A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | April 11, 2013 | Committee Room | House Government

Full MP3 Audio File

The Sergeant at Arms. Let’s call this meeting to order. Members, please take your seat. Ladies and gentlemen in the gallery please quiet your cell phones and any electronic devices and be seated. Good morning, welcome to the Government Committee. Our Sergeant of Arms today is Yung Bai, Fred Hines, Bob Rossey, Marvil Lee, and Patrick Mason. Gentleman, thank you for your service this morning. Our pages today, and pages if you could raise your hands so we can see who you are, where you are when your name is called. Brett Ellison. Brett is from Durham Country, sponsored by Representative Luebke. Hailey Maddison from Union County, sponsored by Representative Dean Arp. Shelby Ingram from Mecklenburg. She is sponsored by Representative Alexander. And Hailey McCue, from Franklin County, sponsored by Representative Harrison. Thank you young people for your service today. ‘ Our staff today is Miss Erika Churchill, Mr. Giles Perry, Miss Shelly Deatter, Miss Kelly Quick, Miss Susan Phillips and Chera Graham. First bill on our agenda today is House Bill 260, from Representative Carl Ford who will be presenting his bill. Representative Ford are you here? You have the podium. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. This is a local bill. All the delegation is on board, all four the delegation, House and Senate. It’s about a forced annexation in 2004 that the effective date was 2005. The city of Salisbury owned the county and the county’s airport. And with all fairness, the current mayor and city manager were not in those positions when this took place, I wanted to make that clear this morning. House Bill 260 would de-annex ten parcels totally 75.2 acres from the city of Salisbury back to county control. There will be some public speakers on this so I’ll hit some of the highlights. This annexation took place the tax rate was $.595 from the county. After the annexation took place the tax rate went to $1.185. Now if this passes, it rolls back to $.6225 under the deal in 2009, to lower the rate to try to stop the bleeding and hopefully bring in some business, the tax rate did drop to $.80. Some of even the larger companies didn’t even get in on that deal because they told us they didn’t know about it. Some of the larger companies, some want to be named, some do not. Since that time, the county has given up $.22 on valuation. In the past 8 years. $1.2 million approximately has gone to the city of Salisbury. I think this is a jobs bill. It will create jobs and expansion of the facility and a number of other businesses will locate there. When you have a pilot that says, if you can get this deannexation passed, I will bring my planes back, that means he left and he’s not the only one. I think, overall, in the long run, it will benefit Salisbury and all the other nine municipalities in Rowan County because the businesses will grow, there will be more planes at the airport, there’s work going on now with the expansion of new hangers, extending the runway, and I think with the lower tax rate, things will really grow and go and thing, no pun intended, will take off at the Rowan County Airport. And keep in mind it’s Rowan County Airport. It’s subsidized fully by the county and owned by the county of Rowan. At this time I would entertain any questions. Mr. Chairman, are you open it up... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ford, I understand we have members from the town. Yes, Representative Pittman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion at a proper time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. I understand we have representatives from the town and also from the county commission that have come to address the committee. This time we’ll go ahead, and unless the committee objects, we’ll go ahead and listen to input from the stakeholders here. We’ll start with the town. Who wants to come up first? If you’ll come up and

address the microphone in the back, identify yourself for the committee? Yes sir. If we can get the Representative out of the way so we can see you. Thank you. You'll have to push the green button down there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We on? Okay. I'm Mayor Paul Woodson, city of Salisbury. Been mayor for approximately a year and a half, I would like to mention I was thinking this morning, my Grandfather was mayor in 1913, he also served as a state senator, Walter Woodson, and also Nelson Woodson, my uncle, served as a state Senator over the appropriation committee, so I'm enjoying being here today. Feeling a little nostalgia being here. I would like to say to understand what the county is wanting to do. We've had the airport for about a decade, we're certainly willing to compromise with the county commissioners. I really hate being here, I wish we could have worked this out ourselves. I'm actually a business owner myself, I'm actually hiring people right now, had to change some interviews to tomorrow and next week, but I am here in support. You know, the city of Salisbury actually had the land in 1928. We bought the land. And then we gave it to the county. There's been- we put $4.8 million in water and sewer extensions out to the airport. I told Commissioner Jim ??, I met with him about a month or 2 ago, we're willing for the next 2 years to give all the tax money to the county that the city would get for the extension for that runway, which would be the betterment of Salisbury and Rowan county, so we're certainly willing to compromise. I don't know of any pilot that has actually left, I would like to know that fellow's name so that I could talk to him. I was speaking to one of the pilots back here and he didn't know of anyone who actually left and I understand what you're trying to do, we're willing to compromise, we're willing to do whatever it takes to make Rowan county and Salisbury successful, we'd like to be a part of this airport still because we think it's so important to our city and to our county, so I'd just like to let this legislative body know that the city of Salisbury will glad to sit down with our county commissioners and work something out. Any reasonable situation. So thank you for your 2 minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mayor Woodson. We also have another representative from the town. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Rep. Moore. My name is Bill Burr again, and first of all let me thank you for allowing us to speak today to the legislature. It's an honor and a privilege. I'm not quite sure, I want to speak of course against the legislation that's before you. I'm not sure what the criteria is for passing or killing a bill such as House 260, but I do want to share with you what I believe to be the facts. I also want to acknowledge that I was on the city council in Salisbury when the annexation took place a couple of years ago, so for the purposes of thorough disclosure, I share that with you, but I also hope that that will also let you know that I understand many of the facts that have occurred in that circumstance. So why did the city annex the airport? To me, and I think to the belief of the city council, we wanted to do that in order for us to help create the best regional airport possible. I think if you can imagine with me the popular commercial today that they ask the question "Is 2 better than 1?" I think the answer in our mind at that point was yes, 2 is better than 1. We have 2 public entities, strong public entities that could bring resources to the public to help make that a better than average, an exceptional regional airport. Now we did have the challenge of the taxes, and we recognize that as a municipality. And so we sat down with the county, I represented the city and Chad Mitchell represented the county, and we worked through what we could do best to try to manage that. And we created a developmental zone over the airport, an overlay, and we reduced our taxes through a rebate so that what the city pledged to the county is that we would reduce our taxes to anything the county would reduce their taxes to. And they settled on 60% basically of what the full rate was. And they did that because that was still keeping that airport competitive. We also as a city during my time on city council, offered to provide from our funds the revenues that we had, dollars for capital improvements at the airport. Now I don't know whether that changed over time, as I said I retired from politics about 6 years ago so I don't know what it is today, but I do know from reading the paper

That's on the table again. So we created the developmental zone. The math worked. We were competitive with surrounding airports. We had actually increase revenue available to the airport via the extra dollar when we combined both tax rates that we had previously. But there was more when the city joined in and brought the airport in to the city limits. We also brought with it the services that the city provides. One was the addition of pre-services but more important was the fire services. We have a fire station about a mile a mile and a half from the airport. We are a class two fire protection. ?? We offer that to the airport and as and airport owner or as an airplane it's comforting to know that we have protection for airplanes in case of a disaster. So anyway, I speak against the bill thank out. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Bergan. We have another, Mr. Post you want to approach the mic thank you. [Speaker Change] Mr. Chairmen. Buttons are on. Thank you very much. Member of the committee my name is David Post. I'm from Salisbury. I'm really not here to speak for or against the bill. I was just chatting with Mr. ?? is sitting right behind me today. Is probably going to speak in favor of the bill. I want to speak in terms of business stability. Businesses to grow or for a county to attract , for a city to attract business, for a state to attract business, for a nation to attract business has to have a stable environment. When any government, state, local, national changes laws dramatically or backs away from laws. When you have a law that is then changed afterwards businesses get a little scary. They get a little nervous. They wonder should I come to this particular location. My company happen to have been on the ink 500 5000 list for the last 6 years. Because of that a lot of banks and investors call and have an interest and say hey do you want to do some business with us. Then they always ask me why am I from Salisbury. And when they Google the company and they Google Salisbury they were wow there is a little bit of discontent going on in the town and they say is that the best place to be. And I said well I'm here because this is where my family is, not because I choose Salisbury to be the best place to be. I would like to think that I'm there because it is the best place to be. Professor Michael Porter of Harvard wrote a ?? book called competitive advantage in which he said to be competitive an organization has to have either a price advantage or a service advantage. Now Salisbury Rowen airport not has the lowest tax rate in the region. If Walmart lowers its prices and it's already the low cost provider it's not going to attract any additional customers. I mean we are in the middle of a recessions so I mean lowering taxes from already the lowest to another lower is kind of a spacious argument. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and I'm sure you'll make the correct decision. [Speaker Changes] Thank you ??. Were there any other representatives from the town who wish to speak? Say no we will turn to the county commission. [Speaker Changes] Thank you chairman and committee members for allowing us to be here today. I do want to speak in favor of House Bill 260. When I decided that the time. [Speaker Changes] Excuse me sir. Would you please identify yourself for the committee. [Speaker Changes] Tim Side, Rowen County Commissioner. [Speaker Changes] Thank you. [Speaker Changes] When I decided the timing was right for pressing the introduction of this bill I asked myself four questions. One was my motive right. Could I remove my own personal feelings and emotions from this issue. I must admit this was probably the hardest question I had to answer. But I can honestly say that to all of you today that I have no personal agenda attached to this legislative request other than doing what is best and right for all the citizens of Rowen County. Secondly I asked myself was this bill the best thing for all the citizens of Rowen county. While I realize you can never please anyone with any piece of legislation I was overwhelming satisfied that this bill did meet that test to responding to all the needs of all the citizen of Rowen County. Did the fact surrounding this issue support the desire for this legislation. The answer to this question was a resounding yes. If you have read the letter and the materials

