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 | May 19, 2015 | Committee Room | Appropriations, Part 2

Full MP3 Audio File

Come back to order. Members will take their seats, we welcome some additional pages this afternoon at a rotated in with us Michelle O'shell, Iredell County sponsored by Representative Turner. Benjamin Suckap[sp?], Burke County, sponsored by Representative Blackwell, Rachel Voncanon, Moore county, sponsored by the speaker. Maria Wright Scotland County, sponsored by Representative Pierce and Michael Allen from Cleveland Country, sponsored by the Speaker. Welcome to the preparations committee. Alright, we will begin this afternoon by going back to an amendment that was dipslaced, it's for the staff it's amendment 29, for so everyone else is AMD-15 version three, AMD-15V3 sponsored by Representative Arph. Representative Arph, if you'd like to refresh everyone's recollection.   Thank you Mr. Chair what this amendment is was in original capital appropriation there was $50, 000 million for an expansion of the state crime lab and this expansion was in response to the additional facilities needed to take care of the DNA processing for 100% of the felonies, that`s not what the crime lab, that`s not what we`ve passed in the do with the new bill and so this was not asked for and those funds are not needed, and if I could ask staff to to comment for my colleagues benefit to respond to the needs of the crime lab. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? I could shorten. Representative Stam. I could shorten that by saying we studied data[sp?] and he's right, hope you'll vote for his amendment. Very well, other questions or debate on the amendment? If not, all those in favor please signify by saying Aye. Aye. Opposed No, the Ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Next amendment, for the staff it's Amendment 12. It's offered by Representative Grier Martin, AML-17 Volume 2, Version 2. AML-17 Version 2, and Representative Grier Martin is recognized to present his amendment. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Members, this deals with a provision of the transportation budget dealing with prioritization in the expenditure of transportation funds. You've got language there in the amendment, but really all the amendment adds are the last half of line 6, and really that's about it. So as it stands right now, the transportation budget would add in a provision requiring them to include the improvement of hurricane evacuation routes, certainly that's something that our transportation network needs to deal with, but it's of course, by no means the only potential problem out there. So I think it makes sense that if we're going to actually take the step of enumerating specific disasters for which we want to prioritize our transportation funding, that it also makes just as much sense starting their Nuclear power plans we would  appreciate your support. Representative is Torbit is recognized. Thank you Mr Chair we appreciate the gentleman but its on understand nuclear have already add the nuclear power plant question that is making an attempt to correct here is already being addressed and I would ask for you to debate the amendment. Further discussion? Representative Michelle.  Yes I would  like to ask Representative Torbert a question. Does the gentleman yield? It be a pleasure. Where is the bill addressed? Alright, the feds look at that, the state looks at that already. What we were addressing was shortcomings in the group relative to the other items other than the Nuclear facilities,. Further questions or debate on the amendment all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye, aye.

All oppose no, no. Then nos clearly have it the amendment is not agreed to. The next amendment is amendment 21 AMH- 3V4 offered by Representative Mcliroth AMH- 23 Version 4, Representative Mcliroth is recognized to present her amendment. The one without opposition numbers. Thank you Mr. Chair, I appreciate my stumbling here, you allowing me to stumble for a minute. All this does is we had taken out some vacant, park positions for our state parks and then state parks realized that some of this have been filled since we pulled the information, so what this amendment does is put back in all the positions that the state parts heads filled, just took out the ones that they did not need right now. Hope you'll approve this. Further questions, or debate? Seeing none, all those in favor of amendment please signify by saying aye, Aye, oppose no. The aye have it, and the amendment is agreed to. the next amendment also offered by representative Mcliroth. Amendment 22 AMH-21 V4 AMH- 21 V4 and representative Mclorith is recognized to offer her amendment. Thank you Mr. Chair. This amendment amends the reduction to diners, administrative service, operating budget by adding two positions to be fund shifted to the federal indirect cost receipts the total reduction does not affect any change. Please support. Questions to the debate? All those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying aye. Aye. Oppose no. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. You are on a roll Representative Mclorith, so we will stick with you. This amendment 31 is ALM-17V5, ALM-17V5 representative Mikel arise is recognized to make point on the amendment. Thank you Mr. Chair, members when we get our budget out to the public we got information fro the industrial commission, we have eliminated two positions that we had eliminated three positions that they needed and these has put these three positions back and by cutting their operating cost. Thank you for your support. Questions, debate? Seeing none. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye, oppose, no. The ayes have it. Amendment's free to Representative Tan, amendment 36, and this is AL, excuse me, AML- 32V1. You don't have this, should a AML-32V1 Representative Tan, not out? It's not distributed yet sir. We're checking Okay, you don't have it because you don't have it.  We will displace that amendment while it's being passed out and move on amendment 38 ALL-9V4, ALL-9V4 offered by representative Arp. You should have that one and representative Arp is recognized to debate his amendment. Thank you Mr. Chairman. What this amendment provides funding for the three DAs that have been cut from a prosecutorial district 9A, which is person in cast wheel

