Transportation Revenue

Transportation Revenue 1. Which State are you responding for? Percent Count State: 100.0% 27 answered question 27 skipped question 0 2. Has your state had a significant change in transportation revenue in the last two years? Percent Count Yes, revenue has increased 29.6% 8 No, a revenue increase was requested but did not pass 7.4% 2 No, revenue has remained about the same 55.6% 15 Yes, revenue has significantly decreased 7.4% 2 Other noteworthy actions? 13 answered question 27 skipped question 0 1 of 28

3. What was the size (in dollars) of the funding increase/decrease for transportation? Count 20 answered question 20 skipped question 7 4. If your state has passed or attempted to pass a transportation revenue package, what activities did it pay for? (Please check all that apply) Percent Count Preservation 50.0% 11 Improvement 36.4% 8 Funding for roads and bridges 59.1% 13 Public transportation 13.6% 3 Rail 9.1% 2 Ferries 4.5% 1 Aviation 9.1% 2 Not applicable 27.3% 6 Other (please specify) 11 answered question 22 skipped question 5 2 of 28

5. What was the main rationale for passing the transportation revenue package?(for example: economic development; public safety; system preservation; congestion relief; freight mobility, etc). Percent Count Economic development 56.3% 9 Public safety 37.5% 6 System preservation 75.0% 12 Congestion relief 31.3% 5 Freight mobility 6.3% 1 Other (please specify) 8 answered question 16 skipped question 11 6. What funding sources were included? Percent Count Fuel tax 41.7% 5 Motor vehicle excise tax 16.7% 2 Sales tax 25.0% 3 Tolling 0.0% 0 Public private partnerships 16.7% 2 No change, not applicable 33.3% 4 Other (please specify) 17 answered question 12 skipped question 15 3 of 28

7. Did it require a public vote? If so, how did it fare? If not, how strong was the vote in the legislature? Percent Count Public vote required - passed 0.0% 0 Public vote required - not passed 0.0% 0 No public vote required 66.7% 14 Not applicable 33.3% 7 Comments on the strength of the vote for/against the funding request. 10 answered question 21 skipped question 6 8. Please provide a reference for the change in revenue such as a bill or proposition number. Count 17 answered question 17 skipped question 10 4 of 28

9. What is the current status of the transportation revenue measure? Percent Count Active 42.9% 9 Pending 9.5% 2 Revenue request did not pass 9.5% 2 Not applicable 38.1% 8 If it is pending, when will the measure be enacted? Is the revenue in a different status than active or pending? 10 answered question 21 skipped question 6 10. What year did the trasnportation revenue action take place on the measure? Count 16 answered question 16 skipped question 11 11. May we contact you for further information? If so, please provide the following: Percent Count Name: 100.0% 26 Email Address: 100.0% 26 answered question 26 skipped question 1 5 of 28

6 of 28

Q1. Which State are you responding for? 1 State: MN Nov 4, 2011 2:00 PM 2 State: UT Nov 4, 2011 1:08 PM 3 State: AR Nov 4, 2011 12:10 PM 4 State: MS Nov 4, 2011 11:16 AM 5 State: ID Nov 3, 2011 2:46 PM 6 State: OH Nov 3, 2011 2:26 PM 7 State: WI Nov 3, 2011 1:00 PM 8 State: IA Nov 3, 2011 12:23 PM 9 State: MT Nov 3, 2011 10:05 AM 10 State: ND Nov 3, 2011 8:54 AM 11 State: WY Nov 3, 2011 8:01 AM 12 State: RI Nov 3, 2011 7:21 AM 13 State: AL Nov 2, 2011 5:16 PM 14 State: LA Nov 2, 2011 2:33 PM 7 of 28

Q1. Which State are you responding for? 15 State: SD Nov 2, 2011 1:53 PM 16 State: NJ Nov 2, 2011 1:18 PM 17 State: PA Nov 2, 2011 1:14 PM 18 State: MD Nov 2, 2011 12:52 PM 19 State: VT Nov 2, 2011 12:06 PM 20 State: WY Nov 2, 2011 10:05 AM 21 State: CO Nov 2, 2011 8:47 AM 22 State: OR Nov 2, 2011 8:34 AM 23 State: RI Nov 2, 2011 8:30 AM 24 State: AZ Nov 2, 2011 8:28 AM 25 State: IN Nov 2, 2011 6:23 AM 26 State: IN Nov 2, 2011 6:16 AM 27 State: TN Nov 2, 2011 5:57 AM 8 of 28

