher said, questioning why it has become the favored option for the Turnpike Authority. “There are reasons behind this that have not been fully discussed,” Militscher said.
Jennifer Harris, director of planning and environmental studies for
the Turnpike Authority, said the bridge is an “important project
for the region and the state” and has long been supported by state
legislators and county leaders. She also says the EPA’s suggestion about upgrades to U.S. 158 and N.C. 12 has one major flaw. Widening the highways may cost less, but it’s “not financially viable,” she said.
No funding is available for the option the EPA is recommending,
Harris said. Without a bridge, the project to ease summer beach
traffic congestion would have no funding, she said.
In June, state lawmakers appropriated $15 million a year for the next three years and $28 million afterward for up to 50 years to subsidize construction for the mid-county bridge project. The state plans to pay for the rest with federal loans and private financing in a public-private partnership with ACS Dragodos, a Spanish bridge building company. Tolls collected from motorists crossing the span are expected to help recoup most of the construction costs while state “gap funds” will pay for the rest.
At the heart of the EPA’s objections to the bridge are questions about its need. The seasonal traffic congestion can best be remedied by widening roads, not by building a costly bridge during economically tight times, Militscher said. A letter from Heinz J. Mueller, chief of the EPA Program Office, to Harris on June 4 makes the same point. “Shrinking transportation dollars and increased maintenance and repair costs for infrastructure in areas that are very vulnerable to severe weather conditions such as high winds and storm surges and salt air and water should be a very important consideration for decision-makers,” the letter states. Mueller also outlines a number of environmental concerns about the project in the letter, part of the federal agency’s official response to the Turnpike Authority’s Draft Environmental Impact statement on the bridge project. Continue reading EPA QUESTIONS BRIDGE PROJECT
NEPA comments on MCB DEIS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
SAM NUNN
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
June 4,20 10
Ms. Jennifer Harris, P.E.
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
SUBJECT: Federal Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mid-Cumtuck Bridge Study,
Currituck and Dare Counties, North Carolina; TIP Project No.: R-2576; FHW-E40830-NC; CEQ
No.: 201001 16
Dear Ms. Harris:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 (EPA) has reviewed the subject document and is commenting in accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA. The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA), a division of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are proposing to construct a new multi-lane, 7 to 7.5-mile bridge and access roads and interchanges across Currituck Sound between US 158 in Currituck County and NC 12 in Dare County. There are five alternatives being considered with two hurricane evacuation improvement options and two mainland bridge approach options.
NCTA and FHWA also studied an ‘improve existing’ roadway alternative (i.e., ER2) at the request of numerous State and Federal agencies.
The NCTA and FHWA are utilizing the agency coordination process under SAFETEALU Section 6002. The new bridge alternatives are proposed as a toll facility. The existing roads alternative that was studied in the DEIS (i.e., ER2) is not currently funded. EPA provided detailed project scoping comments, conceptual alternatives refinement report comments, and statement of purpose and need and alternatives screening report comments to the NCTA in letters dated August 3,2007, December 14,2007, and May 5,2008, respectively.
EPA’s primary environmental concerns regarding the Clean Water Act remain unresolved. Detailed technical review comments are attached (See Attachment A). EPA has rated the proposed bridge alternatives MCB2 and MCB4 as ‘EO-2′, Environmental Objections with additional information being requested for the final document (Attachment B includes EPA’s Summary of Rating Definitions and Follow-up Action. EPA’s review has identified: significant environmental impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. that
should be avoided in order to adequately protect the environment, potential degradation of water quality to Currituck Sound, severe impacts to fish and wildlife resources, and indirect and cumulative effects within the project study area. Further, we believe that the proposed action might cause significant environmental degradation under the Clean Water Act and Section
404(b)( 1 ) Guidelines. Internet Address (URL) http://www.epa.gov Continue reading USEPA SLAMS MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE DEIS
Budget restores bridge funding
By Cindy Beamon
Staff Writer Daily Advance
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
To keep the cost of tolls down for travelers, state lawmakers not only restored funding for the proposed mid-county bridge in Currituck, they multiplied the amount of state dollars going into the project.
During final negotiations on the $19 billion state budget lawmakers approved Wednesday, the General Assembly restored $15 million for the bridge project that had previously been cut in a House version of the budget. In addition, lawmakers included additional “gap funding” needed to keep the cost of bridge tolls down.
Originally lawmakershad earmarked $15 million a year in gap funding for the project. Gap funds will be used to subsidize construction costs so that tolls are not too high. The compromise budget agreed to by the House and Senate on Wednesday increases gap funding to $28 million a year after the first three years.