this are 15Bs, which is origin chatter, and then 20B which is Union. These are positions that were frozen and actually taken what it does is put the 8th position back up to four, pond the funding and then still subject to the future study and workforce study and distribution after that. This is opportunity to make this different chore, all the DAs fully support that and there is defix and I usually support. Representative Daughtry.   Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and Representative Art as agreed, Legislator Micgred but this is not a good Bill is not a good amendment. As you heard earlier when we explained our, at our presentation, we talked about the work force and we have in place today, I wanted to take politics out of the ADA, we give the give the administrative office of the court about $90 million for the District Attorneys, and they use that money and it, there's been so many as to where politics plays into where DAs go and Assistant DAs, and we've got a system now we've had for for about four or five years that places those ADAs in those districts that need it the most, and so to give these [xx] they may be entitled to it and they may not based on the workload, and so I respectfully you to vote against the amendment Representative Yarborough. Representative Daughtry is correct that politics have played a part are in the fact that these DAs have been understaffed in the past. If you'd look on page 201 of the bill, there's a listing of all the districts and the DAs that were in there in the past. It's been stricken and the formula is being reworked. The three that that are brought up here are the three that did not match the number that was in there in the past. So, I ask for your support for this amendment. Representative Hurley. At the present time we have over 70 DAs that are missing DAs, if we start this we do not have the money for all of those. I ask you to defeat this amendment, thank you. Representative Glazier. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I understand completely the need for additional DAs and think that we need to do that, but I agree with Representative Daughtry early this isn't the way to do it, but I'm also concerned with where it's coming from, and the money that they're taking it from is from legal services which we've cut back quite a bit and has, they've got a number of constitutional responsibility, and a lot of our districts will access them, so if there is another place, then that's another issue, but I think where this is coming from is really problematic as well, so I would urge folks to vote no. Representative Insko  Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I'm from Orange County, and I'm very aware ther `re the backlogs that`s in that county that`s creating problems for families and for defendants and for the staff too and if this indeed all over, we really need to take a look at it, but we need to start here by making it right for these counties, and I urge you to vote yes. Representative Faircloth? Thank you Mr. Chairman, I think all of us who turned here trying to do the right, excuse me, for our people back understand that f we had a job to do, and we ask our staff or ask leaders to study that job, and tell us how many people it takes to do it, and if they say it takes five, but we'd like to have six, I suspect we stick with the five because that's what the workload will be. So it's a very simple process we're talking about, and my understanding is, when the District Attorneys, many of them had a chance to sit down and days past, and help work through the work formulas somebody chose not to do that. We have directed now that AOC work in collaboration with the District Attorneys, to come up with the proper work formula, and that will get everybody in line and when workload says there's a need out there for an addition to a district, we'll make the addition. But we need to have a