9 of 28

Q2. Has your state had a significant change in transportation revenue in the last two years? 1 The 2011 Utah State General Legislative Session through SB229 ultimately passed a bill that will direct 30% of the GROWTH in future sales tax towards transportation projects. The idea is that about 17% of all sales tax is auto related, and should be directed towards transportation. Current about half of the 17% (8.3% of all sales tax) is directed to transportation projects, and the 2011 action would steadily increase that amount to the full 17%. 2 There have been no legislative actions passed in the past two years by the Arkansas General Assembly that resulted in an immediate revenue increase. In the 2011 legislative session both Act 773 and House Joint Resolution (HJR) 1001 were adopted. If approved by the vote of the people Act 773 would allow a 5-cent diesel tax and reissuance of existing GARVEE bonds to be repaid with the diesel tax increase. HJR 1001, if passed by a vote of the people (November 2012), would authorize a ½ cent general sales tax and would also expand the Department s bonding capacity. Polling for support of the actions authorized by Act 773 was conducted by an independent group. It was determined that there would not be adequate support at this time to pass a fuel tax increase and the measure was not pursued. In lieu of that, the Governor has called an election to reissue the bonds WITHOUT the diesel tax increase as authorized by the Arkansas Interstate Highway Financing Act of 2007 (Act 511 of 2007). The purpose of the original bond issuance in 1999 and in 2012/2013 (if approved by the people- November 2011) will be for Interstate Rehabilitation. Bond repayment will be through anticipated Interstate Maintenance funds and an existing 4 cent diesel fuel tax. 3 Major revenue enhancements were attempted in 2008 and 2009, led by the Governor. The 2009 effort was the Governor's package - several bills, but the main revenue enhancement would have come from a fuel tax increase and a registration fee increase. A modest revenue enhancement was achieved in 2009, and the Legislature requested a task force to further study additional revenue needs. 4 For the current biennium (FY 12, FY 13) there is a transfer of $125 million from the state General Fund to the Transportation Fund. Beginning in FY 13, the state budget requires the annual transfer of 0.25% of General Fund taxes to the Transportation Fund, or not less than $35.1 million. 5 The Iowa Legislature in 2008 passed a law that modestly increased trailer registration and title fees and made some significant changes to annual vehicle registration fees. This action resulted in additional funding beginning in FY 2009 and it is growing each year due to grandfathering provisions for the annual vehicle registration changes. In FY 2011 it generated about $100 million of additional funding for public roads in Iowa. Also, there is consideration underway of another legislative proposal in the coming session to generate additional funding. More information can be found at www.iowadot.gov/transportation2020. Nov 4, 2011 1:08 PM Nov 4, 2011 12:10 PM Nov 3, 2011 2:46 PM Nov 3, 2011 1:00 PM Nov 3, 2011 12:23 PM 6 All State funds for biennum. Nov 3, 2011 8:01 AM 7 15 % of State Revenus transfered to other Departments. Nov 2, 2011 5:16 PM 8 In FY2012, State transportation funding has been supplemented with funding from other sources to maintain the same level of total state funding as previous Nov 2, 2011 1:18 PM 10 of 28

Q2. Has your state had a significant change in transportation revenue in the last two years? years. The Transportation Trust Fund was not renewed. 9 The Governor formed a Transportation Funding Advisory Committee (TFAC). A report including funding recommendations has been submitted to the Governor for his consideration. 10 Some slight adjustments occurred in the 2011 session. Including an increase in Vehicle Titling fees and Special Licence Plates (Vanity Tags). This increase generated approximatel $XXX per year. Individual legislators proposed a variety of revenue measures but none were passed by any of the committees in the Maryland General Assembly. 11 Revenue has been stable over the past couple years, but has fallen from levels of three years ago and before because of lower state general fund appropriations for transportation. 12 In FY09 and FY10 we saw reductions in gasoline tax revenues and special fuels both influenced by the recession then in late FY10 and continuing into FY11 we saw some recovery in special fuels on the strength of an improving economy. That trend continues today. 13 In year 5 of 10 Major Moves public private partnership Leasing of the Indiana Toll Rd. Proceeds of lease used of capital improvement plan. Passed in 2006. Nothing in the past 2 years Nov 2, 2011 1:14 PM Nov 2, 2011 12:52 PM Nov 2, 2011 10:05 AM Nov 2, 2011 6:23 AM Nov 2, 2011 6:16 AM 11 of 28

