Notes

1. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Separation of Powers (Denver, Colo.: NCSL, 2010), http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=13543; Wis. Stat. Ann. §15.001.

2. Alan Rosenthal, Heavy Lifting: The Job of the American Legislature (Washington, D.C: CQ Press, 2004), 9.

3. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Full- and Part-Time Legislatures (Denver, Colo.: NCSL, 2009), http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=16701.

4. James J. Fazzalaro, Transportation Agency Organization in Other States, 2007-R-0028 (Hartford, Conn.: Office of Legislative Research, 2007), http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0028.htm.

5. Intergovernmental Forum on Transportation Finance, Financing Transportation in the 21st Century: An Intergovernmental Perspective (Washington, D.C: National Academy of Public Administration, 2008).

6. Fazzalaro, Transportation Agency Organization.

7 Intergovernmental Forum on Transportation Finance, Financing Transportation.

8. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§28-7361 et seq.; Cal. Pub. Cont. Code §§6800 et seq.; Mo. Rev. Stat. §227.107; N.D. Cent. Code §§24-02-47 et seq.; Tex. Transportation Code Ann. ch. 223; Utah Code Ann. §631-1-263. Many provisions in the Texas law expired on Aug. 31, 2009, except in relation to certain non-tolled managed lanes projects; those expire in 2011.

9. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Separation of Powers: Executive Veto Powers (Denver, Colo.: NCSL, 2010), http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=13541.

10. Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §201.301; see also State Profiles.

11. Violet Baffour, The Fiscal Note Process in State Legislatures (Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina General Assembly, Fiscal Research Division, 1999), http://www.ncsl.org/documents/fiscal/FiscalNoteProcess.pdf; NCSL-AASHTO Survey Data, 2010 - 2011.

12. Ohio Legislative Service Commission, A Guidebook for Ohio Legislators: Eleventh Edition, 2009-2010 (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Legislative Service Commission, 2009), 73, http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/guidebook/guidebook09.pdf.

13. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Separation of Powers: Legislative Oversight (Denver, Colo.: NCSL, 2010), http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=13538.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Ind. Code Ann. ch. 2-5-28.

17. NCSL, Separation of Powers: Legislative Oversight.

18. The Council of State Governments (CSG), The Book of the States: 2010 Edition, Vol. 42 (Lexington, Ky: CSG, 2010); Brenda Erickson, Sunset or Required Review of Administrative Rules (Denver, Colo.: NCSL, 2010), unpublished research; Nancy Rhyme, Legislative Review of Administrative Rules and Regulations (Denver, Colo.: NCSL, 1990); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 3, §842(b).

19. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Legislative Performance Budgeting (Denver, Colo.: NCSL, 2008), http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=12617.

20. The Missouri DOT Tracker is located at http://www.modot.org/about/general_info/Tracker.htm; the Texas DOT Tracker is at http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/sppm/txdot_tracker.htm; and the Texas DOT Project Tracker is at http://www.txdot.gov/project_information/project_tracker.htm.

21. 2007 Nev. Stats., Chap. 344.

22. 2000 Md. Laws, Chap. 303.

23. 2010 Minn. Laws., Chap. 350.

24. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §43.17.385 and §43.17.390; 2009 Wash. Laws, Chap. 564 §931.

25. NCSL, Legislative Performance Budgeting.

26. Robert D. Boerner, Program Principal, National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), conversation with author, Dec. 21, 2010.

27. Keenan Konopaski, Audit Coordinator, Washington State Legislature Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, e-mail to author, Oct. 21, 2010.

28. Robert D. Boerner, "Legislative Oversight in the States," LegisBrief 13, no. 45 (Denver, Colo.: National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL], 2005); National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), Ensuring the Public Trust 2008: Program Policy Evaluation's Role in Serving State Legislatures (Denver, Colo.: NCSL, 2008), http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=20720.

29. Andrea Truitt, Audit Manager/General Counsel, South Carolina Legislative Audit Council, e-mail to author, Oct. 19, 2010.

30. Some states, including South Dakota and West Virginia, allow for periodic review and even discontinuation of state agencies, but are not considered to have true sunset provisions because the entities do not automatically repeal if there is no affirmative action of the legislature (see State Profiles).