process at work that the longer we go with the political system, the further we are from a solution. Representative Art. And I thank you for all the comments regarding the work flow and I fully support that. The DA, ADA in our county was taken for and used in the attorney generals office for the Racial Justice Act. That position was take away and it was frozen at that point in time and so, all I'm saying is, that what this amendment does is put us back the full pond and goes back into a good government where the, in the future the study would appropriately the DAs, we spoke with the office of courts and the funds we are taking this from, we're was additional funds, and so, this is where they suggested that the money come from, and ask for your support. Representative Balls. Thank you Mr. Chair. As the other Chairs echoed we've looked at everything and these are just hard decisions, and and I would just, that you would defeat this amendment and let it all work out with the work formula. And I'm afraid that the if we pass this, we're going to have 70 other members real quick that's going to attack on to us and I just don't think we can do that right now. Let the system work. I'm going to display this amendment for the time being. Amendment is displaced. Representative Tan, I believe your amendment is now out as amendment 36 AML-32V1, AML-32V1, representative Turner is recognized. Thank you Mr. Chair. This amendment pertains with part of the budget that deals with reforms and transportation there one of the pieces that asked for a second set of eyes as we restructure the department of transportation where the legislature actually hired outside consultancy to give a second strategic plan for a point of reference. The idea with this is there would be an idea of cooling off period for whomever is hired to do that study so that they are not building a plane for themselves to come back in and themselves contracts and try to give us better information, and try and ensure that Further discussion debate on the amendment? Representative Tour[sp?] Supporting the amendment Seeing no other hands, all those in favor of the amendment saying aye, Aye Oppose, no. The ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. Our next amendment is number 39 AMQ-5 V7 offered by Representative Seign and and Representative Seign you are recognized to offer your amendment. Thank Mr. Chairman, I'll be quick, this purely typical amendment just to make sure that the number has couple of things in what was planned, put on the long last this is collect that same money have represented the budget just a typical corrections I urge your support. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Questions on the amendment? If not all those in favor of the amendment amendment will signify by saying aye, aye, oppose no the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Next minute Amendment 42, Representative Balls. H 97, ALL-8 version six. Representative Balls. Thank you. If can get the assistance from Staff. Excuses me? Can I get some assistance from the staff please? Thank you Can staff help please? Go ahead Thank you Mr. Mr. Chair, This amendment is a language change to a snappy description. It adds towards increase and expand existing substance re-stream

programs, and it deletes the final sentence in the snappier four. There is no change to money or any other items. Any discussion on the amendment? If not the vote is on the amendment, all on favor say indicate by saying Aye, opposed? The amendment is approved. Next amendment Representative Balls, it's amendment 43 97-AMD-4 14 version 4, Representative Balls. Thank you Mr. Chairman and the correct calculation error in the funding for new highway patrol vehicles, the up fit calls for the vehicles, were inevertley left out of the total, the funds were coming from a vacant position reduction, in the Department Public Safety. Department has flexibility to choose which positions are eliminated, but they cannot eliminate sworn law enforcement officer, custody or security officers or prison's healthcare positions, and I'd also refer to staff have if there is any other questions? Discussion on the amendment, Representative [xx] Who does that leave to be fired? Could you restate? Who do vacant positions that you got here, what vacant position do they have felt after you eliminate those just [xx] Representative Bores, like staff to answer the question. Thank you Mr. Chair, Christine [xx] with Fiscal Research. Representative [xx] the Department of Public Safety currently has 82 positions that made the criteria for elimination in this item, totaling about 2.5 a million dollars instead of position costs. Further discussion? Yes, I was trying to figure out what specific positions you were talking about. Go ahead. Thank you Mr. Chair, it's a variety of positions, there's some council technician, office assistant position administrative positions that are not specifically related to security. I think this is one of  the question? May I proceed? In all of these positions are now vacant, is that what I'm hearing? Mr. Chairman? Go ahead. Yes sir, and they've been vacant for for longer than one year. Further discussion on the opposed amendments? Not seeing any, on favor of the amendment indicate by saying aye, aye, Oppose the amendment is adopted. We're moving to representative Elmore H 97AMK24 version two, amendment 46 for staff. Representative Elmore? Thank you Mr. Chair. This amendment strikes language that would possibly jeopardize the success of our deeply appreciated pilots, the language being stricken change to just state wide policy, not just the policy of the pilots. This is not a current policy as some will argue, positions monies can be moved around in LEA budgets, but not use for bonuses at currently. This is the goal with the pilots in the provision to learn how this will work for all systems, may they be small, medium or large, this language is basically getting the cart before the horse and I would ask for your support on my amendment. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with my colleague that this amendment does in fact allow all the LA participate in flexibility but that also allows some of our LAs such as ShownMunkenburg schools to participate with may not be part of the pilot, but they can go ahead and participate in developing meaning for different pace pacious. Representative Marlon. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Representative Horn still a lot of my fun but also I'll is a school board member working with super Lieutenant hand in hand. This flexibility will do a lot of help in dealing with teachers in supplemental pay some of the arguments I've heard really come down to whether or not we want to give them the flexibility because they might mismanage the money, and I think that these superintendents get paid enough money and they can make these decisions on their own. So I ask you to say No to the amendment, thank you. Representative Blackwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Don't mean to pile on, but I will. I want to encourage the committee to reject this amendment the provision that this would