12 of 28

Q3. What was the size (in dollars) of the funding increase/decrease for transportation? 1 Will provide on Monday Nov 4, 2011 2:00 PM 2 The legislation last year (SB229) will steadily increase each year into the future. It will capture 30% of the new growth in sales tax for transportation. The estimated amounts are; 2013 - $60M, 2014 - $86M, 2015 - $114M, 2016 - $142M...until the number reaches approximately 8.7% of all sales tax generated (assumed to come from auto related purchases). When combined with the existing sales tax directed to transportation, the total sales tax for transportation will be approx. 17% of all sales tax collected. Nov 4, 2011 1:08 PM 3 N/A Nov 4, 2011 11:16 AM 4 In 2008, the stated shortfall was $200 million. The largest proposal was the Governor's suggested registration fee increase that would have increased all passenger vehicle registrations to $150 annually. He withdrew the proposal due to sharp opposition. In 2009, the stated shortfall was $240 million. The Governor proposed a $174 million increase, and proposed compromises as well for lesser amounts. The transportation department also proposed a fee increase (approx. $10 million) for DMV services such as titles and driver licenses. The DMV fee increase proposal and another proposal to eliminate the ethanol exemption (approx. $15 million) passed. This generated approximately an additional $25 million annually for transportation. Nov 3, 2011 2:46 PM 5 $160.1 million over the biennium. Nov 3, 2011 1:00 PM 6 Began in FY 2009 at a very small level but generated about $100 million in FY 2011 and expected to generate almost $200 million in FY 2018. The increase in revenue each year is due to the fact that the changes in annual vehicle registration fees take effect only when a car is purchased (i.e. no one sees an increase in their annual fee while they own the vehicle. The changes take effect when they purchase a vehicle). 7 This past spring the North Dakota Legislature provided an additional $430 million in state funds for highway improvements. The revenue came from oil production taxes which go into the State General Fund. The revenue increase is broken down in the following manner: $228 million to the NDDOT for state highway improvements in the oil impact areas. $142 million to the oil impact counties for local road improvements. $60 million for road improvements for counties and townships throughout the state not impacted by oil development. Nov 3, 2011 12:23 PM Nov 3, 2011 8:54 AM 8 $80 million per Bi as base. One time $40 million bi. Nov 3, 2011 8:01 AM 9 15% - $63.5 million Nov 2, 2011 5:16 PM 10 I can get you that number but I don't have it because the revenue went to the counties, not to the SDDOT Nov 2, 2011 1:53 PM 11 NA Nov 2, 2011 1:18 PM 12 N/A Nov 2, 2011 1:14 PM 13 In the 2011 legislative session, the Legislature enacted the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act of 2011 (BRFA) which resulted in a net Nov 2, 2011 12:52 PM 13 of 28

