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 | June 24, 2013 | Committee Room | Finance

Full MP3 Audio File

There was a call for the public hearing and we are complying with that request. Gonna ask Greg Rooney to give you a quick summary of what is in the bill currently. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. There are five main sections and provisions in the bill. And I’m just going to kind of recap what this summary has. The first section does, deals with the duty of a city to provide municipal services under certain conditions. Municipal services are water and sewer. And the condition, the main conditions are the application has to be within 60 days enactment of this bill and that the property owner has to abide by any agreements to provide road improvements. The other big thing, some other big items in the bill is it annexes 171 acres into the city of Durham. This is 751 South property. A third major item is it provides design build authority for the city of Durham for its police headquarters and other buildings related to the police force and 911. It amends the charter of the city of Durham to increase the authority for the city council to delay annexation for up to 10 years. The current authority is 3 years, so an annexation must occur within 3 years of the vote. At this charter movement pass it could be 10 years. The fourth major section is the design build authority for the water treatment. This is for the county of Durham design build on water treatment for a new water treatment facility. And those are the major five provisions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Questions from the committee? Representative Lubke, member of the committee, called for the public hearing. Representative Lubke, sir, would you like to make a brief comment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you madam Chair. My comment is simply to thank you for honoring the request for a public hearing and for bringing citizens together for an opportunity to express themselves. I very much appreciate it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Our first speaker will be Cate Fellman. Ms. Fellman? Ma’am if you want to come to the microphone and hold the button down, you can speak from right there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hello, my name is Cate Fellman. When I moved to Durham 8 years ago, I was pleased to learn that many citizens were actively involved in decision making in our community. The first city council and county commission meetings I ever attended were in Durham. And they can be rough and tumble affairs. I’m impressed our local leaders truly listen to citizen input and value community decision making. In the case of annexation of water and sewer to this proposed development at the Chatham county line, everyone I spoke to agreed. This would be a huge mistake. It would raise our taxes, and divert resources from Durham’s reinvigorated downtown and areas still in need of redevelopment. Durham’s citizens let their city council know in no uncertain terms that this wasn’t the direction that our city should take. And the beauty was that they listened, despite immense pressure from two individuals, their lawyers, and their deep pockets. The city listened to the citizens. Taking into account the city’s own analysis and the upside down financials of extending services to the far edge of the county. Please do not reject the vote of our city council. Don’t turn a deaf ear to the citizens of Durham who have played by the rules and said no to this development on its merits. If the state reverses Durham’s decision, my question is Who’s next? Who will be silenced next? If we truly want citizen engagement, we must trust citizens and their elected representatives at the local level. Don’t allow two high rollers with connections in the state legislature to trump the voice of democracy. Please vote no on Senate Bill 315. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, ma’am. Don Moffitt. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good afternoon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the committee. I’m Don Moffitt and I serve on Durham’s city council. I oppose Senate Bill 315 and I ask you to do the same. As a council member, I’m elected by people I see every day in the grocery store, at work and in church. I have an up close perspective on what citizens want and in the fall they will decide

Time type of plant which we've had a page from my performance in their community difficult for them and find the time he demanded kids to understand the implications of the consequences of potential outcome time ago because you can't have a North Carolina general assembly they can understand that a detail and come to that entity, even if they must abide by deputy chief of the plate and, from the back of the anti-kickoff they can and should not assume the additional projects that described about the queue for the death for the status of the elephant of the benefit of a divided 50 utilities have to cut with a bad deal for the taxpayers the prophecy that would have provided time with a fixed fee that if the property for years to come from added to the list that came before the council to feed, if anybody help put in a time when the support that could be that this is a local matter and 1/2-built a key advantage of that the legislature is not a place to sell individual disputes the length of the puppeteers to determine if you'd like setting up access to tell if they could find a careful consideration the budget and that time that time and then she and they don't have to admit that the government at the Kennedy family plan, and the time he came to an incredibly competitive money from the EU time and time that you alive Ku band, lot of things right and bond got good economic times that try any time a decade that the issue of the golden rule that many linemen landfill and then the whole time, if you have them do unto you that the court that one that had you had to go and the whole time and the GL of the development and he would tell you today that the definition the likely Al Haig and developer's request for an occasion to tell me they can't compete and did not name the killing again anytime from which to take a look at you claiming that now that the 19th at the time here would get caught up in the choir defeated the time you do after that, but the courtroom tactic and to help ensure demanding that day and time defending a leading to an FA to help according to jack FE treaty to allow many times remain alive longer an issue that AMA: (SPEAKER CHANGES) the death of a developer to deliberation I hope you would like to try and go back into the colt I might have helped lead to ½-life-fourth the corner, and that in his hand time they can then chairman and the committee Monday and (SPEAKER CHANGES) Tom Miller, Atty. in the living, all my life like many others-time high of my own, and Walter said the blood accomplices government might have people come to decide for themselves hope that I'm more concerned even the most crucial and you accomplish and if they created: the life that despite its implications of the time why bill to the level 86-foot ago of the 751 from time to build the project to compel extension to the National Services and annexation only to the logic is procedural history is identical to those refusal to the next 751 felt budget to make sure that the bill has no application beyond those unique circumstances: the affected only 462 days following its passage of the 61st day: speaker notes to the other than the annual budget of the seventh time project that the bill that's more than that of 751 record a large project to study by the June ballot, we have both city and county zoning changes completely controlled time this decade ago and superstitions entitled to the benefit of seeing cancerous and deploying that the obligations of a mime edition flight via my neighbors do with??......