delete is a central part of creating a set of circumstances to allow our LEAs to try to do things innovatively, to do things in a different way and I think we need to be prepared to put some faith in our local school systems and school boards we don't always agree with them, but we're dependent upon their efforts, and this gives them flexibility and we are going to be monitoring how they use it and I would urge the House to defeat the amendment. Further discussion, Representative Stam. I would also oppose the amendment and just add one little thing, this was in the House budget last session apparently without controversy. Never really knew the Senate didn't adopt it, but the House did adopt it two years ago. Representative Attimore, for a second time. To speak to second time Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand the arguments from the other folks, it does open up opportunities for some systems, but not not all systems. Many of our systems are seeing declining enrollment, and with declining enrollment you see less ADM dollars. That's your flexibility dollars that they're talking about. So this change in statewide policy would affect very few systems, they're very large, and the rural systems would not have an opportunity to do something to this model that is the goal of the pilots that are being created to where we can see how this could be utilized in small systems, medium systems and large systems as we move to this type model, so I urge you to support the amendment. Further discussion on the Almore Amendment. Chairman Dollar. I'll be brief, but I do share Representative Stam's concern, and as I understand it, and I stand to be corrected, there are some contracts that have already been let, there's some commitments already been made, and I would be very concerned about the amendment at this time. Particularly if there's some commitment that are already out there, and I don't mean what I mean by that is commitments with respect to contracts and the like. This is not Chairman I normally don't say anything and you know I respect you Representative Dollar, but I agree with Elmore, like you to vote for the amendment. Representative Brian. I guess just to followup on the, this is just a may, this language that is in right now just allows the other districts the flexibility, it won't impact the ability to judge the pilot, because all the programs in the pilot will be able to look at independently so I would urge you to reject the amendment. Representative Glazier. Question Mr. Chair to Representative Dollar. Representative Dollar this. Do you yield to Representative Glazier? Thank you. Well. My question is, this language in the amendment deals with a pilot that's yet to become a pilot, or start, so I'm concerned about your comment that it may affect with this language will affect one way or the other existing contracts, since I'm at a lose to figure out what's existing since we haven't authorized the pilot. Representative Glazier, it was my mistake. No Mum. Thank you I Thank you. Further discussion, further debate? If not, vote is on the MO amendment on favor the amendment indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed. No. Aah, division. Then lets get a show of hands on this all of those who are in favor of the amendment you will raise your hand please. Yeah. I thought you realizes first of all why not you got it. we have different count here, let's try again, everybody with your hand up in favor of the amendment and it is close. I'm sorry keep your hands

up we got a we're not on the same number here and I'm sorry. This is good mid afternoon exercise, we will do the roll call if we cant get the number right Got it all those opposed to the amendment raise your hands please. The amendment is adopted 44 to 26. Next up. Next amendment Representative Brian Brown amendendment 41 on 897AMK22 vesrion three. Representative Brown Thank you Mr. Chairman members, here we go again talking about send off the collection act SADCA. I wish we put this to bed permanently, however we cannot. Hopefully this will do it. We won't go into the full policy debate of what SADCA is we've certainly done that Mr. Chairman suspend we're missing, how many people have this amendment? Parent AMK 97 AMK, 22 version 3 Representative Brown. Raise your hand if you don't have it. Apparently we missed one whole side. Everybody has it, if I can get some help there. We'll suspend a minute while we get that OK does everybody now have a copy, back to you Representative Brown. Thank you again Mr. Chairman, members again as we go back to [xx] itself just to refresh your memory, this is debt that is owed to the state of North Carolina for services provided at the British School of Medicine or the UNC Chapel Hill Practice Plan. For again services rendered for medical services that were not paid. This debt would be collected from a tax return or lottery proceeds, this body has passed this language out, I can't even tell you how many times at this point. What we're addressing with this amendment however is a $4 million reversion as associated with this poilcy change in the budget. Members I have over 160 agencies that are associated with the university of community college system that are in fact able to utilize the set of their collection art to their benefit with zero reversions the reality is in this budget as we look at what this is taking place it further illustrates the misunderstanding of what role SADCA plays in the university system this provision and this money actually belongs in HHS it doesn't belong in education, what you're essentially doing by taking this money away is you're going after medical education at the British School of Medicine in UNC Chapel Hill when in fact this has to do with the actual physician practice plan. I urge you to support this amendment so that we can continue to ensure that we can have full capacity on the set off debt collection Act, continue to try to stabilize this important institution that provides so much for this state I urge your adoption of this amendment. Questions or further debate? Representative Horn Thank Mr. Chairman I greatly appreciate Representative Brown's desire to protect the set-off debt collection issue but he's doing so at the expense of of our commitment to digital education and digital environment. If you'll note it's not a matter of where he is applying the money, it's a matter of where he's taking the money out of textbooks, out of connectivity and out of the digital initiative, which is an initiative that at least most of us have seen as critical to the future of education in this state. So I appreciate Representative Brown's desire, but I'd ask him to finish in a different pond.