Q3. What was the size (in dollars) of the funding increase/decrease for transportation? increase to the Transportation Trust Fund of $43 million in FY 2012 and a net average annual increase of $80 million during the FY 2012 to FY 2016 period. The Act provides for the following changes to transportation funding: Realigns revenue distributions between the General Fund and the Transportation Trust Fund. Beginning in FY 2012, the Transportation Trust Fund s share of the sales and use tax is permanently credited to the General Fund, the Transportation Trust Fund s share of the corporate income tax is lowered, and the portion of the Highway User Revenue (HUR) distribution, which had been redirected from the local governments, which includes the counties, municipalities, and Baltimore City, to the General Fund, is now to be distributed to the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) share of HUR beginning in FY 2013, thereby increasing MDOT s share of HUR and permanently decreasing the local share. A one-time transfer of $100 million from the Transportation Trust Fund to the General Fund ($60 million) and the Rainy Day Fund ($40 million) with repayment planned over FY 2013-FY 2016 period. Prohibits transfer of Transportation Trust Fund resources to the General Fund unless legislation provides for repayment of the funds within five years. Provides counties and municipalities an additional $13.3 million in FY 2012 from HUR. Increases various revenues, including certificate of title fee and vanity tag fee, and lowers the dealer vendor credit. 14 The Wyoming Department of Transportation will seek an additional $48 million in revenue from the 2012 Wyoming Legislature using a vareity of measures. 15 The Department receives approximately $80 million in safety funds and $90 million in bridge repair funds from the legislation. Local governments receive about $55 million in safety funds. $15 million is directed to transit. 16 The 2009 Jobs and Transportation Act (HB 2001) aimed to raise about $300 million in total revenue at full implementation of all fee and tax increases. However, due to the economic stagnation projected revenues are off about 7%. The Jobs and Transportation Act also included a one-time infusion of $100 million in lottery-bond resources for the ConnectOregon program; the 2011 Legislature added another $40 million. 17 An article was included in the Governor's 2012 Budget request to transfer by 2016 $64 million of assorted driver and motor vehicle fees from the General Fund to the Transportation Fund to replace GO bonds to match federal funds and to provide additional funds for Highway Maintenance. Another bill, 11-S- 0148 was introduced to increase vehicle registration fees to bring in $15 million per year. These funds would go 50% to the Bus System and 50% to Road Improvements. Nov 2, 2011 10:05 AM Nov 2, 2011 8:47 AM Nov 2, 2011 8:34 AM Nov 2, 2011 8:30 AM 18 Approximately $25 million Nov 2, 2011 8:28 AM 19 FY09 was down appx. $28M. FY10 was down another $8M. FY11 was up about $18M mostly due to improved special fuels tax revenues and one time items. Nov 2, 2011 6:23 AM 20 $3 billion -/+ Nov 2, 2011 6:16 AM 14 of 28

15 of 28

Q4. If your state has passed or attempted to pass a transportation revenue package, what activities did it pay for? (Please check all that apply) 1 Currently the newly generated revenue will be directed to a fund used for constructing and maintaining new capacity elements of our system. Widening existing roads, new highways, new interchanges, upgrading existing interchanges. 2 The DMV fee increase legislation from 2009 was primarily for a needed modernization of DMV systems. Some of these revenues will eventually go to roads and bridges after the upgrade process is complete. Nov 4, 2011 1:08 PM Nov 3, 2011 2:46 PM 3 Based on the 2008 legislative actions. Nov 3, 2011 12:23 PM 4 The NDDOT is using the funds to reconstruct state highways in the oil impact areas to handle the additional traffic and heavy loads associated with oil developmnet. 5 recently passed increase in registration fees to take place in 2013. Additional fees will be used as RIDOT match to federal $$ which wiil eventually elimintate borrowing match 6 Improve county roads but some also went to townships and cities but not as much. 7 The state transportation trust fund covers the checked activities that are capital related. Very limited maintenance activities are permitted. It also pays for Local Aid to counties and municipalities for to support their networks. The last amendment was 2006. Nov 3, 2011 8:54 AM Nov 3, 2011 7:21 AM Nov 2, 2011 1:53 PM Nov 2, 2011 1:18 PM 8 N/A Nov 2, 2011 1:14 PM 9 The revenue components were passed during the 2009 legislative session. The money is directed to the repair/rehabilitation/replacement of "poor" bridges, safety improvements to existing roads, and grants for capital projects by transit providers. 10 The Jobs and Transportation Act was state highway fund revenue that is constitutionally restricted to roads. However, the Legislature gave ODOT direction to use some of the additional revenue to increase the amount of FHWA STP funding flexed to transit. The ConnectOregon program pays for transit, aviation, ports/marine, and rail infrastructure. 11 Here we are referring to legislation allowing us to enter into a long term lease of our east-west toll road. The legislation was passed several years ago and the initiative was named "Major Moves." Nov 2, 2011 8:47 AM Nov 2, 2011 8:34 AM Nov 2, 2011 6:23 AM 16 of 28

Q5. What was the main rationale for passing the transportation revenue package?(for example: economic development; public safety; system preservation; congestion relief; freight mobility, etc). 1 N/A Nov 4, 2011 11:16 AM 2 Mostly system preservation. Nov 3, 2011 2:46 PM 3 not applicable Nov 3, 2011 1:00 PM 4 Eliminate bonding state match of federal program Nov 3, 2011 7:21 AM 5 Mostly to improve rural roads but townships roads and cities also benefited. Nov 2, 2011 1:53 PM 6 N/A Nov 2, 2011 1:14 PM 7 Last year's package did not pass, but the legislature will consider transportation funding proposals in the 2012 session. 8 To reduce bond debt service and to maintain the current level of service for highway maintenance and Bus Service given reduce gas tax revenues and increased debt service costs. Nov 2, 2011 10:05 AM Nov 2, 2011 8:30 AM 17 of 28

