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.

Senate | June 5, 2013 | Committee Room | Health

Full MP3 Audio File

I would like to welcome everyone to the Finance Committee today. Our Serjeant-at-Arms staff, thank you for the good job that you do. Ernie Shell, Canton Lewis, Donna Blake, Steve McClug, and Ed Kestler – Ed’s the big guy. Pages today are Lily Kenny from Reidsville (Senator Berger); Holly Webb, Summerfield (Senator Berger). Welcome. Amelia Mangun, Granite Falls (Senator Soucek); Mary Katherine Starns, Hickory (Senator Suchack); Max Toney, Reidsville (Senator Berger); Kevin Treachey, Oxford (Senator McKissick); and Will Finch from Reidsville (Senator Berger). Senator Berger must have a lot of filing he wants done this week. OK. Welcome. I hope you learn a lot. It’s a shame that you could not be in House Committee this morning, you could have seen the legislative process at work. We’re going to … we have rather a large schedule today. We’ll try to get through it quickly and painlessly. We’re going to dance around a little bit to get the easy ones out of the way in a hurry, and then hold any that might be controversial ?? take ?? time toward the end. We’ll ask for public comment when the property time comes. I’ll explain the ground rules when we get to that point. We have an addition today which is House Bill 439. Does everyone have a copy of that, please? Do the members have copies of the package that has been passed out? It has not. So while we hear the first bill, the Sargent-at-Arms will be passing that one out. We’re going to start with House Bill 200, require certain general reappraisals – Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: And this is an original, this is not a PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: That is correct. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m joined with Jeff Tarte, who is not Trish Cotham. House Bill 200… [crosstalk] [laughter]. This has been an odd-enough day already. [laughter] Senator Tarte and I worked together with the Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners to fix the re-evaluation problem in Mecklenburg County. We introduced companion bills in both the House and the Senate. You very expeditiously moved the Senate Bill over to the House. We continued to talk with Mecklenburg County and they brought some changes which were incorporated in the House version and moved forward there. We had been told that if both of us…if we crossed our bills over, we might have a bill that was useful for another reason. I’m not sure why anybody would tell us that. But as we have discussed the issues, we have changes that we want to make to the Machinery Act or create a study to do so. Senator Tarte and I discussed which bill to run. In deference, we would have run the Senate bill first after making the changes in the House, but he agreed it would be more expeditious to PCS his bill in the House for our other uses and go ahead and run the House bill. [crosstalk]. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: What in the world are we talking about here? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Well, we’re going to get… [crosstalk] …bring in the House bill after you passed the Senate bill and it’s not an insult because we have done that to you before, Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Well, we’re used to it in the Assembly. May I, Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: You may. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you. Is it virtually the same bill we passed out of here before? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Yes, it is. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: That being said, they’re dressed alike. I would like to move for favorable report. [laughter] [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you. Thank you. Which one of you men were born first. Which of the twins? [laughter] We have a motion before us. Is there any discussion or debate on the motion? If not, we will vote on the motion from Senator Apodaca to accept House Bill 100. All those in favor please say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Oppose, no. Motion carried. Thank you. Representative Brawley, don’t go anywhere, please. You have House Bill 817 and House Bill 817 is a PCS. Do I have a motion, please, to subrep the PCS from Senator Brunstetter? All in favor, please say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Motion carried. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Senator Harrington joined me by carrying the whole weight today. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: It’s up for you and Senator Harrington, but you may start. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: OK