That I emailed personally to all of you as committee members. I believe that you can readily see that the facts of this issue speak for themselves. Fourthly, I asked myself was there sufficient support for this bill. Currently all five commissioners in Rowan County support the bill. All four of the local legislative delegation support the bill. And there's been overwhelming public support for the bill. Thank you for your time, I hope that you will help the citizens of Rowan County by making house bill 260 law. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. ?, we have Craig Pierce on the schedule here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for your time, and thank you for hearing our house bill 260. My name is Craig Pierce, I'm the vice-chairman of the Rowan County commissioners. I was also privileged to be the chairman of airport advisory for 2 years so everything that has gone on at this airport for the past few years I've been deeply immersed in it and I can give you all the numbers that will let you understand completely why we need to be the only taxing body on the airport property. The county currently pays 2.5 million dollars per year to operate the airport. The city participates none of that. We have spent over 20 million dollars in the past 8 years, operating and developing the airport. The city of Salisbury has put in nothing. They have taken 1.2 million dollars out of the airport and have invested nothing. They talk about the airport, the city is going to provide fire service. If you look on your map, the national guard has their own fire service stationed on site. What better fire service protection can you have than an on site protection? But the biggest thing I want you to look at, if you've looked at your map you'll see that when it was annexed not all of the airport was annexed, just parts of it. When we get ready to do our expansion, which we're setting in the wings right now with the NCDOT, if you look at our master plan you will see that our next expansion goes to the left side of the airport, which is owned strictly by the county. Therefore, once our expansion takes place, there will be two taxing bodies on the airport property. The right side will have the city and the county, the left side will be strictly the county. How are we to develop a business model for investors, for businesses for people to lease the hangers and put their aircraft here if they're gonna have to make a decision among the left or the right, strictly because there's a double taxation on the right side. Please consider that, I know you'll make the right decision, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Members, the chair will now open for questions for Rep. Ford or for any of the speakers that we've had. So, any questions? Representative Wilkins? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. For Representative Ford, Representative Ford, when you were talking about tax breaks you were simply using numbers that indicate taxation by one jurisdiction versus taxation by two jurisdictions. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, it was 59 5 and after the annexation it was a dollar 18 5. Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. I have a question to the gentleman who speak on the two separate tax rates. I just want to make sure I get this right. On one side of the airport we'll have a county tax rate and on the other side of the airport we'll have a combined county-city tax rate? Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, can you please tell us what the two different tax rates will be? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The one that costs of the bill that was worked out in the design is 80 cents right now that we're talking about today. And the other one is 62 5. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One last follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, being a city-county airport one project, will they be allowed to split that tax rate up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's not a city-county airport, it's Rowan county airport, we're just forcibly annexed. So, it's going to bring problems, as you just heard. Some of the problems are already occurring, it's just going to get worse. Yeah, you're right, it's going to be a nightmare. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, do we have any other- Representative Davis? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask a question. You were comparing the tax rate of the city and the county. Is the value of the penny the same? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not really. I mean you have to

that in consideration as well when you look at the total tax burden. So I was just wondering, is the higher tax rate, is the penny worth less? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The penny is- I would have to bring either Craig or Jim in on this because I'm not 100% sure about that. I'll just be honest on that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative, would you like to ask one of the folks from the commission to respond to that? Would you repeat the question? I couldn't hear it back here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. The question was, I was hearing testimony about the difference in the tax rate with the city vs the county, and my question was is the value of the penny the same? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. The value of the penny is the same. [SPEAKER CHANGES] With the city and the county? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Pierce. Members, we have a Yes sir. Perch the mic please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have 2 comments: One, the value of the penny for Salisbury is 273,000, the value of the penny for Rowan county is about a million dollars, so is a lot of difference. I would just like to speak one thing about saying Salisbury has not put any money to the airport, 40% of the tax money of the citizens of Salisbury paid Rowan 40%, so I would have to say that any improvements the airport made, 40% came from the Salisbury citizens, because we pay the taxes to the county and they use that money for the airport. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mayor Woodson. Members, do we have any other questions? Okay, the chair recognizes Rep. Fisher. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have a question for either the city or the county or the bill sponsor, take your pick: I'm wondering is the Salisbury-Rowan airport, do they fall under the FAA in terms of governance? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again, it's the Rowan airport. And FAA, there's no FAA control tower, per se, but of course the field and the lighting and all that is under FAA ordinance, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Who will be funding the expansion of the airport that you spoke about earlier? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mainly Rowan county, of course subsidized by federal and state funds as all airports do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And one last follow up. Has the FAA been consulted about this at all in the process, and have they weighed in? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We will ask the county commissioners on that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chairman ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The FAA has not been consulted, I do not know whether they would have a dog in the fight, as far as the tax rates. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Ross, recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, just one question and this may go to the city, and I, first of all- Mic's a little sensitive- First of all, I understand the airport's been a part of the city from what I understand for a decade or nearly a decade. But did I understand that the city has invested 4.8 million in water and sewer for the airport? Did I hear that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Ford? [SPEAKER CHANGES] There has been water and sewer invested, the city was running to get to the neighborhood that were annexed with this portion of the airport. The airport just happened to be on the way, and the county has helped the city fund all these water- most of these water and sewer extensions all across the county and then the county turns them over to the city for them to operate and take the income. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, we have further questions? Rep. Stone. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. I've got a question for one of the county commissioners, that basically I'm trying to figure out how you're going to figure out who goes on the left hand side of the airport, and who goes on the right? I've started to realized this is a complex issue, and when you start looking at taxing aircraft, you're going to- that's multi-million dollars if you have any Lear jets out there, I don't know if you can put those out there. Either way, it's very expensive aircrafts, and there's going to be a huge move to go to the cheaper side of the airport, so I'm trying to figure out how you're going to make that decision with the hangars that are there currently vs. the new hangars? What's going to drive that decision? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sir, we have 3 commercial jets housed at the Rowan county airport currently. We're building a commercial hangar right now that would house a commercial jet, but the airport master plan that's been developed over the

sights the other side and the other end of the airport as the major areas for new development because the other end of the airport that's actually in the city has already developed. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yeah just one quick question. Are those leer jets going to be parked on the county side or the city side? That's the one we're trying [SPEAKER CHANGE] The ones that are there now are in the city side which is also county. The new ones that come for the new development would be outside of that area that is currently annexed. When the city annexed the airport they only annexed one hundred and seventy acres. There's actually about 600 acres that the county owns. So there's a large portion of the airport that is not in the city. And that's where the development will come. So naturally those jets would be in an area that is not part of the city. [SPEAKER CHANGE] One last question. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Will the single prop planes be given the same opportunity as the jets? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To be on the left side of the airport or the cheaper side? [SPEAKER CHANGE] We actually are, we just recently in the last couple years built about thirty t hangars. They're full. We will be looking at building other t hangars. And they will probably be outside, in fact they would definitely be outside of the city area. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Do you want to hear from the mayor on that too? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mayor [Woodsen] did you rise to respond to the representative's question? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Well yes I did. This gentlemen here, we've had it about ten years. But I wanted to make sure this committee knows that [Salsbeck] gave the land to the county. We gave that land. We have put 4.8 billion dollars in water and sewer extensions out there with the help of the county. The county did give it back to us but we do the maintenance and the up keep with about a hundred person department for the city and the county. So we have the cost of that. I'm sorry what was that last question? I want to make those 2 points very strong that we did give the land. And as far as the, oh and the last thing, we annexed, they're trying to say we only annexed what we wanted, we annexed what you would let us, the state annexed. We annexed all the land that under the law in 2004 and 2005 that we could annex. So we didn't try to Just nit pick a certain section, we did what law requires in the state of North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mayor Woodsen. Representative do you have any other questions? Representative Collins. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Well I understood what we were talking about until that last statement. But we annexed, we gave the land back. I'd kind of like to know what order it occurred in and what was the motivation for annexing 10 years ago. Especially when you couldn't annex but from what I'm hearing about a quarter of the property. I'm assuming the annexation took place first and then the giving back that I just heard about. But I'm interested knowing what the motivation of the annexation was to begin with. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I believe your curiosity is about to be squelched. Yes sir. Please identify yourself. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Good morning my name is Doug Paris I'm the city manager of Salsbury North Carolina. And the original motivation for the annexation as it was a part of the city's growth plan. Right beside the airport we had several of low income housing. To put it more detailed, single wide trailer parks that were lacking water and sewer. And they had septic issues that the department was concerned with. And so we went in and annexed that corridor to provide municipal services. That area had been urbanized and we also had to, we annexed the airport at the time and we also entered into the incentive agreement which is actually quite novel because we recognized the issue at the airport and the plane owners actually get a check with their property taxes back. Which is our solution for the airport. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you. Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGE] One follow up then. If the taxes that the city is collecting at this airport are rebated to the plane operators, then why does the city need to keep this land? Why doesn't it all fall under one jurisdiction? This is going to be an administrative nightmare. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Representative was that a question? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Why is the city interested in keeping the land if they're not keeping any of the tax money on it? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Would somebody from the city like to respond to that? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Collins I'd be happy to respond to that. We're as a community, we're civic minded. The way that airport originally started was in the 1920's. The city chamber of commerce came to the Salsbury city council and they said that they wanted an airport. An airport was going to be good for economic development. There was a lot of discussion at the time, whether it be trains or buses, and so the city purchased the 125 acres and developed the airport. So to a certain degree we feel that we have some ownership in the airport and we want to make sure it's a successful.