18 of 28

Q6. What funding sources were included? 1 motor vehicle registration tax; auto rental fees Nov 4, 2011 2:00 PM 2 2009 proposals also included eliminating the ethanol exemption (approx. $15 million), raising rental car fees ($2 milllion) and shifting some funds that go to state police and parks and recreation to instead fund transportation (approx. $17 million). Ultimately the two proposals to succeed were the ethanol exemption and the DMV fee increases (the state police and parks funding shift passed, but was later reversed). Nov 3, 2011 2:46 PM 3 not applicable Nov 3, 2011 1:00 PM 4 Trailer registration fees, title fees, annual vehicle registration fees. Nov 3, 2011 12:23 PM 5 The revenue came from oil production taxes which are part of the State General Fund. Nov 3, 2011 8:54 AM 6 General fund dispersion. Nov 3, 2011 8:01 AM 7 increase in motor vehicle registry fees Nov 3, 2011 7:21 AM 8 Off shore oil lease revenue trust fund over a 10 year period. Nov 2, 2011 5:16 PM 9 Motor vehicle registration fees were increased based on the weight of the vehicle. 10 Constitutionally dedicated revenues include the Motor Fuels Tax, the Petroleum Products Gross Receipts Tax, and a portion of the General Sales Tax. Statutorily dedicated revenues include "Good Driver" vehicle registration surcharge fees, heavy truck registration fees, and contractual contributions by NJ Turnpike Authority and South Jersey Transportation Authority. More information available at http://www.state.nj.us/ttfa/financing/flowfunds.shtm Nov 2, 2011 1:53 PM Nov 2, 2011 1:18 PM 11 N/A Nov 2, 2011 1:14 PM 12 Tranpsortation Infrastructure Fee Assessments on gasoline and diesel sales. Nov 2, 2011 12:06 PM 13 Registration fees, use of traffic fines and penalties for road improvements (which would require a constitutional amendment and public vote), and ending an ethanol production tax credit currently funded by fuel tax revenues. An increase to the state's fuel tax, which has been sought in the past, probably won't be considered by the legislature in 2012. 14 The primary funding source is a surcharge on vehicle registration fees. Additional fees were also imposed upon rental cars, oversize overweight permits and late registrations. 15 Driver and motor vehicle fees were increased (title, registration) as were weightmile taxes on heavy trucks. Nov 2, 2011 10:05 AM Nov 2, 2011 8:47 AM Nov 2, 2011 8:34 AM 16 Driver and Motor Vehicle Fees. Nov 2, 2011 8:30 AM 17 See above explanation of the long term lease of our toll road. Nov 2, 2011 6:23 AM 19 of 28

Q7. Did it require a public vote? If so, how did it fare? If not, how strong was the vote in the legislature? 1 Passed over the governor's veto. Nov 4, 2011 2:00 PM 2 General Session House of Reps: 60 For 10 Against 5 Absent Senate: 24 For 4 Against 1 Absent Measure Passed Governor Vetoed Veto Override Session Voting House of Reps.: 50 For 18 Against 7 Absent Senate: 21 For 3 Against 5 Absent Measure Passes Nov 4, 2011 1:08 PM 3 Public votes are scheduled for November 2011 and November 2012. Nov 4, 2011 12:10 PM 4 All proposals must be approved by the Legislature. In 2008 and 2009, conservative republicans defeated most of the measures. Nov 3, 2011 2:46 PM 5 Legislative action. Nov 3, 2011 8:01 AM 6 Public Vote required, but didn't make it out of the legislature. Nov 2, 2011 5:16 PM 7 Legislature voted and no public vote was required. Nov 2, 2011 1:53 PM 8 There was strong legislative support for this measure. Nov 2, 2011 12:06 PM 9 The constitutiional amendment to use traffic fines and penalties for road improvements to be considered in the next legislative session would require a public vote to become law if it passes the legislature. Nov 2, 2011 10:05 AM 10 Not specific vote was taken. The article and bill never made it out of Committee. Nov 2, 2011 8:30 AM 20 of 28

