[Vision2020] GARVEE bonds

[Ron Force]

Stories, maps, etc. at:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/NEWS06/501
22001/1056&theme=HIGHWAY&template=theme
**********************************************
Ron Force          Moscow ID 83843

 rforce at moscow.com
**********************************************

  -----Original Message-----
  From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]On Behalf Of Dick Schmidt
  Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 2:05 PM
  To: Shirley Ringo; vision2020 at moscow.com
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] GARVEE bonds


  Shirley,

  Could you give us a list of the 13 projects Gov. Dork wants? I don't
remember hearing anything about much between here and Boise. I think there
are some for north of Coeur d'Alene.

  Dick Schmidt
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Shirley Ringo
    To: vision2020 at moscow.com
    Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:28 PM
    Subject: [Vision2020] GARVEE bonds


    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



----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    _____________________________________________________
     List services made available by First Step Internet,
     serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
                   http://www.fsr.net
              mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
    /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050401/d791df94/attachment.htm