Group passes transportation act

Mar 5, 2010 — The Dominion Post

David Beard

Mar. 5, 2010 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) -- CHARLESTON -- The Community Empowerment Transportation Act (CETA) -- which would give counties the power to enact fees and enter into contracts to build new roads -- barely made it over another legislative hurdle Thursday.

The CETA bill -- SB 352 -- passed out of a divided House Roads and Transportation Committee after debate ran so long that a second meeting was required.

CETA, which originated in the Senate, would enable counties to develop plans for new roads that the state would have to approve.

Counties or municipalities could contract with private developers to build the roads. They could use such means as toll roads, user fees, Tax Increment Financing districts or other methods to pay for bonds they would sell to finance the projects.

Approved plans would be put before voters and would require a simple majority vote to pass.

Delegate Daryl Cowles, R-Berkeley, wanted to know if a CETA project could be used to maintain roads. State Highway Engineer Marvin Murphy said no -- the language of the bill refers to road maintenance, but that's for completed projects. He had previously said the county could include maintenance money in the project or agree to turn the road over to the state after it's paid for.

Delegate Greg Butcher, D-Logan, wanted to know if the state would provide matching funds for a CETA project. Murphy said that would depend on what agreement the local government reaches with the state. Generally, he said previously, CETA projects would be those that need to be done but the state has no money for.

Opponents voiced concerns that some of the bill's language is too broad and ambiguous.

For instance, they said they are concerned that a sentence allowing the highways commissioner to consider alternatives to the state Road Fund, including mileage fees, would enable the commissioner to enact such fees.

Murphy said the context refers to reports the commissioner must submit to the governor and Legislature, but opponents weren't convinced.

Delegate Tim Armstead, R-Kanawha, voted against the bill, saying its definitions are too broad, the language may not reflect its intent, it needs more tightening, and it may be too late in the year to fix it.

Committee Chair Dale Martin, D-Putnam, said the bill has some flaws and needs some tweaking when it goes to the Finance Committee, but it's "a good bill."

It allows local governments to try to pay for roads that wouldn't otherwise get built, he said, and puts the final decision in the hands of local voters. The bill passed by voice vote. It now goes to the Finance Committee.

Newstex ID: KRTB-0251-42608612