21 of 28

Q8. Please provide a reference for the change in revenue such as a bill or proposition number. 1 Minnesota Laws 2008, Chapter 152, Article 3 Nov 4, 2011 2:00 PM 2 S.B. 229 Transportation Funding Revisions -- Adams, J. S. http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0229.htm Nov 4, 2011 1:08 PM 3 Act 511 of 2007 HJR 1001 and Act 773 (HB 1902) of 2011 Nov 4, 2011 12:10 PM 4 Multiple proposals were made, and were too many to summarize here. They were primarily flat fuel tax increases (from two to ten cents) and various registration fee increases. The successful ethanol exemption proposal was HB 338a (2009). The successful DMV fee increase legislation was HB 334 (2009). 5 Executive Budget Act, 2011 Wisconsin Act 32. This was not a transportation revenue initiative. Nov 3, 2011 2:46 PM Nov 3, 2011 1:00 PM 6 Senate File 2420. Nov 3, 2011 12:23 PM 7 The additional revenue was provided as part of House Bill 1012. Nov 3, 2011 8:54 AM 8 N/A Nov 3, 2011 8:01 AM 9 Chapter 151 of the Public Laws of 2011 Nov 3, 2011 7:21 AM 10 Known as Ammendment 1 Nov 2, 2011 5:16 PM 11 House Bill 1192 Nov 2, 2011 1:53 PM 12 NA Nov 2, 2011 1:18 PM 13 N/A Nov 2, 2011 1:14 PM 14 Act 50 of the 2009 session (for the SFY2010 budget). Nov 2, 2011 12:06 PM 15 Bill numers for the 2012 legislative session have not yet been assigned. Nov 2, 2011 10:05 AM 16 SB09-108 Nov 2, 2011 8:47 AM 17 HB 2001 (2009 Oregon Legislature) Nov 2, 2011 8:34 AM 22 of 28

Q9. What is the current status of the transportation revenue measure? 1 Active but actual revenue will not be directed until July 2012 Nov 4, 2011 1:08 PM 2 Public votes are scheduled for November 2011 and November 2012. Nov 4, 2011 12:10 PM 3 The ethanol exemption and DMV fee increase proposals passed. We are not aware of a planned revenue enhancement in 2012. There has been some talk of an attempt in 2013. Nov 3, 2011 2:46 PM 4 The revenue is currently being allocated and spent on transportation projects. Nov 3, 2011 8:54 AM 5 This revenue measure was part of the 2011 budget which became effective 07/01/11 Nov 3, 2011 7:21 AM 6 Dead as a door nail! Nov 2, 2011 5:16 PM 7 Passed and was effective July 1, 2011. Nov 2, 2011 1:53 PM 8 NA Nov 2, 2011 1:18 PM 9 Governor is reviewing/considering the TFAC recommendations. Nov 2, 2011 1:14 PM 10 A Blue Ribbion Commission on Transportation Funding released a report on November 1st calling for an increase and transportation revenues (mainly a 15 cent increase in the gas tax) to fund additional transportation proejcts. The link to the report is: http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/planning/brc The report link is on the top right hand side of the page Nov 2, 2011 12:52 PM 23 of 28

Q10. What year did the trasnportation revenue action take place on the measure? 1 2008 Nov 4, 2011 2:00 PM 2 2011 Nov 4, 2011 1:08 PM 3 2009 Nov 3, 2011 2:46 PM 4 FY 12, FY 13 Nov 3, 2011 1:00 PM 5 Began in Fical Year 2009 (beginning July 1, 2008). Nov 3, 2011 12:23 PM 6 The revenue increase went into effect in 2011 and it is anticipated that it will be programmed and let to contract within the current biennium. Nov 3, 2011 8:54 AM 7 2010 Nov 3, 2011 8:01 AM 8 2011 Nov 3, 2011 7:21 AM 9 2010 Nov 2, 2011 5:16 PM 10 2011 Nov 2, 2011 1:53 PM 11 NA Nov 2, 2011 1:18 PM 12 N/A Nov 2, 2011 1:14 PM 13 2009 Nov 2, 2011 12:06 PM 14 2009 Nov 2, 2011 8:47 AM 15 2011 Nov 2, 2011 8:30 AM 16 2006 Nov 2, 2011 6:16 AM 24 of 28