Thank you Mr. Chairman. This bill is the one that passed out of the House, it's already been through Senate transportation. There are a couple of minor changes of a technical nature, and I don't have the marked copy, but essentially this is the Governor's transportation modification plan. It currently breaks the state funding down into three categories, statewide, regional, and division. Statewide is the interstate highways, the larger routes, it is 100% data driven decision making, and it will encompass the high end of the projects. Regional, which would also be 30% of the finance, or the expenditures, would be broken down 70% data, 30% local input, divisional funding would be 50% data 50% local input. The reason behind this are 2 unfortunate realities we're facing in North Carolina: The first is our current sources of funding for transportation are declining, so over the next 10 years our shortfall of the previous 10 will be $ 1.7 billion in funding. During the same time period, we will have 1.3 additional people living in North Carolina. With declining revenues and increasing needs, the only thing we can do to respond is be more efficient and effective in the use of the funds. The current operational plan that we use dates from 1989, and the technology both for measuring the efficacy of road construction has improved significantly since that time, it was a great plan in 1989, it's a little dated now, so the Governor's and other transportation folks have come forward with this. It came out of the House with 102 votes in favor, strong bipartisan support. I'd like to take any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Sen. Cook. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can you tell my how this bill will effect the east? Will we have more or less money for our roads? [SPEAKER CHANGES] What you will have is money for the roads that evaluate well, and Senator, a politically powerful person like yourself who would probably be able to dominate more than his fair share would not be able to do so, but you'd get your fair share. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I may, [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGES] as I understand is this going to hurt the east and my folks are not real happy with this. I wonder if you could give me some? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can give you a lot. First of all, everybody assumes it's going to hurt them. So that I haven't had anybody say that we're going to get more, but the second thing is the actual criteria, the final criteria that'll be used for allocating the money, is still being designed, it will come back to the joint transportation oversight committee in August for a first report, again in October, and again the following year. So we will approve the allocation formulas. There is a shift away from everything local as in the past, the funding's going more to a state level. For example, in the area of the east, one of the examples of a statewide project which would not currently be well funded is the idea of a major highway in the northeast that would feed into Hampton roads, for example. Okay, let me defer to the Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Harrington? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? before the Senate I say that this is virtually identical to what is already in the Senate version of the budget which passed a week and a half or so ago. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. And Sen. Cook, we have the numbers division if you would like to see those, we can certainly make them available to you and all members of the committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can you tell me what hap- Sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Blue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I was talking to some folk who express some concern that alternatives such as passenger rail would not- and transit, and local transit services would not be allowed to compete at the state level. The sort of sort of successful experiment is Raleigh to Charlotte train, the passenger train which is clearly statewide. Would funding for that be limited to at the division

Because youd cross through 4 or 5 divisions. Freight rail on which most of the inner city passenger trail also does go at a state level and was completely evaluated. Passenger rail was not seen as light rail and passenger rail service was seen like something like the red route for mcnberg to ?? county or the durham research triangle raleigh connector that has been at the division level and the sentate version and the statewide proejct for inner city passenger rail such as the amtrakc would be dual use and would carry freight. Those tracks would be eligible for state funding. I forgot what we named them... the carolinian and the piedmont.. that service would still compete at the state wide level. YEs sir But primarily the underlying infrastructure would compete at the freight component . Rather than the passenger aspec tof it. You cant take the freight out of it when you are evaluating it because that whole track what you put on the track is easy but the track is the hard part and thats where the funding is. Youre saying if you creatively contortionist you couldmake it fit so that you could find passenger service from raleigh to charlotte. THank you. Thats my opinion. Senator Folloow up on that question. And maybe its for senator harringotn. I dont know why we would take public transit out of a regiion consideration or statewide for the same matter as senator did. We want public transit from out of a regiional ocnsideration. We want communter rail for goldsboro to raleigh, durham to chapel hill, we want expansion out of ??? why would we rule out at least the possibility for fudning to expand this rail. WEll at the moment it would qualify on the division level. WE had talked about it on the regional level. I am of the opinion that the locals in that division would have a better understanding of what is needed. Follow up Would that be somethign we could have a follow up conversation with? I agree most public transit take place on a division level but this goes across several divisions.And to preclude it from consideration when.. its a numerical driven process supposedily.. and through the analysis comes out on top at a regional level why we would preclude it from regional consideration doesnot make sense to me. Senator ??? And I guess my concerns are about some of the things you talked about in term of mass transit. Mass transit trying to make certain when these projects come about they need the ability to compete at the regional and statewide level becuase they deserve to have more than one opporrunity for a hearing and a weighing of the facts and variables that impact their ability to be funded. It sounds like the hosue is treating it one way and the senate differently, this is the bill we are moving forward with at this time. How is it embodied here and is there a consensus between you and senator ?? in dept about what it is we are doing in relation to that issue. For the major urban areas the way it is set up now is they are getting massive money, salem durham county, or for repairs or for etc. etc. all those funds are being considered and subtracted out...