In the 50s the county wanted to build a second airport, and instead of having two different airports, the county and the city worked together to have a joint airport and we've had a long history of cooperation. We've given fire trucks. We've extended water and sewer. We've helped pay for infrastructure to hangars. We've donated land. We've got a join landfill out there. And so after, from the 1920s until today we've had cooperation and this is the first time in our city's history of nearly 100 years where we've not had cooperation on a major economic driver. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One final follow up, and I think this will get to the meat of what I'm trying to ask. Will the city suffer in any way financially if this bill is passed? Will they lose any revenue, because of the net revenue once the rebates are given, if this bill is passed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Paris do you want to respond to that for the city? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir mister Chairman. Currently, that would be the case. Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd, you are recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Chair, given the various comments from both sides, would it be appropriate if, number one if the bill ??, number two if it is, then can we move the bill forward without prejudice to finance since most of it deals with finance, that finance addresses the issue. Maybe the two powers can come together and hammer out their differences before we get to finance or in finance? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair recognizes that and appreciates the suggestion. We do have a motion on the floor though. Members, in the interest of getting to 21 other bills, are there any other pending questions? The chair will entertain any other questions before we take Representative Pittman's motion. Seeing none, mister Pittman you are recognized for your promotion, your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chairman. I move favorable report on House bill 260 with referral to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members you've heard the motion on the floor for a favorable report on House bill 260 with a referral to finance. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. Representative Ford, thank you. Our next bill is House bill 409, Shelby deannexation. This will be presented by Representative Stone on behalf of Representative Tim Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good morning. Thank you mister Chair. Thank you committee. This will be a simple bill. This is actually the deannextion of property. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me Representative? This has a PCS, and we will listen to the PCS on motion of Representative Collins. Paper? All in favor say aye. All right now you may have the mic, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Thank you mister chair. Thank you committee. This is a bill simple for deannexation of property for the city of Shelby for a charter school. The city's passed a resolution in support and everybody in Shelby is very happy and supportive of the bill as I was told in Cleveland County. We just all get along. Proper time, I'd like to make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, we have any questions for Representative Cleveland? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Fisher? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a question for the bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just would like an explanation of why they need to do this for a charter school. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I cannot answer that question other than the fact that everyone was in total agreement to do it, as I was instructed by the rules chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Maybe staff could address the reasons why this would be necessary? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No they cannot. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Wow, a stumper. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This, this does have a referral to finance. Perhaps we could get the bill sponsor to get that to you. We suggest Representative Stone make note of that as he reconsiders what he agreed to do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And we'll entertain the motion from Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister Chairman. Favorable report for the proposed committee substitute to House bill 409, unfavorable to the original, and referral to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well said. Members, you've heard the motion on the floor before you. All in favor please say aye. Opposed say no. The ayes have it, and we'll move on to HB 506. Representative Horn. Somebody wake up Representative Horn please? Horn. [SPEAKER CHANGES] H-O-R-N. Thank you mister chairman. Good morning ladies and gentlemen.

This is a local bill at the request of the town of Weddington allowing them to enter into a long term fire - contract to provide fire service to the towns for the result of a unanimously passed resolution -- [speaker changes] Mr. Chairman? [speaker changes] Yes, sir. [speaker changes] Can I be recognized for a motion? [speaker changes] Absolutely. [speaker changes] Mr. Chairman, I move that we give House Bill 506 a favorable report. [speaker changes] Members, are there any other questions? Alright, the motion is on the floor. All in favor please say aye. And all opposed say no. The ayes have it. Thank you fr a wonderful presentation Representative Warren. [speaker changes] Mr. Chairman? [speaker changes] Where are we at? Yes, sir? [speaker changes] I wonder if part of the hurry to do that was to avoid a churchill reference. [speaker changes] We were perilously close, I'm sure. Chair recognizes Representative Bert Jones for presentation of House Bill 143. If that goes well, we'll go on to House Bill 412. [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I know you have a lot on your plates today. I'll try to be brief. I do know - want you to know what you're voting on. House Bill, actually both of these bills, are very similar in nature. House Bill 143 authorizes the city of Eden to agree by contract not to annex basically MillerCoors. Millercoors and Duke Energy, which will be addressed in the second bill, are two of the major employers in Rockingham county. They lie just outside the city limits of Eden and for decades there have been agreements between these businesses that are great corporate citizens for us and the city not to annex in lieu of payment. As I said, this goes back to legislation that's been passed in this general assembly for decades. Ten years ago, the sponsor of the bill was Senator Phil Berger, our president pro-tem, a republican. Before that it was sponsored by Senator Sandy Sands, a democrat by partisan effort. Both parties are in agreement on both of these bills the 143 being the city and Millercoors. They asked me to bring this agreement that basically would renew what they currently have which is payment in lieu of annexation. There is no known opposition to either of these bills bt I'm happy to stand for any questions that you have. [speaker changes] Representative Collins. [speaker changes] I have a question of the Chair. [speaker changes] Yes, sir. [speaker changes] Would it be parliamentary, ??, parliamentary, if that's an adverb, legal to group these two bills together? [speaker changes] Chair doesn't anticipate that'll be necessary to expedite that quickly. Yes, sir? [speaker changes] I'd like to make a motion at the proper time. [speaker changes] Members, do we have any questions for Representative Jones on House Bill 143? Seeing none, we'll take your motion Representative Collins. [speaker changes] I move for a favorable report on House Bill 143 with a referral to finance. All in favor