The first installment of the $15 million in gap funds was scheduled to begin next year, but the House initially voted to let the N.C. Department of Transportation use the funds for other road projects after plans for financing the bridge fell behind schedule.
A spokesman for Senate leader Marc Basnight said the delay of funding for the $800 million project did not send the right signal to private investors in the state’s first private-public partnership.
“For the money to be funded and then removed, he (Basnight) felt it gave the wrong message,” said Schorr Johnson, communications director for Basnight, D-Dare. “Anything that would take away a funding source that had become law, he viewed as a threat to the project.”
State House Rep. Bill Owens, D-Pasquotank, said he was pleased with the funding plan even though he had originally voted for the House budget, believing it would not negatively affect the bridge project.
“We are in better shape than we were at the start of the year,” said Owens, in reference the additional gap funding. “The more money we get, the less the tolls will be in the years to come.”
Currituck County Commissioner Owen Etheridge said the state’s funding for the mid-county bridge was encouraging.
“I am just glad the state is still committed to fund this vital transportation link to Currituck. I think this shows commitment to it,” Etheridge said.
Other commissioners were not available for comment on Wednesday.
In 2008, the General Assembly appropriated gap funds to offset construction debt not covered by toll revenue. Tolls would be too high if the state relied exclusively on toll revenue to pay the construction debt, state officials say.
To make the project feasible, the state plans to pay yearly gap fund installments for up to 50 years, or until debt for the bridge is paid. Financing for the project would come from a combination of bonds, federal loans, and private financing.
The state plans to contract with ACS Dragodos, a Spanish bridge building company to construct and help finance the project. Turnpike Authority officials have said financing negotiations could begin in about six months.
In addition to financing, the project still awaits approval of its Final Environmental Impact Statement, scheduled for September. If approved, construction could begin in 2011 and be completed in 2014, the Turnpike Authority projects.
Three public hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in May drew both support and criticism from residents, but mostly criticism from residents in Aydlett and Corolla, the landing points for the bridge.
By Cindy Beamon
Staff Writer Daily Advance
Monday, June 14, 2010
A state House plan to cut $15 million earmarked for the mid-county bridge project in Currituck this year would have no effect on the project, despite concerns to the contrary, says David Joyner, executive director of the N.C. Turnpike Authority.
Last week, the N.C. House of Representatives approved a spending plan that would transfer the $15 million into a “mobility fund” for other road projects. Joyner said the funds are not needed yet for the bridge project. Plans for financing the project are behind schedule and need to be finalized before the Turnpike Authority actually needs the funds, he said. “Everything just moved back one fiscal year,” Joyner said.
State Rep. Bill Owens, D-Pasquotank, said he voted to approve the House budget believing that the transfer of the $15 million to a mobility fund would not affect the bridge project, but he’s ready to oppose the provision if he misunderstood its intent.
Last week, Sen. Marc Basnight D-Dare, said he will oppose the provision in the House budget because it would raise tolls for the bridge and could affect financing for the project.
Both Owens and Basnight have been long-time supporters of the mid-county bridge and said they want the project to move forward without delay. Owens said he plans to “get to the bottom” of what effect the budget provision may have before signing off on any budget plan negotiated by the House and Senate in the coming weeks.
“I have been told it would not have any effect on the mid-county bridge,” Owens said.
If he finds out differently during budget negotiations with the Senate, Owens said he will fight against the transfer of funds.
The bridge project is estimated to cost $800 million, according to recent estimates, Joyner said, adding that the cost could go higher as details are finalized. The state plans to pay for the project through its first public-private partnership, using a combination of bonds, tolls, federal loans and private financing. The $15 million was the first installment of “gap funds” set aside by the state to offset construction debt not covered by toll revenue.
The Turnpike Authority had anticipated it would need the gap funds next year, but plans for financing the project are behind schedule, Joyner said. The first installment is not needed until the following year. Thereafter, the state will need to pay $15 million annually for up to 50 years, or until debt for the construction is paid, he said.
Once the debt is paid, the tolls will be dropped and ownership of the two-lane, seven-mile-long span will revert to the state. Until then, the state plans to contract with ACS Dragodos, a Spanish bridge building company, to construct and help finance the project. Joyner said the Turnpike Authority is about six months away from beginning financing negotiations with the company.
Before the negotiations begin, the Turnpike Authority must finalize cost estimates, including revenue it expects to get from tolls. To be cost effective, tolls must be kept at a reasonable price: Initial estimates are $6 to $12 one way.