compels the city to use its power of eminent domain to obtain the rights of way in easements over property of ordinary citizens to extend the services to the 751 project. Whether or not those ordinary citizens want to make their property available for those uses. Senate bill 315 is a bad bill. Everything about it promotes favoritism over the general welfare and the public good. Members of the House, I ask you to stop this legislation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Miller. Sarah Terry? Sorry. Hold it, don't hold it- Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My name is Sarah Terry, and I first want to thank you for holding this hearing and listening to what is in the hearts and the minds of the people of this state on this important issue. I have lived in North Carolina for nearly 20 years, and I'm proud of living in Durham, sending my kids to Durham public schools, and attending church in Durham. I've seen so many good things happen in Durham since I first moved here. The result of local decision making that really reflects how the people who live and work here want to see Durham grow. If this bill passes, I wonder where Durham will be in another 20 years. I worry that people who don't live here will have the power, with no accountability to local voters to change things against the wishes of the community. I don't know of any North Carolinian who wants decisions on local issues being made by those who don't have to live with and pay for the consequences. Please ask yourself how would you feel if Durham officials all of a sudden had a say in where apartments, strip malls, and factories got built in your communities. If that thought makes you uneasy, and it should, you need to vote against this bill. If you are against the long arm of government reaching into local decision making, you need to vote against this bill. If you want to keep this from happening in your community, you need to vote against this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Carolyn Gunther? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm John Gunther, I'm a Durham native, born and bred, and I work in Durham, and I live on the Chancellor's Ridge subdivision which is immediately across 751 from the proposed annexation and development. Our association consists of nearly 400 homes and 80 town homes, and I've reviewed my comments with the current president and board and they endorse what I'm about to say. Our neighborhood and its HOA have been actively concerned about and opposed to the development of this area for 5 years. Over 80% of our homeowners are opposed to this. When it started out, we learned what the rules were for expressing opposition and working with the city and county bodies to make our feelings known, have them communicate with us and us with them so that we could have a good understanding with the local bodies of what's going on. I applaud the city council of Durham for refusing to let this development and annexation proceed after they've carefully worked with us to understand the implications for Durham and its citizens, it's a very complex issue. Now it's frustrating for us to be at a point where after we've tried to follow the rules and do things by the book, we find that the state legislature is considering getting involved in this issue. We have really worked hard to communicate with the local city and county governments about this, and now we don't understand why there's a reason for the state government to become involved. Please don't become involved in this issue, it's a local issue, it's best decided at the ground level by those who have spent an immense amount of time working on it, trying to understand it, trying to communicate with the citizens, with the homeowners' association and many other bodies, and we don't understand a reason for the state government to be involved. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chris Bobcoe, Mr. Bobcoe and party are coming forward. Folks, there's about 5 chairs right over here if anybody would like to come up and take these chairs in the back row, the staff is behind me so you're free to come up and take these 5 chairs right here. Chris Bobcoe?

Thank you sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you ma'am, thank you committee. My name is Christopher ??. I moved to North Carolina five years ago, and to Durham four years ago. It was one of the best decisions I made because Durham, North Carolina has turned out to be a great place to live. I'm here in Raleigh today to ask you to vote no on Bill 315. This bill will override local land use decisions that have been made, and should continue to be made at the local government level. Local governments are an essential part of the democratic process. They are elected by local citizens and the citizens and their local elected officials bring a deep understanding to issues involving their families, their resources and the shape of their community. This bill instead imposes big government decisions on local land use and services. Although the bill sets a dangerous precedent for every town in North Carolina, the language in this bill pertains to just one development in Durham. The bill is designed for the sole benefit of two apparently well connected land owners. This state government should not be picking winners and losers. Finally, note that the recent legislation makes it illegal for cities to annex a neighborhood against its will. But this bill will allow the developers to annex my city against Durham's will. Again, please, thank you for your consideration, and I ask you to vote no on this Bill 315. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. Will Wilson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good afternoon. My name is Will Wilson and I'm from Durham. I'm speaking against S.B. 315, a bill that takes away Durham's ability to plan for its future. Cities and towns from the mountains to the peat moss of the coast are driven by local businesses, the people who work hard to make them succeed. Teachers, police and all our public workers, and the volunteers serving on boards, commissions, councils, churches, schools and local non profits. This bill vetoes those local efforts. This bill vetoes the dedication of people that opposed and supported this one well connected outside developer's goals. This bill takes away local control and if you approve, it opens up a new era in North Carolina where outside money and political connections dictate how the property next door gets developed. This bill says that the best approach to make a fast buck is to seek out powerful legislators anywhere across the state and first line up a bill in the legislature, then tell local officials the way things are going to work. Local control and local investment builds strong North Carolina communities. Each community has unique resources and problems, but when people come together to work out those difficult issues, the outcome is a better future for its citizens. So I ask you to please consider this before you vote. Do you want a North Carolina that's for sale to the highest bidder or do you want a state that's in the hands of the people who care about local needs and can best leverage local resources for each community's future? Selling out communities to outsiders seeking quick money or political revenge is bad when Democrats do it and it's bad when Republicans do it. This bill makes it happen in my town right now, but it could happen just as easily in your town. Thank you for your service. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. Carolyn Erinson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hi. My name is Carolyn Erinson. And I have a speech written but I'm a rebel and I'm not going to read it. I'm also a Rotarian, and I love Rotary. I've been in Rotary for six years and one of the things of Rotary is service above self, which many of y'all might be Rotarians and know that. And the other way is the four way test. It's an amazing thing that made me want to be in that group, because the first thing is is it the truth? Secondly, is it fair to all concerned? Will it build good will and better friendship, and is it beneficial to all concerned? I looked at this bill and whether or not this was for a development I want or don't want, it is not beneficial to all concerned. Have they been honest in how they're dealing with this? Have they been truthful? Just look at all the things going on. If you really investigate this, where is the truth? Last night I went to sleep and I cried myself to sleep. I take this stuff very seriously. It really goes to my heart. Because I love Durham passionately, and it breaks my heart to see our community divided like this, over a development that's