So, please vote now. Further debate Representative Brown. Thank you Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the comment, representative Horn and quite frankly representative Horn I 100% agree with you. It pains me greatly to have to pull dollars from text books and digital learning. Unfortunately, the decision was to put this money in education. It is in the wrong palm ladies and gentlemen, it should be in the HHS budget, that's not my fault, that's whosoever fault it can be blamed for that. But the reality is is what you have to ask yourself as the committee or we truly going to say to the taxpayers of North Carolina that money that is owed to a constituent university can in fact come into that university university, but it's got to come back to the state. That makes no sense for services rendered. You're literally penalizing medical education at the state's expense to try and go after a practice plan policy for money that is owed to the state of North Carolina. It's a wrong headed move, it's a wrong place to put a reversion and urge you to support this amendment on the backs of medical education, and providing medical service to the whole portion of our state, the undeserved individuals in our state and the uninsured in our state. Representative Blackwell. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to be sure that the committee understands exactly what we are talking about. If you look in your money report, on page F10, at items 52 and 53, I think maybe you can understand what's going on here. This is not a case of taking money from somewhere else and putting it in the education budget. This is a matter of how much money we are going to spend in the education budget for East Carolina University in Bright school medicine. Our desire was to help them. And you'll notice that in item 52 there's an $8 million appropriation. that's what they asked for. We put it in the budget, they also asked us to reinstate their ability to set off monies that were owed to the hospital, both at Chapel Hill, Anadi[sp?] Carolina, from tax refunds that would otherwise go to people who owed money at on or the other of the hospitals. The staff advised us that we could anticipate that each school would probably realize about two million dollars more in receipts, as result of our giving them that set off ability recognized that they were going to collect four million dollars more, two million at UNC, and two million at ECU, we simply reflected that receipt here in the budget. The net effect is that, that meant that East Carolina rather than getting a full eight million would be getting six million because the two million and the six together would meet the eight million dollar need, if we amend the legit as Representative Brian is suggesting, they will get to keep the two million dollars they collect, plus they'll get an additional two million dollars, that you UNC is not getting, and UNC will have to recognize the two million dollar receipt in effect, but East Carolina wont. I think this was done correctly it does not prejudice East Carolina, it gives them a net of eight million dollars which is what they said they wanted. Representative Representative Brown, you've already spoken twice but I'll indulge you, but keep it short please. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and again I appreciate the comments, just that is very clear on this, the $8 million is a drop in the bucket of water which Carolina University School of Medicine actually needs. That was actually comes out of the Governor's budget. We need to stabilize the Brody School of Medicine in every way possible in continued cuts, not only to practice [xx] but with also reflects cuts to the University that will affect medical education at the Brody School of Medicine, make no doubt about it. We have to continue to stabilize gentlemen when we look at what this actually does, sadcay itself the fiscal note developed by this staff was to bring a little over $7 million this year about $11 million over the biennium, so I don't really understand the math, that this is going to be a $2 million game, we actually have a lot more risk we need to ensure that this provision gets out of this budget and we can retain all of the dollars necessary. Again, I can't restate enough that I wish that this was not on the education side, that I did not have to try to find the money where I tried to find the money, but the reality is that this is an important provision for medicine in