say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it. Representative Jones, go on to 412 please. [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Chairman. House Bill 412 is a similar arrangement between the city of Eden and Duke Energy. There is a representative here that will be happy to speak on behalf of Duke Energy. Again, both parties have offered this bill and there is no known opposition. [speaker changes] Thank you, Representative. Members, do we have any questions for Representative Jones on House Bill 412? Seeing non, Representative Collins. Oh there you are. Representative Moore, How are you? [speaker changes] I'm good today Mr. Chairman. Thank you for asking. [speaker changes] Excellent. [speaker changes] At the proper time, I'd like to be recognized for a motion. [speaker changes] Representative Moore, I believe you're recognized for a motion. [speaker changes] Move for a favorable report for House Bill 412-- [speaker changes] ladies and gentleman-- [speaker changes] before referral to finance. [speaker changes] Thank you. We have a motion on the floor for favorable report on 412 with a referral to finance. All in favor please signify by saying aye. All opposed say no. Thank you very much. The ayes have it. Members. House Bill 427 has been pulled from the agenda today. We're gonna move on to House Bill 404. Representative Steinburg is to present. [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Chairman and good morning Ladies and Gentleman. This is a local bill that was brought to my attention by Camden county, one of the counties I serve. It's short and sweet and simple and it's in the interest of creating efficiency

this bill will elect- allow, rather, Camden county to collect delinquent storm water utility fees in the same manner as they collect personal and real estate property taxes that are delinquent. This is not setting any sort of precedent. This has already been done for two counties, Granville and Person counties. So, I would presume this would be short, quick, and easy. I certainly hope so. But I will entertain any questions should any questions arise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. Representative Burr, you are recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chairman. I have a motion at the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Members are there any other questions of representative Steinburg? Representative Burr, you are recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister chairman I move that we give house bill 404 a favorable report with referral finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion on the floor for favorable report. All in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Ayes have it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you representative Burr and thank you committee. Appreciate it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We are now moving on to house bill 289. House bill 538 has been pulled by the sponsor and will be recalendared. Representative Saine you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chairman, members of the committee. What you have before you is house bill 289 state computer equipment buy refurbished. It's a pretty simple bill. We've got a lot of bipartisan support on it. What it does through digital learning committee over the summer chaired by representative Horn we learned that L E A's do like every now and then to buy refurbished computers. This will allow specifics of what that would look like and also allow them to leverage the discount when dealing with the state but pretty simple don't think there will be any controversy on the bill. I'm imagining representative Burr might even have a motion. Any questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members do we have any questions for representative Saine. Representative Burr you are recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes mister chairman. I move that we give house bill 298 a favorable report. Two eighty nine. Excuse me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We'll stay on target; do that. We have a motion on the floor for favorable report on house bill 289. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed say no. The ayes have it. Members, a summary is going to be distributed to you on house bill 390. Representative Saine do you want to cover that now or do you want to wait until the summaries are passed out? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll go ahead and give my review if you don't mind mister chairman. House bill 390 is an agency bill. Also fairly simple with a lot of bipartisan support. Representatives Glazier, Hamilton, Jackson, Johnson and Martin are all ?? sponsors of the bill. As by the state CIO to put these few changes to repeal the definition of information technology that conflicts with another definition GS 147 33 dot 81 gives state CIO authority to require a performance bond or other performance assurance measures and contracts for IT projects, allows the state CIO to use cost savings as performance incentives for IT project vendors, clarifies IT statutes by removing language related to purchasing and contract in the department of adminstration, eliminates a reference to the north carolina agency for public telecommunication which no longer exists, broadens state CIO's authority to assess IT security by adding the term information systems security. It clarifies and strengthens the state CIO's authority to assess state security compliance with security standards, adds authority to assess agency's contracted vendors. And then section seven clarifies that security and other IT standards adopted by the state's CIO are not rules and therefore not subject to the rules review process. That's the summation of the bill. I will add that particularly in terms of security with our IT systems this is desperately needed. I don't want to say much more than that but it's just one of those things that we need to do to protect our data. I'll field any questions mister chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, representatives we are open for questions. Do we have any questions for him. Representative Pittman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Seeing no other questions, you are recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move for favorable report on house bill 390. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have a motion on the floor. All in favor please say aye. Opposed say no. And we are done. Ayes have it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you representative Saine. Our next bill. House bill 460 has a P C S that representative Elmore makes a motion we accept. All in favor say aye. Representative Faircloth you are welcome