And those are things that are impacting the entire state, not just our district or even our region. A rock slide 200 miles away or an accident 150 miles away blocking traffic but if these types of projects are making things are state wide in character are being subtracted out and attributed to the funding we get on a district wise basis. It's not really quite fair and can shortchange many of the urbanries in the state, the triangle, the ??, charlotte metro area, so if you could address those two issues. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, the idea of state wide projects, it's not just the size of the road but it's whole connectivity issue that is involved. One of the examples that i I use is 73 which have a few sections that are really great and a few sections that aren't and if you ask I85 on the I73 south to head for Asheboro, your drive about 5 miles and you get to the county line and you are on a two lane country road. A state wide project would need to address the whole connectivity issue because a great road for a little while in a major city which does not connect to the rural areas around doesn't open up areas. Two specific examples are ?? county of Mecklenburg, we have highway 74 which is a signalized four lane that goes to Union in Anson county and then we have Highway 24 which is a signalized four lane which to Stanley county. These are the heading two counties that have a very high rate of unemployment. They need jobs and they are losing population because people are moving away. The distances are such that with a good road heading east for Union in Anson county, people in Wadesboro could work at Charlotte area and go home at night. That whole road and connectivity would benefit both the metropolitan area and the rural area through which it connects. If that road continues all the way to Wilmington it becomes a major cord and there are sections of Highway 74 which that are of inter state quality and sections of highway 74 of quality difficult to use for describing the condition of the road. That road being good for me is the is the kind of thing that state wide projects are desired to do, not to suck money out of urban areas but to connect urban and rural areas into a network. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Quick follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me. We got to move on, Senator Cook. One more time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I may, thanks to your vast and extensive knowledge of all the highways and byways in this lovely state. I was wondering if you could shed some light on one road for me. Route 12, do you have any idea how this bill will affect that road, that's the road ?? that runs the length of the outer banks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, I don't know Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's an in-sea route and it would follow the criteria for all of our in-sea routes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think we have got to this in the budget, we have done the transportation part so I'd like to go ahead and move for a favorable report on the PCS, unfavorable the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Sir. Senator Apdaco. Did we have anyone signed up to speak on this? If not we have the motion before us unfavorable to original, favorable to the PCS. All in favor say Aye, opposed No. Motion carried, Thank you. Representative Brawley, you have the ?? of the afternoon at all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are welcome. Next we have house bill 248, Taxpayer debt. Thank you ma'am if you could come forward please and this is an original bill and I believe there is an amendment. Welcome, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. This bill, Taxpayer Debt Information Act has one purpose and that to provide more transparent ?? for the citizens regarding bond referendum. I for one does stay call the meeting of all the groups that are interested before we drafted this bill that would include representative of the Treasury department, Bond counselors from the treasury department, county finance directors, the municipality and the county commissioner organization, they are all in support of the bill. Sections 1, 2 and 3