real North Carolina, and again, I support of the amendment. Representative Farmer-Butterfield. Thank you Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak in favor of the amendment. If you look at the total amount allocated if the textbooks and digital resources as well as the school connectivity initiative and the digital learning plan of what is as a drop in the bucket for what's needed in East Carolina University School of Medicine in Eastern North Carolina, so I urge that you support this and give rural Eastern North Carolina the to have positive effects on people's lives in their districts thank you. Representative Blackwell. Quickly if I understood Representative Brian and correctly he seems to be suggesting that we are somehow limiting East Carolina or UNCs ability to collect as a process more than the $2 million each, we have not. There is no limitation if they collect 7 million at Brody and East Carolina they keep the whole seven plus they'll get 6 million from us or they actually, they'll get 8 million but in any event not being prejudice by this, this is a case of simply recognizing they've got a receipt and we've got to take it into consideration where it at 2 million, but if it's 3 million or 4 million or 5 million they keep all their receipts, because we're giving them the set off back. The vote is on the brown amendment, all those in favor of the Brown amendment indicate by saying aye, aye, all those opposed no, in the opinion the Chair the amendment fails, we are going to take a, if you will suspend just a minute we will going to be passing out another bunch of amendments and ask you not to move all the way around but it is going to take us three, four or five minutes to do what needs to be done right now. If the come back to order please, members will retake their seats strengthen conversation has been taken outside. Chairman Tobit. Probably getting ready to do a couple of amendments that might be of interest the next amendment that we will take up is amendment 13 offered by Representative Greg Martin AML-20 version two offered by Representative Grey Martin. Representative Martin you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Chair. Members imagine if you will that you had $300 million to spend on transportation in the state of North Carolina, how would you decide how those funds was spread throughout the state? And that's has been one of central questions in transportation funding debates in the general assembly probably as long as we've done transportation funding, and there's been no consensus of that but I think it's safe to say that we could agree that there's several ways you could do it. You could do it by miles traveled, you could do it by population, you could do it by traffic, and that sort of thing, and there is pros and cons to that, you could do it by needs, the needs based on the condition of roads and a whole host of other options, but I'd like to think though they would at least would agree, heck, you can even do it by geography, just the geographic size of an area of a county, but I'd like to think we'd all agree that the way not to do it would be just to arbitrarily say, each of our 100 counties that in many cases have their boundaries drawn in pre-colonial times, then we're going to split that money $ 300 million up equally by a county. So unfortunately the way the transportation budget currently reads, that's exactly what we're getting ready to do with about $300 million of the people of North Carolina's money. What my amendment would do would be to pick one method that makes a little bit more sense to divide it, and instead of just dividing it up equally each of our 100 counties get the same amount, instead the department will be required to divide this money up based on pavement condition scores formulated by by the department. So let me talk about what sort of impact this might have. If you look at the reports that say where the most efficient roads throughout the state you'll see two divisions that have the worst problem, one of them is division of Mecklenburg, not my district, and also