?? out of city when probably the majority of the people here are from the city. It breaks my heart to think that two people have divided, an extraordinary city that I love passionately. Over a bill that we quite honestly shouldn't even have because it really isn't for the benefit of all citizens of Durham, it's for the benefit of the two. I hope you will take the four way test before you think so or do this bill. Thank you everyone. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you ma'am, Susan Sule. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you to the finance committee for this opportunity, my name is Susan Sule, and I live in Durham. I am here to ask for your vote against Senate bill 315 which would force the city of Durham to extend water and sewer way on to the county so that private developers can build to the density they desire. This is a city issue, one that the Durham planning department, city council and local residents have visited at least three times. Each time the numbers just did not add up to make this a sensible use of tax dollars. I speak today with the support of my Durham neighborhood ??. My neighborhood works with local commercial owners to make our neighborhood more walkable. we work with the city planners to revitalize our urban neighborhoods around us, and we work with develops to redesign a nearby abandoned commercial area that we have much more to do. People are building new homes in our neighborhood showing that our efforts are recognized. Mine is one of many neighborhoods in Durham, each with it's own struggles and plans. I am proud to help with this work. I have seen how important the voice of neighbors is in planning. This work happens everyday, in every city and county in our state. Volunteers and professionals working together. We are local folks making local decisions about local issues trying to make our community a better place. Senate bill 315 is a giant intrusion into a local issue. It obliterates the important process of local folks making local decisions about local issues. Please say no. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Deb Christie. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Good afternoon, my name is general Christie, I live at 5212 twin pines lane, Durham. I lived in the Durham area for most of my 64 years. I want to thank the finance committee of the house for having this public hearing and thank you for your service. I urge you to vote against Senate bill 315 which would compel the General Assembly to meddle in local affairs, and would prevent the Durham city council from setting the city's own boundaries and from determining the proper use of our precious resources. Please don't cooperate with this plan of two speculators to circumvent local government in matters that is always been decided locally. The extension of utilities and services and annexation. Think of the president this bill would sent. Do you really want to open that can of worms. Thank you for respecting local control over development. Thank you for voting against Senate bill 315. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you ma'am, ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: My name is ??, I am here as a member of a family that lives out in a farm in Southern Durham county that is very near 751. My family raises cattle and operates a ?? dairy farm which is now open. My parents farm this land before, and their parents before that, and we have farmed this farm all the way back to the 1700s. We grew up learning traditional North Carolina values which include two of my ?? and ?? favorites. The importance of individual responsibility and ?? of not meddling in other peoples business. It's not in this city in care of my family, but it's not my best is to tell my neighbors down the road what to do or interfere with his decisions. There is another value I was taught to relates this and that's the golden rule that Carol who ?? earlier already mentioned. Treat the neighbors thyself, I don't

I don't want my neighbor telling me what to do, and I have to resist the temptation not to tell him what to do. These values, and this is important, have always been a central part of what goes in North Carolina government, and for centuries, starting when my family first came to North Carolina, when the regulators stood up to royal interference, we have always believed that people and their local communities all have to decide what is good and right for them. This Legislature, just this term, followed that principle when it looked at placing limits on how cities could annex and control areas outside of their limits, and it does not make sense to me now, that that same Legislature would seriously consider a bill that amounts to telling our county what we can or cannot do within our boundaries. If the Legislature approves this bill, it will be voting against what the state I love stands for, and I urge you to please vote against. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Ma'am. Tina Motley-Pearson [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hi, my name is Tina Motley-Pearson, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you today. I have lived in North Carolina my whole life. In fact, I'm a fifth generation native on both sides of my family, and my daughter makes the sixth generation. Durham was once a center for textile manufacturing, and known the world over for tobacco products. When the last cotton mill closed in 1986, and the last of the tobacco companies, Ligget and Myers, left us in 1999, Durham faced a major employment problem, and a downtown full of abandoned warehouses, and not much else. Under strong leadership, we've come roaring back, and our downtown is now the envy of many other cities. If you haven't been to Durham in 10 years, you wouldn't believe your eyes, and our unemployment is among the lowest in the state. Clearly, we're doing something right. One of the things that makes North Carolina a fine place to live, is the fact that every community gets to make their own decisions, right or wrong. Durham's leaders have had a great track record, why would you want to change this? The state has no business dictating this kind of decision. Durham has worked tirelessly to improve our downtown, and as we move on to other areas that need to be revitalized, we do not need another mini-city, 10 miles away on the county line, sucking up precious resources. Why would you second-guess the decision of our local leaders? Please vote no on Senate Bill 315. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Ma'am. Donna Rudolph. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good afternoon. Thank you for receiving us and letting us speak our minds. Not long ago I finished a 20-year stint working in state government, not in North Carolina, but in Mexico I worked for three governments. Many Mexican legislatures were freely telling me what was wrong with the United States, but more than once they told me what they admired abut this country. We admire your towns and city governments, your towns and cities have vitality, our are stagnant because they are run by the state or the nation, that's why our young people leave home for Mexico City or the United States. I think SB 315 puts North Carolina on that same track. Since this country's founding, all levels of our government rest on this principle - officials who make decisions should be accountable to their voters. If the NC Legislature imposes a change on a city contrary to the popular preferences the local council reflects, you undermine the ability of citizens to decide their own future, thereby breaking the representative government bond that holds North Carolina and the United States together. Besides ignoring our local and national government principles, SB 315 presents a threatening precedent to every city in North Carolina whose city council dares to say no to development the taxpayers refuse. Please stop 315, remembering the words of our first Republican president - "No man is good enough to govern another man without the other's consent"...Abraham Lincoln...

