Sources of Revenue:

Special Fund

Legislation creates:

Neither Program nor Fund

Fiscal Note Summary

Effect this measure will have on costs and revenues of state government.

This legislation not only impacts the State Road Fund but three additional agencies under the Department of Transportation's umbrella (Ports, Rail and Transit). Additionally, it will impact agencies outside the DOT: The Public Service Commission, Department of Environmental Protection, and enforcement agencies. HB 4154, a similar bill, placed the estimate at $17.5 million. By widening the scope of consideration from one mile in HB 4154 to five miles in this bill, the cost of right of way acquisition may decrease but the cost to construct may increase since the contractor would probably have to remobilize his equipment and personnel. However, HB 2917 places other mandates on the DOT, thus increasing the cost. The estimate includes a loss of $18 Million based on the presumption that there would be a distinct possibility that a community will violate the federally mandated size and weight of vehicles on roadways and bridges. The Federal penalty requirement is a 10% loss of the funding the State receives in five highway categories. The bill includes an additional MINIMUM cost of $500,000 for two locally FTEs. Based on the assumption that at least one community in each county will request FTEs, the estimate is a conservative minimum of $2.75 Million. The actual cost, however, could be much higher as each community in the State could request 2 FTEs. The State Ports and Rail authorities do not normally construct facilities. This, however, will be an additional cost to them but cannot be determined on an annual basis due to the infrequency of the occurrence. The Transit Authority does participate in the construct/reconstruct of small facilities but their $101,742 budget is limited to planning activities in nonmetropolitan areas. No money is provided for the actual construction of walking/biking paths. The impact to the Public Service Commission, the Department of Environmental Protection and enforcement agencies are unknown.

Fiscal Note Detail

Effect of Proposal	Fiscal Year
Effect of Proposal	2010 Increase/Decrease (use"-")	2011 Increase/Decrease (use"-")	Fiscal Year (Upon Full Implementation)
1. Estmated Total Cost	22,875,000	45,750,000	45,750,000
Personal Services	0	0	0
Current Expenses	0	0	0
Repairs and Alterations	0	0	0
Assets	0	0	0
Other	0	0	0
2. Estimated Total Revenues	0	0	0

Explanation of above estimates (including long-range effect):

CURRENT FUNDING: Enhancement/Safe Roads to Schools $ 7,500,000 Additional paths inc in projects 17,500,000 Total Current Expenditure for Paths $25,000,000 PROPOSED BILL: DOH: Design $ 700,000 Utility Relocation 700,000 Right of Way Acquisition 1,100,000 Construction 15,000,000 Allocation for 2 FTE/County 2,750,000 * Potential Loss of Federal Funds 18,000,000 ** Minimum Total Cost $45,750,000 *Assumption is that only one community per county will request two FTEs and the minimum funding cited in the bill is used. **Assumption is that one community may violate Federal statute regarding the limits on size and weight of vehicles.

Memorandum

There are many concerns with the legislation. 1. It notes that the Dept of Transportation (DOT) shall be responsible for this new code section. The DOT does not have a separate budget; the Secretary/Commissioner of Highways and his staff serve in duel positions within the Division of Highways. 2. The bill provides that the DOT shall allocate a minimum of $500,000/yr to fund two FTE per community that have support for pathways. (FTE is not defined but assumed to mean full time employee.) Each of the 800+ municipalities – not including community associations - could request two FTEs. Since the DOT does not have a budget, it is assumed that the intent was for the money to come from the DOH. If all entities would request FTEs, the cost would be a drastic reduction in the State Road Fund (SRF). 3. In accordance with State Code, the SRF can only be utilized to build, construct or maintain highways on the State Highway System. The SRF cannot be used to fund projects off the State Highway System (5 miles away) or public positions in "community associations or other locally recognized and authorized organizations..." Federal law and money, however, is already allocated to regional intergovernmental councils and metropolitan planning organizations to determine and recommend projects for highway/transit funding, including these pathways. 4. The bill states that community approved plans shall solely determine the standards and limits for vehicle size and weights. These are already approved in Code and Federal law. Noncompliance with Federal Code results in a 10% loss of Federal funds for roadways. 5. The bill allows the community to sets standards for the movement of goods (i.e., coal, timber, etc) It does not require the community to use engineering expertise to determine if a bridge/road is capable of carrying the standards set forth by the community or within the Federal requirements. 6. In addition to the possible violation of the Federal standards for the weight/size of vehicles, this bill will create total confusion for drivers as each community may set their own standards. Additionally it creates numerous problems for enforcement personnel. 7. In accordance with Federal law, the DOH already incorporates bike and walking paths on highway projects where feasible. Additionally we are widening highway shoulders, where possible, when resurfacing roadways in order to facilitate walking and biking. 8. The bill states the DOT shall establish design and construction standards for pathways. These standards were developed several years ago, approved by the Federal Government and are incorporated in the design directives to be followed on all highway projects. 9. The DOH annually distributes approximately $7.5 Million in Federal grants for recreational paths and safe roads to schools in addition to when the agency widens roadways during resurfacing and those pathways created when a new project is designed and then constructed. 10. The bill proposes that the local communities set the standards for pollution, transport of goods and other agencies budgets may be impacted. The Public Service Commission, Department of Environmental Protection, and enforcement agencies since they have oversight on the pollution requirements and the movement of goods/materials and have their own State and Federal Codes to enforce. 11. The DOT does not believe this bill is necessary and conflicts with other State and Federal Codes.

Person submitting Fiscal Note: Kathy.J.Holtsclaw
Email Address: Kathy.J.Holtsclaw@wv.gov