31. Note, however, Senate Bill 1204 in Florida's 2011 legislative session, which proposes to eliminate the states sunset review process (see also State Profiles). As of April 2011, the bill had passed both chambers.

32. Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §201.204.

33. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §43.09.470.

34. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming. See State Profiles.

35. Information in this section is drawn from NCSL-AASHTO Survey Data, 2010 - 2011; National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), General Overview of Legislative vs. Executive Appropriations Issues (Denver, Colo.: NCSL, 2010), http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=18190; National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Separation of Powers: Appropriation Powers (Denver, Colo.: NCSL, 2010), http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=20623; Alan Rosenthal, Governors and Legislatures: Contending Powers (Washington, D.C: CQ Press, 1990); and Ronald Snell, The Power of the Purse: Legislatures that Write State Budgets Independently of the Governor (Denver, Colo.: NCSL, 2010), http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabID=l2611.

36. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Timing of Legislative Receipt of Agency Budget Requests (Denver, Colo.: NCSL, 2010), http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabID=12606.

37. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Budget Procedures (Denver, Colo.: NCSL, 2010), http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabID=12669.

38. Intergovernmental Forum on Transportation Finance, Financing Transportation.

39. Or. Rev. Stat. §291.375.

40. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4981.02.

41. Intergovernmental Forum on Transportation Finance, Financing Transportation.

42. Matt Sundeen and James B. Reed, Surface Transportation Funding: Options for States (Denver, Colo.: National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL], 2006), http://www.ncsl.org/documents/transportation/surfacetranfundrept.pdf, 16-17.

43. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation: Final Report2010 (Washington, D.C: AASHTO, 2010), http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/survey_state_funding_FY_08.pdf.

44. Alaska Const. art. IX, §7.

45. NCSL-AASHTO Survey Data, 2010 - 2011; American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AAS- HTO), State Transportation Trust Funds (Washington D.C: AASHTO, 2010), unpublished research. Trust funds are used by Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and the District of Columbia.

46. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia. See State Profiles.

47. Mont. Const. art. VIII, §6.

48. Va. Code §2.2-1509.2.

49. Counties have limited or no responsibility for roads in the New England states, or in Delaware, North Carolina, Virginia (with some exceptions) and West Virginia. Connecticut and Rhode Island do not have organized county governments, and in Alabama and Maryland, the state has assumed responsibility for roads in certain counties. See Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), About Highway Statistics (Washington, D.C: FHWA, 2008), http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/abouthss.cfm.

50. Intergovernmental Forum on Transportation Finance, Financing Transportation.

51. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin. See State Profiles.

52. California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. See State Profiles.

53.  Innovative financing mechanisms for transportation have been detailed in depth in many other helpful resources. See, for example, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Center for Excellence in Project Finance, Financing (Washington, D.C: AASHTO, 2008),  http://www.transportation-finance.org/funding_financing/financing ; American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Center for Excellence in Project Finance, Project Finance State by State (Washington D.C: AASHTO, 2010),  http://www.transportation-finance.org/tools/state_by_state ; Greg Dierkers and Justin Mattingly, How States and Territories Fund Transportation: An Overview of Traditional and Nontraditional Strategies (Washington, D.C: National Governors Association [NGA] Center for Best Practices, 2009),  http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0907TRANSPORTATIONSTRATEGIES.PDF ; Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Innovative Program Delivery, Project Finance: Took and Programs (Washington, D.C: FHWA, 2010),  http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/finance/tools_programs/index.htm ; Jaime Rall, James B. Reed and Nicholas J. Farber, Public-Private Partnerships for Transportation: A Toolkit for Legislators (Denver, Colo.: National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL], 2010),  http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=20321 ; and Sundeen and Reed, Surface Transportation Funding.

54. The AASHTO Center for Excellence in Project Finance notes that Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wyoming and Puerto Rico lack state bonding authority. This differs, however, from the NCSL-AASHTO survey data in which several of these states reported using a combination of bonding and pay-as-you-go financing for transportation projects. Of those, Tennessee noted that bonds had been approved but not issued. See State Profiles and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Center for Excellence in Project Finance, Project Finance State by State: Other Debt Financing (Washington D.C: AASHTO, 2010), http://www.transportation-finance.org/flash/map/map.aspx?target=odf

55. U.S. Department of Transportation, Report to Congress on Public-Private Partnerships (Washington, D.C: U.S. DOT, 2004), http://www.fhwa.dot.gOv/reports/pppdec2004/#2a; Rall, Reed and Farber, Public-Private Partnerships for Transportation.

56. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Puerto Rico. See Rall, Reed and Farber, Public-Private Partnerships for Transportation; N.D. Cent. Code §§48-02.1-01 et seq. Ohio's legislation was enacted in March 2011 (2011 Ohio Laws, House Bill 114).

57. Del. Code Ann. tit. 2, §2003(e)(3); Fla. Stat. Ann. §334,30(1), §334.30(2)(d) and §334.30(12) in relation to PPP projects; Fla. Stat. Ann. §338.221(6), §338.222, §338.223 and §338.2275 in relation to any turnpike project; Fla. Stat. Ann. §348.0004(9)(a) in relation to leasing existing toll facilities; Ind. Code Ann. §8-15.7-1-5; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §4251(8) and (9); Mo. Rev. Stat. §227.615(2); N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-89.183(a)(2)(e);Tenn. Code Ann. §54-3-102(b) and §54-3-113; Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.29.060(l)(e); W Va. Code §17-27-9(10)(i). For more information, see Rall, Reed and Farber, Public-Private Partnerships for Transportation. 2011 Ohio Laws, House Bill 114, does not include formal legislative approval requirements, but it does include this provision in §5501.73(D): Any public- private agreement entered into under this section may be for a period not to exceed the then current two-year period for which appropriations have been made by the general assembly to the department; provided, that any agreement may be renewed for succeeding two-year periods when the general assembly enacts sufficient appropriations to the department for each successive biennium.

58. Rall, Reed and Farber, Public-Private Partnerships for Transportation.

59. NCSL-AASHTO Survey Data, 2010 - 2011; Dierkers and Mattingly, How States and Territories Fund Transportation.

60. Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-4-701 and §43-4-706; Idaho Code §40-315(c); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §48:27(D)(l)(b); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §1604 and §1612; Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.29.060. The Idaho Legislature must approve the annual amount of GARVEE bonds and eligible projects, but the transportation board has discretion over how it allocates the bond revenues among authorized projects.

61. Cal. Streets and Highways Code §188.51; Cal. Government Code §14553.4; Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-4-705. Maine also caps the amount of GARVEE debt in Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §1604, but unlike California and Colorado, Maine requires all GARVEE bonds-even those under the cap-to be authorized by the Legislature. Maine also defines the maximum bond term and restricts the potential uses of GARVEE debt to capital projects with an anticipated useful life of at least 20 years. See also American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Center for Excellence in Project Finance, Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEEs) (Washington, D.C: AASHTO, 2010), http://www.transportation-finance.org/funding_financing/financing/bondingdebt_instruments/municipal_public_bond_issues/garvees.aspx.

62. Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT), Transportation in Connecticut: The Planning Process-Federal and State Requirements (Newington, Conn.: ConnDOT, 2007), http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/2007processcolor.pdf; Sundeen and Reed, Surface Transportation Funding.

63. Neb. Const. art. Ill, §18; Wyo. Const. §97-3-027; see State Profiles. The Wyoming Legislature can provide special appropriations for promoting types of projects, but not for individual projects due to this constitutional prohibition.

64. Wis. Stat. Ann. §13.489. Legislative review of major highway projects in Wisconsin is performed largely by the Transportation Projects Commission with recommendations from the DOT. The commission is a governor-led joint legislative body comprised of legislators and three citizen members, with the secretary of transportation as a nonvoting member. Projects are then approved by the full Legislature.

65. The survey response from Minnesota reports that bills introduced in the Minnesota Legislature to prioritize projects more highly than in the existing DOT program usually are defeated.

66. The survey response from Montana reports that special legislation to address individual highways or projects is generally discouraged in that state.

67. Depending on the state, surplus or excess funds may be defined as unspent appropriations, revenues in excess of a legislatively approved DOT budget, or revenues in excess of statutory limits on a dedicated transportation fund. Excess funds do not include money that is obligated or otherwise committed to a specific, approved future purpose.

68. Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, §12b(d).