and him instead and record a matter from Professor Savant is not news and professor of public affairs than in groups, but use the and in the state and presently emeritus at Arizona Stadium. that's written a matter to all finance committee members about this government property that Mister Moffat, Change speaker:I think of the letters referenced, the professor did you know members of the unit. we have it. Change speaker: if you have been infiltrated in the tournament. for your clerk of the committee to talk to know is to cater because you are Change speaker:good afternoon Madame chairwoman and members of the finance committee, my name is Steve Makino out of the dorm for the past twenty three years. it's a great place to live in a positive change. we've experienced over the past twenty years, must be seen to be believed to have been the norm lately and your family for a weekend and really enjoy. I'm here to ask you to vote no for Senate Bill thirty three fifteen along all the people who will join me in saying no to just raise your hand. Change speaker: thank you why this silly bill, even in front of you. it's obvious to everybody that the great power of the state of North Carolina should never be used for the sole benefit of two out-of-town land speculators and at the expense of the taxpayers of dorm is wrong no matter of those speculators are well-connected and apparently they are is wrong no matter what political arm-twisting is going on behind-the-scenes. it's hard to figure out the rationale for the him build prime mover is helping other developers attorney, an old friend. we all have friends we like to do them favors using this a bit much. I read it. Representative Howard Madame chair fitted the bill smells funny. I agree but I think she was too refined, if the General assembly wants to guarantee the success of private investments will sign me up. my 401(k) suffering lately that I will be the only one. the line will scratch long-awaited grandfather Mountain. thank you, Change speaker:thank you, sir. Kim Pressler Change speaker: Good afternoon, thank you for tha opportunity about this important issue. My name is compressed learn. I was born in North Carolina, with the exception of one year I lived here my entire life. I spent a large portion of my adult life living only in South Durham. I'm a lifelong Republican and German makes me pretty rare. one of the central tenets of the Republican Party is that important decisions, decisions are best made by the people affected by then and the big government solutions impose from afar almost always get it wrong. it's just common sense folks on the ground will look will better understand the situation in their backyard and politicians who live hundreds of miles away. this bill, Senate Bill three fifteen a big government solution. if there ever was one, would benefit to individuals at the expense of the citizens of Durham, a big government payoff for Chilean speculators. is this what you signed up for when you came to Raleigh Durham city Council voted repeatedly not to annex the seven fifty one South property. they studied the issue deeply they undertook a financial analysis of five our work was almost one hundred pages long and that it would take a long time for the city to recoup the cost, leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab. the Council read reams of material and listen to hours of public hearings and finally the city Council voted twice, most recently on June third against the development of recent polling in your paper showed that eighty seven percent approved of the Council 's decision. now some of the general assembly want to impose a big government solution. they think that somehow, they somehow know better than the citizens of their own and their elected city Council and don't need to say the issues at all this is that link and you know it's wrong, it's on Republican. it's undemocratic and its potentially unconstitutional. I respectfully request that you allowed Iran to continue making decisions regarding. please note now the Senate bill contesting the room, by

[SPEAKER] Good afternoon, My name is Thelma White. I stand in support of 751 South of Bill 315. I am the president of one of the larger communities in Durham with over 200 homes and still building in South Durham. And our community supports this bill. I’m in support of this bill for several different reasons. I’m going to start off with jobs, jobs and jobs. We need jobs in North Carolina and in Durham. We need jobs. This project is going to bring over 1500 jobs when it’s being built. And after it’s finished, it’s going to bring over 3000 permanent jobs. We need jobs. Also I have three small children in the school system. This project is going to donate land for two schools, elementary, middle and possibly a high school. It’s going to donate land for a sheriff’s station and also for a fire station. This is good land. It’s not swampy land. It’s good land, just clear the trees and build it. And the school system approved of this and they accepted this in 2008. And I’m asking you to please support this project and it’s a lot of people in Durham who support this project, not just two people, the builders. Please don’t delay it by their untruthfulness. The money that will be saved for this school will be able to make us hire more teachers and teacher’s aides. And I have small grandchildren that need teachers and teacher’s aides. And it would also allow us to purchase more supplies and reduce the classroom sizes. And we need that. When another school was built in Durham, it costs us taxpayers in Durham and Durham County $38 million just for the land. And another one it costs $1.8 million to clear the land, and another additional $3 to $5 million to remove rocks for the school that’s been built on South Rockford and Martin Luther King. This project will save tax payers millions of dollars and allow us to put the money where it needs to be which is in the classroom. I’m asking everyone that supports this project to please raise your hand. Please raise your hand. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Jackie Whitestaff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good evening. Thank you for allowing us to come today and speak before you. But I want to make three corrections that were made by three different speakers in here that actually made some falsehoods. One, Mr. Moffit was not elected by the citizens of Durham. He was appointed by four council members. There was another misstatement that 87 percent of the people in Durham had been told and that they were against this. Well, as I can see, I didn't see any of us in that first group. So, I don’t think we were every told. That’s another one. I want to say that this project, we would like to see this bill go forward. This should not be a political issue. I heard several things back there about out of town land speculators. I think the people that are developing this, they've been in the same place for at least 13 years. So, when you say out of town, do you mean moved here yesterday, last week or whatever? But eleven years makes you a citizen of Durham in my opinion. There are some jobs that we need. Could everyone here that’s here for . . . [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ma’am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] . . . 51. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair will control the agenda. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. There are some jobs that we need in Durham. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in Durham. And it’s even higher in the black community. And anytime there’s a possibility that we can see jobs become available to us, we are to support that. You know, I’m hearing all of these different arguments about why this project shouldn't go through. But the problem we have, we have an elected body that’s afraid to challenge another body of people that are playing politics in Durham. And if that body can’t get it right, this body needs to help our town get it right. So I ask you to support this bill and get it right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, ma’am. Victoria Peterson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m Victoria Peterson. I’m sort of very embarrassed to sit up here and listen at a lot of these lies. I mean just pure lies, dishonesty. I have been in both political parties. Both political parties. I live in Durham. And let me give you the real scoop. If you look at the African-American community in Durham, a lot of our young men need jobs.