Present your Bill. [Speaker Changes.] Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is a bill concerning the election method in the city of High Point some years back. A decision was made to change the election year to be in the same year the even number years as the National elections and State elections in hopes of getting better turn out, we were down 11% in turn out in location elections. The counts also went into a plurality method which is proven to be a real problem. Basically, what this does is moves the city back to the odd number of years and to the primary election method and it comes the unanimous request of the city council and the unanimous support of the delegation. I’d be glad to answer any questions. [Speaker Changes] Representative Adams you are recognized. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Chair. I do support the Bill as Representative Faircloth has said, it is supported by the entire [delegation] and recommended by the city of High Point. At the appropriate time I would like to make a motion. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Ma’am. Representatives do we have any other questions? Representative Adams you’re recognized. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr.Chair. I move for favorable to House Bill 468 unfavorable to the original. [Speaker Changes] To the PCS. [Speaker Changes] To the PCS, I’m sorry. [Speaker Changes] Thank you ma’am. Members we have a motion on the floor for favorable report to PCS for House Bill 468 unfavorable to the original, all in favor say Aye, opposed say no. The Ayes’ have it. Our next Bill before the Committee is House Bill 546, [Ronoke] Rapids School District Representative Brandon Wray is going to present this. [Speaker Changes] Members of the Committee, ladies and gentlemen. House Bill 546 clarifies the [determins] the chair for [??] Rapids School District on Board of Trustee 2 years. They came about finding out this by updating their policy manual. So, appreciate your support. [Speaker Changes] Representative Moore is recognized. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Chair, for motion at the proper time. [Speaker Changes] Representative Adams did you have your hand up? No? Do we have any other questions? Representative Moore. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Chair. Move that we have a favorable report for House Bill 546. [Speaker Changes] All in favor signify by saying Aye, opposed say no. The Ayes’ have it. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Chairman. [Speaker Changes] Our next Bill is House Bill 321, amend local solid waste planning. Representative McGrady. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Chairman. This Bill has already cleared the Environment Committee with respect with any environmental concerns. The Bill simply eliminates a 10 year comprehensive solid waste management planning effort. It was probably something that was pretty good when it was first put in place, but it’s now really outdated. The County Commissioners Association is here to speak to it if we need it. It’s got a broad support within the local government community because the local report is viewed as, frankly a waste of time now. So, we’re trying to eliminate it, that’s all the Bill does. [Speaker Changes] Members, do we have questions for Representative McGrady? [Speaker Changes] Yes Sir. [Speaker Changes] Who’s that? Representative Wilkins. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Chair. Representative McGrady along the way, has any discussion been given the term good faith effort? And if so, would you share that discussion with us? [Speaker Changes] If I could respond? [Speaker Changes] Sure. [Speaker Changes] I’m not sure what you’re question is Representative Wilkins. [Speaker Changes] Line 19. [Speaker Changes] Yeah, that is part of the current law and there was no discussion or suggestion to change that provision in the current law. [Speaker Changes] Members? Representative Collins. [Speaker Changes] One question which may lead to a motion. Representative McGrady do you know of any opposition to this Bill? [Speaker Changes] Do I know of any what? [Speaker Changes] Opposition to this bill. [Speaker Changes] None at this time. Originally a recycling group initially reacted to it just thinking

[SPEAKER CHANGES] You know, its bad thing to do away with planning, they have since retracted their opposition, and at this point, I’m aware of no opposition to it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chairmen, if appropriate time, then a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir, any other questions, members? Representative Collins, you’re recognized for your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Like to make a motion for a favorable report on House Bill 321. Any referrals? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sir actually, if the chair heard you correctly, you wanted a favorable report on the committee substitute? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For 321, Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. We have a motion on the floor, all in favor say aye, all opposed say no. You have it sir, thank you. House Bill 524, Representative Harrison is recognized. And she looks just like Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am not Representative, but I am hear to explain the bill, good morning ladies and gentlemen, this bill comes as a request from the city of Greensboro, it is part of the Greensboro legislative request to the delegation and is supported by the entire delegation. It basically makes two changes to the current city charter. First of all, it would amend the charter to allow the city to establish a small business enterprise program to promote the development of small businesses in Greensboro market area. The second thing the bill does is to change the word “building inspector” in the current law to compliance officer. Appreciate your support, I’d be happy to answer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Fisher is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairmen, at the appropriate time, I would like to move for a favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do we have any other questions? Members, we have a motion on the floor, almost. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that we give House Bill 524 a favorable report, and a re-referal to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair is going to hold the motion for just a moment. Representative Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just had one quick question for clarification. I saw that you said that this allows the city to create a housing commission, correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] A small business enterprise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right but, okay, on line 19, page 2, you talked about creating a housing committee. Just very quickly, I just wanted to know are you changing the name of the Greensboro Housing authority to the housing commission? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, we are now using compliance officer, and that is the name that they are using. They are not using the building inspector name. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, the motion on the floor is for a favorable report with a referral to finance. All in favor, please signify by saying aye, opposed say no, the ayes have it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair, thank you members of committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Our next bill is House Bill 418, which has a PCS. And we have a motion from Representative Collins to accept the PCS. All in favor say aye. And Representative Ramsey, or Representative Moffitt. Its Moffitt, and Ramsey. Lewis, and Martin, I don’t know. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairmen, members of the committee, House Bill 418 allows Buckham County, in the city of Asheville to establish a Countywide Parks and Rec cultural authority to collaborate and use their facilities to gather in a more efficient manner. There’s a governance model that allows on the PCS for four members appointed by the county, three appointed by the city. That’s the only matter of contention with the city and the county on this bill as of now. The city and county have been in discussions, the county and city managers have been working this through. I spoke with the vice mayor this morning, so they’re fairly close on this, and I think the city’s Representative is here this morning and would ask you to support this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that your presentation? Alright, do we have somebody from the city who would like to speak to the committee? Please approach the mic and identify yourself please, for the committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairmen, and embers of the committee thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the city of Asheville. I’m Jack Cazort and I represent the City of Asheville. We very much..