go into the details. I think your bill summary describes it very well ??. [speaker changes] Mr. Chairman? I move for a favorable report. [speaker changes] Thank you, sir. I believe there may be an amendment. Senator Brunstetter. [speaker changes] Yes, I'd like to send forth an amendment please, and members do not have copies, but I can explain it. [speaker changes] Would you please. [speaker change] Yeah. Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just changes the effective date to September 1, 2013. [speaker changes] Did everyone hear the amendment? Okay, everyone but me. I read it though Senator, so thank you. Any discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, all those in favor of the amendment please say aye. The amendment carries. We're back to the original bill as amended with the motion from Senator Tillman to approve. All those in favor of the bill as amended please say aye. Opposed no. The motion carries. Thank you. [speaker changes] Thank you very much. [speaker changes] House Bill 664. Cell Tower Development Act. Representative Hager. This is a PCS. motion to hear the PCS please by Senator Tucker. All of those in favor, please say aye. Motion carried. Representative Hager, you have the floor. [speaker changes] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. This bill, I think, most of you heard in the Senate Commerce. Tillman - ought to refer to Senator Tillman. He did such a great job forming. This bill will allow more expansion of cell service and mobile service in rural and both urban areas. It's a good bill and I'll answer any questions. Everybody's got their lassos in the air, so [speaker changes] Looks like everybody's cranking up out there. Any discussion? Okay, we have a motion to accept by Senator Cook. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Opposed no. Thank you. The motion carries. Thank you [speaker changes] I apologize. I wasn't sure. [speaker changes] House Bill 743, you have administrative law changes? [speaker changes] [inaudible chatter] 743. House Bill 743. It's a PCS. Motion to accept the PCS by Senator Apodaca. All those in favor say aye. Opposed no. Motion carried. Representative Howard-- [speaker changes] Thank you [speaker changes] You have control over the senate. [speaker changes] Mr. Chairman. Let me catch my breath an we'll be ready to go here. This is the bill that we knew that we would need that's a follow up bill from the UI bill that we passed early House Bill 4, early in the session. And we knew that there were gonna be some tweaks that we needed to make and basically, that's what this bill does. One of the things that we learned that we needed to change the effective date from July 1 to June 30 and that was one of the most important things that's in this bill. But, there's about twelve items and I will tell you they are sorely technical. Nothing of any policy change. [speaker changes] We have a motion from Senator Apodaca for favorable report. PCS unfavorable to the original. Is there any discussion or debate? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion please say aye. Opposed no. The motion carried. Thank you . One more. House Bill 439 Economic Development Job Sites Program. Representative Howard. [speaker changes] Thank you. Thank you again Mr. Chairman and this is truly a jobs bill. This was brought to us from the economic developers across the state and what it does is it just changed the way we are taxing. We have a deferred tax that represents a lien on the property but folks can bank contiguous acreage and allow certain development within that acreage which would be water, sewer, all of the environmental impacts, gas and all of the improvements. They would not be taxed for those improvements until a later date. It's an excellent--

jobs bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, ma'am. We have a motion be Senator Jenkins to accept the bill. Any discussion or debate? Those in favor, please say "Aye", opposed "No". [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you so much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion carried. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman and members of the house. ?? [LAUGHTER] Okay. I am done now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah. Exactly. Senate bill 571, Senator Brock, license plates. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a PCS, motion to accept PCS by Senator Tillman. All in favor, please say "Aye". Motion carried. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment when you're ready. I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are we ready for the amendment, Senator Brock? I believe. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? license plate bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let the amendment roll. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have an amendment from Senator Tillman. Would you care to explain your amendment? ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It simply puts motor sports division in there, and the funds would transfer quarterly from the collegian and cultural attraction plate account, and this would go to the Speedway Children's Charities. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Any discussion or debate on the amendment? If not, all those in favor of the amendment, please say "aye", opposed, "no". Amendment carried. Is there another amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I have one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Would you explain your amendment please, Senator Rabin? [SPEAKER CHANGES] In putting together a bill, some of the declarations of special license plates for military got inadvertently left off this list. This amendment adds the list and puts it back together. I just ask for your concurrence on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Chairman Rabin. Would Senator Rabin - would Colonel Rabin - yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I've got a couple. Looking at the list here, Colonel, we covered your awards, I guess a while back when you were in the military, but I'm trying to figure out which of these tags you don't qualify for. [LAUGHTER] And how many cars do you own? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I had enough cars... [SPEAKER CHANGES] I found one, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] retired Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He doesn't qualify for the US Navy submarine veteran. Senator Brunstetter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can't afford enough cars on the salary I'm making for all of the stuff I'd need to put on it. So, it doesn't matter. But it is a good amendment. The way I look at it and the real reason behind forwarding the bill originally was that I couldn't see having folks pay that have already paid the price for the license plate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Senator Brunstetter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chairman, just some clarification. These are all existing tags that were inadvertently left out of the bill? Is that what I understand? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, sir. If we'll have staff clarify this, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Heather. [SPEAKER CHANGES] These are all existing plates. As you know, each special plate has a $10 unless it's excepted from the $10 fee. So, this excepts the military plates from the $10 fee. So, it doesn't create any new plates. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. Follow-up, please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there going to be then a fiscal impact to the state because this is a very large universe of people, particularly when you start saying military veterans. Is there going to be a fiscal impact to the state? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe there will be. I don't know if we have that number. I will clarify that they will pay the $28 for the tag. This eliminates the $10 fee for the special plate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to say that, from an appropriations standpoint, I would need to see a fiscal note on this before we let it go on the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Then, would you like to. Do you have a fiscal note? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I've got one here that zeroes it out. Fiscal note, senate bill 571. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I believe that's Senator Brock's fiscal note. It does not apply to your amendment. Could we ask please that you hold that amendment until we've got a fiscal note and we can possibly handle this on the floor if it does not have an impact on the budget? Would that be okay? Okay. Then, the amendment is withdrawn. We're back to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The only thing I would say, Senator Goolsby, that the only plate that Colonel Rabin doesn't qualify for actually doesn't get a free pass on is the Battle of King's Mountain, which you'd still have to pay for that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He was there. He was there. He was there.