We have a serious crime problem going on in our community. It's not all over Durham, but it is in the African American community. Many of us see this project of putting a lot of our young people to work in this community. Now, there are many folks that do not live in the African am community who are employed who have nice homes and nice families. They may not be worried about these issues, but we are. Over the last several weeks, we have had young men killing and murdering one another. If they were employed, this kind of foolishness would not be going on in our community. These folks are trying to do this development have a history. I do not want to get myself in trouble here, but I'm gonna mention one of the projects that they have worked on and that's creed. Creed. Creed has hired Durham residents. Creed has five buildings in our community. Five. They also have built a development in our community and matter of fact, I will not embarrass anyone here, but we have retired legislators that live in one of their communities that they have built. Please, these are not just some jack lake developers just fell out of the sky. These men have a history to our community to Durham and they have been faithful to our community. They have hired our people. Many of our folks that have sat on the city council, and I'm not gonna beat up on our city council members, but I remember we voted against the ball park in Durham years ago. The citizens did, but the ball park was still built anyway. Now, tell me why if everybody's concerned that the people who represent us vote for something and they vote against it or for it, that should cease, but that does not happen. Thank you very much. Oh, and please support this project. Please support it and thank you very much. [speaker changes] Thank you, ma'am. ?? Allison. [speaker changes] Thank you very much. I want to thank the legislature for getting involved. I want to commend you Madame Chair. This is not a political issue, this is not a, it is a moral issue. I hoped that when I went to church yesterday, and I would ask you all to read psalm 82. Basically, you can help us. I'm gonna leave one word - two words with you-- H-E-L-P. You can help us with health issues, you can help us with home issues, you can help us with economic issues, you can help us with education issues, you can help us with legal issues. Don't make it illegal, make it legal. It's legitimate for you all to get involved. And the bottom line at ?? in HELP. We ask you to get involved. This is a moral issue to do good. You all over here have power. I hope you will understand the moral purpose of power. You have the power, make it a moral issue, get involved, help us from the precinct level all the way to the policy level. We thank you. We need to think about the person who just died recently, just was buried. Governor Jim Holshouser, excellent republican. It's not about democrats. It's not about republicans. It is about moral issue and human beings. Doing something. It's a moral issue. Madame Chair, use your power in the purpose of good moral way. We need your help legislators. Do not talk about - we come to you at the state and at the nation, to make a difference in the lives of people. I've been working over fifty years. I'm gonna tell you how long still trying to look young, but in the meantime,it's in your hands legislators. Come together and vote for this. Cause we've gotta develop it. I've not always been for developers, but I'm on this one because they're gonna do some things and they're gonna do it right. Please, it's a moral issue. All of this bull jive about talking about getting involved, Get involved! I want to thank you, and then I'll come back an say thank you Mr. legislators, Mrs. legislators. You've done a good job. Support it. Thank you. [speaker changes] Tom Fetzer. [speaker changes] Madame Chair and members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to speak today. What most of the previous speakers have failed to tell you is that this pro

Was recommended for delivery of orders sewer by the Durham city manager, was also approved for rezoning by the Durham planning board, as well as the Durham county commission. They did so because 751 South is a walkable, connected compact, and sustainable community. The support for this project in Durham is broad, diverse, and eclectic endorsed by the following organizations. The Durham chamber of commerce, the Durham association of educators, Durham association of realtors, the Durham committee on the affairs of black people, the friends of Durham, The Durham morning herald ?? Editorial board. Now I invite you to think for a moment about the organizations I've just recited in support of this project. Groups that are seldom if every aligned and suggest to you that in addition to receiving the water and sewer request they request, connections they request that the developers are also deserving the Nobel Peace Prize. Their ?? good reasons that all these organizations support 751 south. First and foremost it will stimulate the creation of over 3,000 jobs, that's according to the UNC institute for economic development. Their gonna buy a million dollars’ worth of water a day in Durham at twice the going rate in a town that's recently raised water and sewer rates on its citizens twice, without any expense to the city. Because they're gonna build a water and sewer infrastructure and give that to the city. In addition 751 south will pay for nine million dollars in traffic improvements throughout south Durham including 2 million in traffic improvements which have no connection to the site whatsoever. They're gonna give two school sites, a Durham county sheriff's substation, and a fire station site. The first project in the history of Durham where the developers voluntarily setting aside 10% for portable housing. $450 million dollars in additional tax base to the city. They meet all federal, state environmental law guidelines and the project received a 96% grade for smart growth. They're adhering to the yet to be enacted Jordan Lake rules. And again to those who argue about this is interference with local government this project's been approved by the Durham city manager, the Durham planning board, and the Durham county commissioners, thank you. [Speaker Change] Thank you Sir. Alex Mitchell. [Speaker Change] Thank you Madam Chair. My name is Alex Mitchell and I'm the President of Durham Development. As you can see I have no horns, I'm not a monster. I was born and raised in Winston-Salem. I spent my high school years living in David County. I graduated from NC State. Married a girl from Salem College, and we settled down in Durham about 15 years ago where we live in the three ring circus that involves raising 4 boys. I'm proud to call myself a native North Carolinian. I'm also proud to say that as a local developer we have listened to the critics of this project and we have responded. They screamed about traffic so we sat down with the NC DOT and the city of Durham department of transportation. We agreed to every single improvement that they requested. A total of more than $7 million. We later agreed to the mayor’s request to do another $2 million worth of roadwork as new ?? to our project. They screamed about protecting Jordan Lake so we took our 165 acre piece of property, we surveyed every specimen tree, we designed our project around those trees. We set aside 50 acres for open space, we committed to the county in writing to cap our impervious service at 55% although we are allowed up to 70%. Finally in 2010 we agreed to the yet to be enacted new Jordan Lake rules. I would have thought the environmental groups including the people's alliance would have run to our side and said look here's a high profile project that is willing to use the rules that we have celebrated as the savior for Jordan Lake, that didn't happen. That's when I realized this is not about the environment, traffic, or any other logical issue. This is simply growth versus no growth. This is not my backyard. The people's alliance has vilified me and intimidated the elected officials. They have worked through misinformation and lies to make people scared to come out and support a project that is not only good for Durham, but good for the state of North Carolina. They have convinced the city council to ignore the decision of the county commissioners that rezoned us. The advice of their own city manager to sell us water and sewer in the recommendation for approval by their own planning department. They convinced them to kill this project by denying the precious resources of water and sewer. I'm here five and half years after buying the property, I'm here three years after having it rezoned. I am here after fighting and winning two Superior court cases financed in part by members of the people’s alliance. I am here hoping that this assembly sees that this isn't responsible government fighting irresponsible development, but quite the opposite. It is irresponsible government doing the bidding of no growth groups in order to stop responsible growth, thank you. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Mitchell. Anita Key-Faust.