Since tolls are not likely to cover the full cost of construction, the state has decided to subsidize the project with gap funds. Joyner said the gap funds are not likely to offset the entire construction cost. ACS may also need to provide financing. How much would be decided during negotiations next year, he said.
Comments
Funding & EIS
Submitted by NoMCB on Tue, 06/15/2010 – 14:19.
What happened to the final EIS and all the comments gathered in writing and at public hearings? No decision on that until late August & they keep talking like it’s a done deal! It’s well worth reading the comments on EIS submitted by the Southern Environment Law Center, Audubon NC, NC Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense Fund, & the Wilderness Society which you can find here: http://www.nomcb.com/?p=392 NC Taxpayers, can we afford this when teachers are being cut, and we can’t afford to maintain the roads & bridges we currently have, or replace the lifeline to Hatteras Island, the Bonner Bridge? Note that they are talking about $15MM/year for 50 years for a bridge that’s a convenience not a necessity for tourists or residents, will not solve evacuation issues, but it will destroy the fragile Currituck sound and the environment at both ends of the bridge, wipe out what remains of one of the last barrier islands and be a real bonanza for the politicians and developers!
Mid-county bridge funds axed
By Cindy Beamon
Staff writer Daily Advance
Friday, June 11, 2010
The state House’s proposed budget leaves out funding for a mid-county bridge in Currituck, but the move is likely to be challenged as the General Assembly negotiates its final spending plan in the coming weeks.
The state House of Representatives has approved a budget plan that would remove $15 million for the bridge, using the funds instead to improve urban traffic congestion problems. Sen. Marc Basnight, president pro tem in the Senate, said the funds are critical to the project and need to be put back.
“The bridge is important. It’s been proposed and supported for many, many years,” Basnight said Friday in a telephone interview. He said he will oppose the provision as the Senate and House work together to finalize a budget for the next fiscal year.
“We are in the environmental phase and location phase of the project. We are closer than we have ever been before and to remove any apportionment of the funding would raise the toll.”
Basnight said the removal of funds could also affect financing for the project.
In 2008, the North Carolina General Assembly appropriated $15 million per year as “gap funds” to offset construction debt not covered by toll revenue. Funds for the first installment were earmarked in 2009, but were not spent in last year’s budget. Without the gap funds, tolls would be much higher, possibly too high to make the project practical. “We put the money in there to make the project viable,” Basnight said.
Redirecting the $15 million away from the bridge project would cause tolls, already estimated to cost between $6 to $12 one-way, to go even higher, said Basnight.
Basnight he was unaware of the House’s plans to redirect funding for the project until last week when House legislators finalized their proposed budget package. The House budget reallocates the earmarked funds for the bridge and other Turnpike Authority projects, a total of $39 million, into a “mobility fund” for next year’s budget.
House Rep. Bill Owens D-N.C., could not be reached for comment on Friday.
The funds for the bridge remain intact in the Senate’s version of the budget.
The withdrawal of funds could have far-reaching effects on financing for the project. The state plans to pay for the project through a Public-Private Partnership, using a combination of bonds, tolls, federal loans and private financing to pay for construction. If the state withdraws funding, private investors may back out as well, Schorr Johnson, spokesman for Basnight, said in an earlier interview.
By Jeff Hampton
The Virginian-Pilot
© June 9, 2010
The North Carolina House of Representatives’ budget leaves out $15 million for the Currituck mid-county bridge, a move that could threaten the project.
The Senate budget includes the $15 million.
“It endangers the whole project,” Schorr Johnson, spokesman for Sen. Marc Basnight, D-Dare.
Basnight will not support the house budget without bridge funding, he said. Rep. Bill Owens, D-Pasquotank, a House member representing Currituck and other local counties, was in budget meetings and could not be reached.
The House budget moves the $15 million to a “mobility fund” for state road projects that relieve congestion, Johnson said. But without the $15 million, private investors could back out, Johnson said. The House budget also moves $39 million from the Monroe Connector, another project of the North Carolina Turnpike Authority, he said.
The General Assembly agreed in 2008 to set aside $15 million annually toward the bridge that would connect the Currituck mainland to Corolla at a cost ranging from $600,000 to more than $1 billion.
The Turnpike Authority agreed last year to partner with a private group headed by ACS Infrastructure Development, a subsidiary of a firm based in Spain. The ACS partners, collectively known as Currituck Development Group LLC, are also investors, following a pattern used in Europe.
Debated for more than 20 years, a lack of funding and environmental issues delayed the project. But more recently, using tolls, private investment and public funds, the bridge appeared to be on its way to completion by 2014.
|
|
Recent Comments