[Vision2020] GARVEE bonds

[Shirley Ringo]

Visionaries:

The GARVEE bill, which would afford the opportunity to use bonds to fund highway construction, was presented early in this legislative session.  There has been plenty of time for folks to think about it.  The concept has been on my mind rather constantly. There has always been a good chance it would be considered in the House Transportation Committee, of which I am a member.  (Payment of these bonds would be based upon future federal highway funds.)

 

I have certain concerns about the legislation.  First, the bill reads that only thirteen specific projects may be addressed with these funds.  I am not thrilled with all of the projects in the list, and I think the Transportation Board should have the latitude to make substitutions if appropriate.  Second, some individuals would like to see a cap placed upon the amount that may be borrowed.

 

I like the concept of having this tool to fund projects, because it may accelerate our ability to address the issue of unsafe roads.  There is also the potential of saving money by beginning projects sooner.  I have received messages from University students and President White requesting my support.

 

Wednesday, the bill was presented to the Transportation Committee.  During the course of a very long meeting, we heard lots of testimony.  Since the Lewiston Morning Tribune has erroneously reported I voted against the bill, I would like to explain the course of events.

 

During committee discussion, it became clear there wasn't support for the bill among the majority of the members.  There were three motions:       (1) send the bill to the House floor with a "do pass" recommendation: (2)  hold the bill in committee subject to the call of the chair - this would mean we would meet again for further consideration;  (3)  send the bill to the amending order for consideration of changes and action by the House.

 

The bills are voted upon in reverse order - 3, 2, 1.  I felt sure the bill would be killed if we voted upon the first motion.  Thus, I voted in favor of motion 3, and that failed.  Then the only way to keep the concept alive was to vote for motion 2.  That passed.  It was not a decision to kill the legislation.

 

I think improvements are possible, but I support the concept.  I hope this clarifies my actions, but let me know if you have questions.

 

Shirley
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050401/310183a7/attachment.htm