Thank you, Madame Chair. I’m Anita Keith-Foust. I’m a native of Durham. Been there all my life. Almost 60 years. I want to let you know I was very distressed sitting back here having to listen to things that were not true talking about the project. I support SB 315. I also support this project. The reason I support it is this – I grew up in Durham when there was a tobacco industry. Durham. I hear a lot of people saying they’re from North Carolina. I’m from Durham. Proud to be from Durham. I grew up going to school in the downtown area. I could smell the tobacco in the morning. It smelled like oatmeal. Then when it was time to leave school, it smelled like Fritos. I really have to tell you that I was disappointed when the tobacco industry left. But guess what? The jobs went away and our crime went up. We started having people come in from Research Triangle Park. We supported Research Triangle Park because we thought the jobs would go to the people who live in Durham. We have a lot of people who are not from Durham making decisions for us, who welcomed them with open arms. Now the people in Durham who lost those… I can’t see that. You’re going to have to tell me the time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One minute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. All right. The people in Durham. The poor people in Durham. If you notice this is almost a black and white issue, even though Alex is not black. But you see, the people who are supporting the project are the people who don’t have any money. The people who need jobs. Those 3000 jobs that Alex is trying to provide for Durham, other people are probably going to come to Durham, too. They came to Research Triangle Park. Let me tell you about the tax situation. Nobody cares about whether the taxes go up. My taxes on my house went from $600 to $2000 like that. Nobody came out to help me. I’ve got to scrap it together the best I can. Please give our people jobs. This SB315 would not be necessary if all those things that Alex talked about, how the intimidation has gone on. Help us. During slavery time, we had to get help from people who would look out for us, and they were outside of our community. We’re looking to you because we couldn’t get it fixed. Please help us. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rebecca Board? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m here today to ask you to vote against this plan. It intrudes into what the citizens of Durham have been asking for. The citizens of Durham voted out many of the county commissioners who supported this plan. The citizens of Durham opposed it so much that we turned over. There’s a new majority in the county commissioners who not have passed this. The citizens of Durham are handling this on their own, locally, discussions amongst ourselves, elections amongst ourselves. There’s no intimidation. There’s just good communication. And the system is working the way it should. We do not need people from North Carolina state coming down and telling us how to conduct things in our won city. We’ve got an excellent track record. We know what we’re doing Please let our elected officials do what is wise in their own eyes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, ma’am. Melissa Rooney? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hello. My name is Melissa Rooney. I live at 301 Spring Garden Drive in Durham, North Carolina. My stepdad is salt of the earth people from Eden, North Carolina. I grew up raised Republican in Martinsville, Virginia. And one of the things I was always told, from Civil War history, Revolutionary/Civil War all the way to present day, at least in Martinsville, Virginia, was that the Republican Party believed in Town Hall meetings. And I remember going to some Town Hall meetings in Martinsville, Virginia, and seeing that as the foundation of Democracy. This is a town hall meeting. This is a town hall meeting that has had several town hall meetings in Durham. The people have decided that regardless of any promises of jobs, regardless of private property rights, regardless of environmental concerns, this is an issue about the boundaries of local, state and even federal government. The state of North Carolina is reaching over and negating multiple town hall meetings in Durham, North Carolina. It’s disillusioning to me, it should be disillusioning to any Republican. It should be disillusioning to any American to see this happening in a microcosmic situation here, when we read about it day in and day out at a federal level. I plead with you not…

join them just stick it out and keep the integrity of the ?? that we have in this country ?? state of north Carolina, thank you. [speaker change] ?? [speaker change] good afternoon. ?? on the face of black people we support ?? 15, ?? year supported ??15, the ?? community had 78 years ?? they supported every major relevant bill, we fall for ?? we fall for ?? and now we are fighting for this ?? we are ?? so we are supporting this ?? 3000 jobs ?? people needs ?? so we are supporting development ?? so you can have the ?? so we have the school ?? police station ?? so that we can have ?? so i urge you, i urge you, i plea to you, please ?? consider what we are trying to do ?? for all America ?? service to mankind ?? this project stay alive ?? thank you and god bless you. [speaker change] ?? [speaker change] ?? chair of house finance committee thank you for the opportunity to speak today i am ?? for 25 years specialization in ?? over the year i defended the city against ?? sometimes for citizens and other times for developers unhappy with city council decision means to allow or disallow development ?? senate bill 315 should be disapproved because it ?? every year local government ?? makes thousands of decisions on ?? issues, they are complex and they were for a detailed knowledge of local conditions prior development ?? utility cost and capacity expected tax revenues, jobs and problem for ?? necessary infrastructure, financial analysis and ?? for the large development, spend hundreds of hours and do the exaggerated claims most developers make regarding the benefits of their developments the resulting conclusions ?? local affected officials ?? final decision and accountable ?? those decisions, the general assembly has neither necessary local information nor the time to make these decisions, do you as members of the house ?? to turn into these types of meetings with every local issue before you and in next five years as unhappy developers come to you asking for retrials for disapproval, i think not ?? was the first to provide water and food service repaying the taxes of the tax payees and should not be forced to accept development with terms and condition not ?? by the city council, thank you very much, I urge you to vote against this bill and i have been asked to remind you all that you received i believe an e-mail from David smith he has with ?? that is a well connected business group that in fact is in support of this development but is against this bill, thank you very much. [speaker change] ?? [speaker change] thank you madam chair and members of finance committee my name is ?? i stand where real ?? the county is ?? life long but also a 35 years plus ?? why should you get involved that really the question is before us, we need to get involved when we see something going ?? on a local level that we need the state to get involved in, when civil rights were going all right on local levels

...federal government got involved and Republicans were at the helm of making that happen. We now have a situation where environmental concerns are outweighing people's lives. Do the right thing. It's time that we stand up and say that we are for the people who live in the communities for which we govern. This is where we sit right now. I, for example, bought property in northern Durham in which all of a sudden it went from two acres per lot to three acres per lot. Why did I buy eight and half acres? In order to split it up into two acres per lot so that each one of my four children could have a house and we could call it home. What can we call it now? Who's daddy's favorite. This is a problem. We are regulated far more than what the State DNR has regulated for the area in which we live. How did that become an issue? Because of this well-funded PA organization that has come into or neighborhood and forced us to lose property values and property rights. It is a property rights issue. It is a do unto others as you want them to do unto you. It's been done to me. Do the right thing and let's correct it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Joe ??. Joe Mouser? Mouse? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I thank you, Madam Chair and members of this committee for allowing me to speak. I'm going to say to the State legislature, you're responsible for us as citizens of the State of North Carolina. And we're at a time now where jobs are paramount. Can we afford to turn back 3,000 jobs when in Durham City we have neighborhoods that are predominately black with over 50% unemployment. And I want my legislators to hear this. Over 50% unemployment. So I ask you to support this Senate Bill 315 and allow the State of North Carolina to have these 3,000 jobs. I want to say to you a lot of what's been said by the People's Alliance representatives here today is just not true. First of all, only one county commissioner got defeated last year and that was me. The only one. The other thing is this project is not going to cost the taxpayers of Durham anything. The developer bears all the expenses. It's just unfortunate that we have to come to you in order to make a wrong right. You have one organization with a lot of loud people and people who command the papers in Durham who have beat back this project. The majority of people in Durham want this project. When they came before the county commission it was two to one. And I would say to you today the majority of people here are in favor of the project. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. That completes our list of speakers. I'm going to go to the committee now and questions from the committee. Members of the committee. Mr. Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I guess staff, since they would explain the bill. I've heard several times about the developer bearing all the costs and in this explanation of the bill it says the property owner is reimbursed for the cost of improvements made under General Statute 168-328 to the extent generally required by the city. Could staff tell me what that means? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Cohen? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is correct that's stated by the bill but I don't know what the City of Durham's policy is for reimbursing developers for improvements in this situation. It says it shall conform to their policy. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Mr. Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there someone here from the City of Durham that could tell me how much the developer will be reimbursed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there anyone from the City of Durham that can properly address this? Yes, sir. If you'll give us your name, sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Tom ?? and it's ?? and I'm presently the Mayor of the City of Durham. That speaks to the fact that if someone else comes along and wants to use the water lines that the developer has paid for, they would have to reimburse the developer for that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Brawley? [SPEAKER CHANGES] What does...