[SPEAKER] Appreciate the sponsor of this bill bringing this forward. The City supports this proposal and as Representative Ramsey indicated we are in discussions with the County right now about the membership. I've discussed that with all three members of the delegation, and we’re confident that all that will be worked out. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Members do we have any questions for the bill sponsors or our guest speaker then? Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, could you tell me how much seven cents per $100 for the county would be? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, right now that, it’s about $2 million, $2½ million a penny. But that’s the maximum tax rate the county commissioners could ever set. There’s different ways to structure this as you’re under current law, the county tax rate’s 52 ½ cents. So, they’re going through a reevaluation this year and for all the municipalities in Barkin County. So, ultimately it will be up to the county commissioners to set this tax rate just like it will be up to them to set their county tax rate as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Setzer, how are you, sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Very well. To make a motion at the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. Representative Collins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just have question for the bill sponsors. Are you getting much feed back one way or another on whether the citizens of Barkin County like this idea of a tax increase potential for recreation? Are you getting much feedback either way? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, Representative Collins, first I would note, this is not a tax increase bill in the extent you already have existing facilities existing costs that are currently being borne by county tax payers and by city tax payers. And this is an effort to collaborate and work together and put them all together and do it more efficiently as a region. There was one letter to the editor in the Ashville paper critical of it. This is perhaps one bill that residents of the City of Ashville will be more appreciate of, and residents outside the City of Ashville might not be appreciate of. But I represent parts of the City of Ashville and many parts that are not in the City of Ashville. So, the major focus of this bill is to encourage our city and county governments to work together instead of running their own parks and rec facilities. This has been talked about for many, many years. We've just never been able to get over the hump. And I think we’re about as close now to doing it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, do we have any other questions? Seeing none, did we have a motion on the floor? Representative Setzer, thank you sir. [SPEAKER CHANGED] I move in favorable for the Proposed Committee Substitute for House Bill 418 and re-refer to the Committee on Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All in favor say aye. [aye] Opposed say no. The ayes have it. Our next bill is House Bill 531, which also has a PCS. I think Representative Carl Ford has made a motion we accept. All in favor say aye. Gentlemen. We have a handout, a couple handouts for that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, this bill allows the Barkin County to transition the zoning authority to the county from the town of Weaverville. Currently there are six municipalities in our county. Only two of those municipalities have exercised ETJ in the past. That was the City of Ashville and the Town of Weaverville. As you’re aware, there’s a current bill regarding the City of Ashville, ETJ. This is on the Weaverville ETJ. Weaverville Town Council and the county are in discussions on the regulations that would be applicable in the areas around the town. And I think it’s fair to say, they are not opposed to this bill. There is also an additional part of this bill that would allow the county to place regulations on a few areas of the county that over the years that are donut holes that under state law, they’re not allowed to place regulations on areas smaller than one square mile, 640 acres. And this bill will also allow them to do that so there would be uniformity throughout the county. The county has a long term land use plan as engaged consultants to prepare that, spent lots of money over the year to do that. So, it would be in accordance with that practice. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, do we have any questions for those sponsors? Representative Ford, opposed.

Representative Floyd. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At the appropriate time to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is the appropriate time, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Move for a favorable report to PCS, unfavorable to original… What is it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, we have a motion on the floor for a favorable report for PCS on House Bill 431 with a referral to finance. All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, say no. The ayes have it. Our final bill in the agenda is House Bill 544, which will be presented by Representative Hamilton. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will be brief in the interest of time. This is a very simple bill. It simply removes the Sunset Provision that had been placed on one of the civil service positions in Wilmington, and it results in making that position a regular, at-large seat with the same term limits as all the other positions on the civil service commission. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Setzer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At the appropriate time, I'd like to make a motion for favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would ask Representative Setzer to remove his motion so that I can make the motion for my hometown to have this particular item. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Setzer? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It would be my pleasure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Move for a favorable report at the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Members-- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection. (laughter) [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, you are recognized for your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Move for a favorable report of House Bill 544. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have a motion on the floor for a favorable report for House Bill 544. All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, please say no. The ayes have it. Thank you, ladies and gentleman, for running through a bunch of bill this morning. We are adjourned.