69. As described in more detail in the State Profile Example on pages 40 and 41, the main source of information for these state- by-state profiles is the responses from the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico to the NCSL-AASHTO surveys. The survey data was supplemented by several other resources, including original research using Westlaw and StateNet; American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation; American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Center for Excellence in Project Finance, Project Finance State by State; Association of American Railroads (AAR), Railroads and States (Washington, D.C.: AAR, 2010), http://www.aar.org/KeyIssues/Railroads-States.aspx; The Council of State Governments (CSG), The Book of the States: 2010 Edition; Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation (CLEAR), Sunrise, Sunset and State Agency Audits (Lexington, Ky: CLEAR, n.d.), http://www.clearhq.org/Default.aspx'pageld=486181; Dierkers and Mattingly, How States and Territories Fund Transportation; Nicholas J. Farber, Variable Fuel Tax [Information Request] (Denver, Colo.: National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL], 2010), unpublished research; Fazzalaro, Transportation Agency Organization; Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Passenger Boarding (Enplanement) and All-Cargo Data for U.S. Airports: CY 2009 Passenger Boarding and All-Cargo Data (Washington, D.C: FAA, 2010), http://www.faa.gov/airports/plan-ning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/index.cfm?year=2009; Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Highway Statistics Publications (Washington, D.C: FHWA, 2010), http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/hsspubs.cfm; Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), September 2010 Monthly Motor Fuel Reported by States (Washington, D.C: FHWA, 2011), http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/mmfr/sepl0/trmfuel2.cfm; Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Toll Facilities in the United States: Bridges-Roads- Tunnels-Ferries: August 2009 (Washington, D.C: FHWA, 2009), http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tollpage.htm; Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Innovative Program Delivery, Project Finance: Tools and Programs; Federal Transit Administration (FTA), National Transit Database (Washington, D.C: FTA, 2010), http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/; Ruben Hernandez Gregorat, Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority [PowerPoint presentation] (San Juan, PR.: Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority, Feb. 26, 2010), https://gdbapp.gdb-pur.com/prcreditconference/documents/2010PuertoRicoCreditConference-PRHTA.pdf; Intergovernmental Forum on Transportation Finance, Financing Transportation; National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), NASAO State Aviation Funding and Organizational Data Annual Report, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 (Washington, D.C: NASAO, 2004); National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), NASAO State Aviation Funding and Organizational Data Report FY 2008 (Washington, D.C: NASAO, 2009); National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), Ensuring the Public Trust 2008; NCSL, Legislative Session Length (Denver, Colo.: NCSL, 2010), http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=17272; NCSL, Population and Legislative Size (Denver, Colo.: NCSL, 2010), http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=13527; NCSL Fiscal Affairs Program, Budget Cycle: Legislative Budget Procedures: Budget Framework (Denver, Colo.: NCSL, 2008), http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=12645; Robert Puentes and Ryan Prince, Fueling Transportation Finance: A Primer on the Gas Tax, The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform (Washington, D.C: The Brookings Institution, 2003), http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gastax.pdf; Rall, Reed and Farber, Public-Private Partnerships for Transportation; Jaime Rall, State Legislation Relating to Weight-Distance Taxes on Commercial Motor Vehicles (Denver, Colo.: NCSL, 2009), unpublished research; Rhyme, Legislative Review of Administrative Rules and Regulations; StateNet, State Legislative Session Chart: 2011 (Sacramento, Calif: StateNet, 2010), http://www.statenet.com/resources/pdf/2011_Legislative_Session_Chart.pdf ; "U.S. & Canadian Transportation Projects Scorecard." Public Works Financing 249 (May 2010): 24-25, http://www.publicinfrastructure.ca.gov/GSLibrary/Downloads/download.ashx?file=sites/1832/17450/442064/May%202010%20Issue%2C%20PUBLIC%20WORKS%20FINANCING.pdf; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CY 2009 Waterborne Tonnage by State (Washington, D.C: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2010), http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mi1//wcsc/statenm09.htm; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Waterborne Container Traffic by Port/Waterway in 2009 (Washington, D.C: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2010), http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mi1//wcsc/by_state09.htm; and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), State DOT Organization Charts (Olympia, Wash.: WSDOT, n.d.), http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/9EC751F8-DD59-405B-B72C-48DDEA5DE988/0/StateDOTOrganizationChartsFINAL.pdf