What does someone else mean, because developer, as he sells these houses somebody else is gonna be using that water. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No it's not in the development. It's for persons who might tap into the lines outside the development to make use of the, make use of the water lines. The lines that are gonna go into the development and just like any other development, the property owner who, who taps onto the, the water pays for that. But as persons outside the development that might use those ?? lines would reimburse the developer for expenses there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Wells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you madam chairman. I'm glad to hear, see the Mayor's here. I wasn't quite sure who to direct this to. For those of us who are not from Durham, we've heard a lot about the city being required to extend water lines, extend city services. How far are the water and sewer lines from this property? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Mayor, if you would give us your name at this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I apologize, I said no, but I run public ??. My name is Bill Bell and I'm the Mayor of the city of Durham, North Carolina. I don't know the exact distance. It's really fairly close to the lines that are already on 751, so I don't know the exact distance, but whatever that distance is, the developers are gonna pay the full cost of that. The city won't pay for it and the whole idea about double rates, the whole idea about annexation is we have done an analysis of the development, we being the city, and if the development were to develop at a certain pace, we feel it would be about seven to eight years at least before the city could recoup the services that it would provide. So that's why it's important to change the charter from three years to ten years to allow that, not just for this development, for anybody else who wants to voluntarily annex into the city and wants water and sewer. So that, that's the reason why that, that, that part is in, in, in the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Wells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So you're saying that by extending out the annexation time period, we're, that helps the city of Durham get some tax space out there before ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It, it, it does, let, let me, do you mind if I follow up? I personally don't want the state to come in and tell us that we have to run water and sewer lines, but, but, but I'm going to preface that, but that happened the last time, and I sent a message that if we weren't able to get together with the developers, they were gonna run the same bill. I went to my Representatives, Representative Michaux, Representative Larry Hall, Representative Mike Woodick who sat on the city council, not Senator, and Senator Floyd McKissick, and I said look, are there votes in there to, to run this bill. And they said yes, you need to try to work out something. So that's the reason that I'm here. That we did work out something with the developer, it went to the city council, the city council voted against it, I'm fine with that, and now it's back over on this side. So there are, there are two issues to this, and it's not that I was freelancing trying to get a better bill. I was freelancing to get a bill because I've been told, if you don't do something, they're gonna run it anyway. So that's why I did what I did. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry about that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me see, I had some, yes, one more follow up, Mr. Wells we're over time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mayor, can you tell us to what extent the city is using its currently available water and sewer capacity, plus, within ten percent or so? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If, if you ask, again, Mayor Bill Bell from the city of Durham, if you're asking do we have the capacity to provide water and sewage to this development, the answer is yes. We have the capacity. We've done that type of analysis and it's no question. Based on where, where they are, it would benefit us in terms of not annexing it and just providing water and sewage because we're getting double the, double the rates. But as I said, seven, eight, ten years out, when we would like, possibly, to annex it we wanna make sure that we could do that, and our present charter doesn't allow that because we only go three years that's why we ask for ten years. But we have the capacity to provide water and sewer to this development. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. Representative Moore? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank, thank you, madam Chair. I guess I'm part of the reason we're all here today. It's good to see everybody. The, the question that, that a couple of folks wanted to make is why does someone who lives in the Western part of the state care about what happens in Durham? Well, you know what, we're all citizens of North Carolina, and I would submit to you that what's good for Durham is good for North Carolina. The, in this case, how did I get involved, I got involved because I heard the story of what these folks were trying to do to bring jobs to this area. Where they were trying to take an area and develop it, and trying to put this land to the highest and best use. And I saw what I believed was the city violating private land rights, mainly using access to water to thwart a development that had been approved by the county. And that just seemed fundamentally