if you're not supposed to know about it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate on the PCS as amended? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr.- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Apodaca. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is this- and I probably not, but does this make the Blue Ridge and the Smokey Mountain folks happy? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir, they cannot be made happy but it addresses their problems. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I understand, my wife's members of both organizations and I know how that works. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate? Hearing none, all those in favor of the PCS as amended, please say "aye". [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, "no". [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion carries, well done. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Brock. Senate bill 312, referendum on incorporating Lake James. Sen. Daniel. Thank you. There's a PCS motion to hear the PCs, a motion by Sen. Wade. All those in favor please say "aye". [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed? Motion carries. Sen. Daniel. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. This is a local bill that creates a referendum on incorporating a town around the lake in my district, Lake James. What the PCS does, primarily it removes a section of the original incorporation boundary from which there was I guess a lack of support for incorporation, so the bulk of the support in my district would come from the remaining area. I'll be glad to answer any questions from the committee, the referendum if it passes the House and the Senate would be this November and the voters of the district would decide whether the town would be incorporated. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Tillman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, it's a local bill, and I'll certainly support it, but I've heard it from everywhere from Knoxville, TN to Paris Island, SC on this bill and I just wanted to ask our good Senator here from that area, what in the world are they upset about, Senator? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well first of all, Senator, I'd- Mr. Chairman? I don't represent anyone from Knoxville, TN or South Carolina, well, and I'd say that the opposition is based on a variety of differing opinions. When this petition was originally circulated, 63 approximately percent of the registered voters were certified from the area in favor of the incorporation. Obviously there's been some influx in and out since the petition was done, and that's in large part why we changed it from just a straight incorporation which the legislature does most often to a referendum on incorporation. But I think there's folks here that want to speak for or against it, so I think you'll hear some of those arguments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, I believe we have two members that have signed up to speak from the public, we will ask you to approach the podium in the back now, turn on the mic, you'll have 2 minutes each to state your case and first I believe is Mr. Jim Powers, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you committee. This is a bill that started out initially 5 years ago, [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can you get closer to your mic please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] in front of the joint legislative commission. The joint commission determined that the boundaries were non-contiguous, and gave it a negative recommendation. It failed in the Senate that year also, 2009, and again in 2011 in the House. The problems with a referendum is just like the problem with the initial vote. Of the 954 properties, only 270 have addresses within the village. So only 28% have a voice at all. 78% don't have a voice in this at all. I would think a particular interest to finance committee is the budget is 5 years old, prepared prior to a property reevaluation, and all the changes that have gone in since that time, the current bill as 312, doesn't really provide for any services like the general statutes require. So, it's hard to tell what's going to be provided there, but again only 28% of the folks there would have a voice in the referendum. And- is that it? My time is up apparently. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir.