25 of 28

Q11. May we contact you for further information? If so, please provide the following: 1 Name: Lynn Poirier Nov 4, 2011 2:00 PM Email Address: lynn.poirier@state.mn.us Nov 4, 2011 2:00 PM 2 Name: Cory Pope Nov 4, 2011 1:08 PM Email Address: corypope@utah.gov Nov 4, 2011 1:08 PM 3 Name: Virginia Porta Nov 4, 2011 12:10 PM Email Address: virginia.porta@arkansashighways.com Nov 4, 2011 12:10 PM 4 Name: Mr. Jackie Duckworth Nov 4, 2011 11:16 AM Email Address: jduckworth@mdot.state.ms.us Nov 4, 2011 11:16 AM 5 Name: Mollie McCarty Nov 3, 2011 2:46 PM Email Address: mollie.mccarty@itd.idaho.gov Nov 3, 2011 2:46 PM 6 Name: Julie Ray, CFO Nov 3, 2011 2:26 PM Email Address: julie.ray@dot.state.oh.us Nov 3, 2011 2:26 PM 7 Name: Paul Hammer, WisDOT Budget Director Nov 3, 2011 1:00 PM Email Address: paul.hammer@dot.wi.gov Nov 3, 2011 1:00 PM 8 Name: Stuart Anderson Nov 3, 2011 12:23 PM Email Address: stuart.anderson@dot.iowa.gov Nov 3, 2011 12:23 PM 9 Name: Larry Flynn Nov 3, 2011 10:05 AM Email Address: lflynn@mt.gov Nov 3, 2011 10:05 AM 10 26 of 28

Q11. May we contact you for further information? If so, please provide the following: Name: Norlyn Schmidt Nov 3, 2011 8:54 AM Email Address: nschmidt@nd.gov Nov 3, 2011 8:54 AM 11 Name: Bernie Frezza Nov 3, 2011 7:21 AM Email Address: bfrezza@dot.ri.gov Nov 3, 2011 7:21 AM 12 Name: Don Vaughn Nov 2, 2011 5:16 PM Email Address: austinl@dot.state.al.us Nov 2, 2011 5:16 PM 13 Name: Michael Bridges Nov 2, 2011 2:33 PM Email Address: michael.bridges@la.gov Nov 2, 2011 2:33 PM 14 Name: Ben Orsbon Nov 2, 2011 1:53 PM Email Address: Ben.Orsbon@states.sd.us Nov 2, 2011 1:53 PM 15 Name: David Kuhn Nov 2, 2011 1:18 PM Email Address: dak64@verizon.net Nov 2, 2011 1:18 PM 16 Name: Jim Ritzman Nov 2, 2011 1:14 PM Email Address: jritzman@pa.gov Nov 2, 2011 1:14 PM 17 Name: Bruce Gartner Nov 2, 2011 12:52 PM Email Address: bgartner@mdot.state.md.us Nov 2, 2011 12:52 PM 18 Name: Carmen M. Neveau, Financial Director Nov 2, 2011 12:06 PM Email Address: carmen.neveau@state.vt.us Nov 2, 2011 12:06 PM 19 Name: John Davis Nov 2, 2011 10:05 AM 27 of 28

Q11. May we contact you for further information? If so, please provide the following: Email Address: John.Davis@wyo.gov Nov 2, 2011 10:05 AM 20 Name: Ben Stein Nov 2, 2011 8:47 AM Email Address: ben.stein@dot.state.co.us Nov 2, 2011 8:47 AM 21 Name: Travis Brouwer Nov 2, 2011 8:34 AM Email Address: travis.brouwer@odot.state.or.us Nov 2, 2011 8:34 AM 22 Name: Robert Shawver Nov 2, 2011 8:30 AM Email Address: rshawver@dot.ri.gov Nov 2, 2011 8:30 AM 23 Name: Melissa Wynn Nov 2, 2011 8:28 AM Email Address: mwynn@azdot.gov Nov 2, 2011 8:28 AM 24 Name: Bill Weinmann Nov 2, 2011 6:23 AM Email Address: joweinmann@indot.in.gov Nov 2, 2011 6:23 AM 25 Name: John Weaver Nov 2, 2011 6:16 AM Email Address: jweaver@indot.in.gov Nov 2, 2011 6:16 AM 26 Name: Neal Ham Nov 2, 2011 5:57 AM Email Address: neal.ham@tn.gov Nov 2, 2011 5:57 AM 28 of 28