...fair to me. That I will submit to you that's unfair in Durham. It would be unfair in Kinston, it would be unfair in Asheville, it would be unfair anywhere in the State. And so as a result of the that, that's why I began having some discussions with the members of the Durham delegation, with a number of folks, in looking at legislation. I will point out to the members that there was a bill filed initially that, at least I was told, that the city was pushing that would have passed legislation that would have essentially completely land lock this project. I don't know if that's true or not but that's the way it was portrayed. And that's how the whole prospect of the legislative environment began. But over the period of time, I've gotten to see what this family has done. The business they built with Cree Lighting, one of the best companies in this State bringing jobs to Durham, to Alamance County, counties all around this State. You've got folks who are showing a great commitment. I wish they were trying to do this in my county. I bet a lot of people sitting around this table would just be tripping all over themselves to have this kind of development happening in their county. Three thousand jobs. That's permanent jobs. Plus the construction jobs on top of it. That's an incredible thing. Folks, that's something all of us ought to be behind. I submit to you it's good for Durham, it's good for North Carolina. Thank you. [applause] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madam Chair. I naturally have to respond to my good friend Tim Moore over hear. Didn't have any business sticking his nose in Durham's business. [applause] It's up to the Durham people, it's up to the Durham delegation to do what the people in Durham want to do. We're the ones who will have to make the decision, Representative Moore. The people back here, both sides, are the ones who are going to have to make the decision. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Warren? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of order. Are we addressing the issue now among committee members or still taking public comments? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is an open meeting and we have welcomed members of the Durham delegation and also from the Senate, so it's permitted, yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, Madam Chair, I appreciate your giving us the opportunity to have both sides of this issue heard. We didn't need Representative Moore in at all to help us make any kind of decision. We will meet as a delegation before this matter is resolved and pass it on and that's it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Representative Jordan? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of quick questions and I don't know who would answer them, though. The first one is why is this project paying double water rights? Who would answer that, the Mayor? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can answer. It's a policy, not just for this project. It's a policy for any development that uses water and sewer outside the city limits, they pay double the rates. The research triangle park, for example. It's outside the City of Durham, they use city water, they pay double the rates. So it's not unique to this project. It's unique to any project that's outside the City of Durham that gets the water and sewer utilities from the City of Durham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] How far from Jordan Lake is this project? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would defer to the developers to answer that question. I don't have the exact numbers on that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Mitchell? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I could have one responding, Madam Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alex Mitchell, President of the Durham development. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you can answer that one question, Mr. Mitchell, please, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] According to Judge Howard Manning, it's one mile from Jordan Lake. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One mile, Mr. Jordan. We have the... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. Comment on the bill before us, Madam Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. My understanding is that the rules protecting Jordan Lake are for a half a mile out so that this project apparently is a mile out. I think I agree with Ms. Allison and Ms. Waguestaff that this sounds like a pretty good project to provide this many jobs and I agree with Representative Moore that we would love to have it in my area. I wish we could just transfer it since they don't seem to want it. Some of them don't seem to want it. But, Madam Chair, I think this is definitely something that would be good for the State, good for the county, good for the city and I would support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madam Chair. Two quick questions and I think both of these would be for the Mayor of Durham if the gentleman would yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Bell? Mayor Bell? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mayor Bell. The first one is, is there an alternative supply of water and sewer for this development or is the City of Durham the only source? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me, again, Bill Bell, Mayor of the City of Durham. Again, this is a matter that was done under the county commissioners. It was not done on the city council. And I don't want to give you a lot of history, but when the county commissioners approved the development and when...

the developer's team for the city asked them for extension of water and sewer utilities. This city council said no, but we--we--we said no because it was in litigation. And we've made it very clear that we were not going to address the issue of city and water--city and sewer utilities as long as it under--under litigation. The developer's lawyers said look, you've had this for a certain period of time; according to your policy you owe us an answer. We said if you want an answer, we're gonna [sic] give you an answer. The answer is no. That's the answer we gave them--to deny that. Then, as I understood it, the developers were then looking at using the county sewage treatment plant and possibly digging wells to do their project. Beyond that, I don't know of any other source of water. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. A second question, ma'am. [crosstalk] [SPEAKER CHANGES] I inferred from--from an earlier answer, and I just want to correct my understanding. If you were to supply water and sewer as an un-annexed development, that the statutes require you to annex it within three years or else you lose the ability to annex at any time in the future and that's where the additional cost comes in-- [SPEAKER CHANGES] No-Not--again, [??] bill [??] the City of Durham. That is not quite the way it is. Presently under our annexation rules, we're saying that if you want city and water services, you have to apply to be annexed into the City of Durham. And we approve the annexation, within three years we'll provide--we're required to provide--to annex you, and provide the services: police, fire protection, water, and sewer. If you also ask the water and sewer extension along with the annexation, we can begin supplying the water and sewer as soon as it's feasible. But, after three years, if we haven't--haven't annexed you, okay, you're automatically annexed to the city. We can't--we've gotta [sic] do it within a three year period of time. What we're saying is for this development, the due diligence that we did indicated it wouldn't pay--pay us back to annex them until seven or eight years out. So, therefore, we asked our charter to be changed from three years to ten years, which would allow the developer--if we approved it--to get the water and sewer, begin his development; seven to eight years out when it looks like it's feasible, then we could go ahead and annex and start providing other services. And then the water rates will go down to what an annexed area would be. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, I believe this is your bill, and we'd like to give you the opportunity to make any comments, sir, that you would like to make. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll keep my comments very abbreviated. I'd first like to thank the Chairperson for holding this public hearing today. I think it's always an excellent opportunity when people can come out--regardless of their position--on an issue and articulate it and do it succinctly. So this particular House Finance Committee can consider the merits of the bill, or the lack thereof, as the case may be. When Senator Wood and I first put this bill forward, I there was some confusion about what that bill consisted of. It was simply a bill, at that time, to allow the City of Durham to move forward with the design, build--method of construction for a new police headquarters. So, when it was submitted, it had nothing to do with 751, it had nothing to do with annexation, or any of the issues that are here today. What did occur in the interim was that the city council of Durham did vote the project down. Representative Moore did take interest in this particular project, and we worked together to look what could be done to replicate what would have been in the original agreement negotiated between the mayor and the developer as it relates to that project What you see before us in the PCS is essentially the essence of what that agreement was that was negotiated with the blessings of the city [??] intervening with the mayor; and of course, the developer. So that's what's before you--it's--it's--what you do with this bill--you've heard the public comment. The Durham delegation will be meeting tomorrow. Hopefully, we can reach some consensus on it. I don't know if we will. I have reason to believe it may be a divided vote among us. But, I just don't know. We know right now--looking and hearing from the audience that is here, that the city and the County of Durham are divided. There is no simple answer here. So I think it's a matter of evaluating what we have before us, determining whether it is in the best interest of the state to intervene, whether it's better to leave it local government to make decisions which they have already made, or whether there is some other alternative that's not before you at this time that could be considered. There are a number of tweaks or potential revisions that could be made to this particular PCS; which, if this goes forward, I would hope that they would be made as the bill is considered by this committee. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. I see no other hands or comments. I want to thank the audience for your patience--and I know many of you have been standing on the back for over an hour. And, I appreciate--I appreciate you being here and I believe we've had a good and fair hearing, and at this time we st--[end of data]

and adjourned.