We’d appreciate it. Ms. Dorenda Stein. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ll be quick. I’m Dorneda Pellstein. I’m a registered voter in the proposed village. Yes I’m Dorenda Pellstein. I’m a member of the task force for the formation of Lake James. Howard Morgan the chair of this committee is unable to be here as he is serving on jury duty. My husband and I have owned our property at the lake for 12 years and have been permanent residents. Yes, Mr. Powers is correct. This is an area that was first developed and property submitted for purchase a number of years ago by Duke and Crescent. There are many pieces of property like in many other areas that are still waiting to be developed. Why am I here? I represent as Sen. Daniel said, a majority of the registered voters who signed a legal petition. I also represent many other property owners from North Carolina and other states. Why are we requesting incorporation? We want services. Mr. Powers is incorrect. We have over the past years, since 2007, requested from Burke County additional police protection and EMS services. They are unable to provide these services at this time and so we are incorporating and asking to incorporate to do it. Our services are laid out and have been laid out in accordance with what is required for incorporation. How can this village benefit Burke County and the state of North Carolina? The village will add over 230,000 more revenue for the economy of Burke County. It far outweighs the 44,000 in sales tax that will be reallocated to the village. Most of this area are people who are retirees. They don’t have children in school. They don’t use Burke County social services. This is a win, not only for Burke County. It is an area that is part of Burke County’s development plan to be grown. It provides construction. It provides jobs. It is also a win for the state of North Carolina. My husband and I have defined benefit pension plans. That is income tax every year that comes in. Are there additional benefits? Yes. We’ll apply for grants. There are many special provisions that are in this bill that I would draw your attention to that protect people outside the village areas. No involuntary annexation, no eminent domain and we also are not permitted to - prohibited from restricting access to the lake. Increased taxation. It’s unique. It provides a cap on taxation at 7.5% unless improved by a local bill. We want to control our destiny. We want to make sure that government is limited to what is necessary. It’s a bill tailored to the needs of our area not to the creation of redundant government. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you ma’am. Sen. Newton. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, and if I could ask Sen. Daniel - I just want to make sure as I understand it, this bill essentially just sets a referendum for these folks that live in this area to decide whether or not they’re going to have a city formed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You may answer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Sen. Newton. The registered voters within the incorporation boundary would vote presumably this November if it passes the House and Senate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up please. Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In light of that, in light of the comments and what I’ve heard about this, this sounds exactly consistent with the efforts of this legislature has already made as it related to de-annexation reform. This is a situation where we’re allowing the people who live there to make the decision about whether or not they want to be part of the city, and part of the services and so forth. It’s a local bill and so therefore I’d move for a favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. In just a second. I think Sen. Tennessee Tillman moved for that earlier on - I’m not sure, but, Sen. Tarte - [SPEAKER CHANGES] No I didn’t move for that I said I was in favor of it, mainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir - then Sen. Tarte. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I guess my only question would be, normally you would say the voters are the property owners but are we a little bit of an anomaly here by that because three quarters of the property owners are not voters and how do we address the property owners having a say? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Daniel can address that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Tarte frankly I think that the number that the gentleman expressed is now significantly reduced based on the property area that we’ve taken out in the PCS. I don’t know what that number would be, but obviously our state Supreme Court has ruled that you vote where you live, so these people that live there have determined that this is the place that they want to lay their head every night, and I think it’s important to them to be able to determine the future of their own community. That’s why it’s a referendum. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. McKissick. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was curious as to why there were

Certain limitations being put on the ability of this community if they would had vote in favor of annexation to exercise powers that would normally be traditional. For example, there would, there would be a prohibition if, on anybody I guess over McDowell County coming forth with a voluntary annexation or for that matter involuntary one. They could never put up for a vote whether there'd be malt beverages or fortified wines, and there would be a prohibition on extraterritorial jurisdiction. Was there some reason for wanting to limit those powers in the event they do decide to establish this incorporated municipality? I would think they might want the powers to do what any other city can do within the limits of our, of our state typically. I don't have a problem with the bill, but it seems to me probably that perhaps they should have some of those things, rights and privileges that other towns would have. So I was wondering why, why these carve outs were present. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Chairman, I think Senator McKissick essentially, over the course of, of developing the bill, we just tried to address some concerns that various people had about what a proposed town might, might be able to do or not do, so that's why we put some of those provisions in. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. Okay members, we have a motion from Senator Newton unfavorable to the original favorable, to the proposed committee substitute. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you staff, sergeants in arm, and pages for today. Meeting adjourned.