I think some of the rural counties around Brandenburg, but the other, those two divisions is division three, and the roads that you're looking at there that are most deficient are North Carolina 24 in Duplin County, US 117, alternate in Duplin County, North Carolina 172 in Onslow County US 701 Sampson County, and as you walk further down the project  list, you will find similar roads. So it seems to me it makes much more sense to spend more our money where we have got division roads and where the need is and so I hope you'll support this bill and agree with me. Representative Floyd is recognized.  Thank you so much Mr. Chairman, we have difference of opinion what Representative Martin is addressing is additional revenue the current revenues does address a lot of the re-servicing throughout the state as Representative Moore what's picked up and noticed on is that often times it leaves some folks just pretty much in large from one of its State to the other. This is a valuable, value effect to try to bring all the counties up, it'll do roughly about I;m thinking it's about 36 miles per year for four years and every road out there servicing all of North Carolina just specific sort here ans there all have been addressed in a normal budgeting process this is just the additional revenue and I would also address the member you should have gotten an email today to pretty much tells you to state from an unbiased opinion I think it's called trips that tells you some of the unfortunate places we find ourselves because were sunburn more rural roads thank you Mr Chairman I would ask that we defeat this amendment. Mr Chairman to speak a second if I don't file[sp?] amendment. Representative Martin is recognized thank you Mr Chair members you've got $300 million the tax payers money are you going to spend it arbitrarily you're going to spend it where the need is if you want to spend it where the need is vote for the amendment any further discussion or debate? If not those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye, aye, opposed no, no no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Next amendment is offered by again by Representative Martin is amendment 11 for the staff AML-16V4 Martin AML-16V4 and Representative Martin is recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you Mr Chair just because I love my friend Mr Chairman Torbett I withdraw this amendment. Mr Chairman I think the feeling is mutual the amendment is withdrawn moving on you should have at your desk amendment 74. offered by Representative Rena Turner ALL-15V1. ALL-15 V1 and Representative Rena Turner is recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you Mr Chair we've done what we could to the through the budget by giving a raise to employees but this reserve salary funds are more clerk salaries and last year we were able to pass that to allow clerk to use those funds, these are not in the budget this time time but we are not relocating funds that are already there and what is not used for that usually goes to instead of going to clerk goes back to AOC for their spending plans and we have support of them, to use those funds for deserving employees helps strengthen the judicial system and I ask for your support. Questions on the amendment. Representative Dorton. The reserves that the clerks don't spend is averted back AOC, if you leave the money there, they will get races in additional to what what we have given them and that maybe a policy decision that you have to make but that's what will happen. Representative Jackson You are in McNeal. Representative Jackson. Thank you Mr. Chairman. A question to the amendment

sponsor, this will be using non reoccurring funds, but if you do a salary increase won't we have to budget for that every year in the future? Representative Turner is recognized. Thank you Mr. Chairman. No, these this are only to be used with then this year there is money that is allocated for clerk salaries and we are discussing hem they are just clashing to you start Further questions, further debate. Representative Mishan[sp?]. Yea, let me get this clear, you are going to leave this money with the clerks to court to dispense among there? people as they see fit, is that what I'm hearing? Representative Conor[sp?] is recognized to respond. Thank you Mr. Chair. Yes that's correct. Mr. Chairman. Followup? Yea, I thought you all handle the matter of salaries and distribution of to employees. Well, we do handle those matters, but as with sections of the budget they are certainly at the will of the body. Representative [xx] Representative Turner is right, we don't pay the assistant clerks enough we've had to freeze their possession, we had a ref one time, but we have raised our salary and leaving the money there, probably will be bad public policy this point what he calls, they'll get either bonuses or they'll get raises and then we'll have to if, unless you don't want them a raise the following year, yet if this one re-occurring money Representative McNeil I'll ask Representative [xx] a question Representative Truner, this was allowed in last year's budget. Is that correct? That is correct, thank you for the question Representative Blackwell.  Just a pulmonary inquiry, does this amount to authorizing them to spend other customary reserves, does this not authorize them to spend what would otherwise be a reversion? And what about? That's rules for these amendments today and is this not adjust salary and benefit appropriations? for an agency and program and is that viol-active of rule 10? And there are a lot of other effects that probably will like to keep their an extended money and give out one hand bonuses to you In this particular instance it's not, it's part of their budget and if we have staff explain further Mr. Chairman Karen has blanked here. Representative Blackwell as relates to item number five that's money in the recurring budget for the department. That's number one, number two is that relates to rule number 10 that refers to the expansion salaries and benefits adjustments that are in the actual budget document that you have before you and I think there was another question about whether they all ready have the authority to do this but I would have to defer that question to one of our salaries and benefits team members. You don't make colons is why you're shaking? Okay, we have seen a frank well. One a follow up question for staff how is the salary reserve  generated by the clerk of superior court if it doesn't occur from not paying out all showering money has been allegated?  Representative Blackwell when salaries are budgeted all state agencies receive a certain amount of money based full funding of salaries if they are able to hire employees that are less than that amount, then that is a recurring amount of money that still in their budget, it does not reverse, they may use it for other purposes but it does not reverse and it's called salary and not lap salary because, it does not revert. Actually now I remember what it is you're talking about and that we did the lap salaries or the one time money in the salary reserves or continuing dollars is all in continuation budget.

Representative Bowles. I going to ask amendment sponsor a question Does the lady yield I yield Have you consult with AOC and what's their position administrative or the courts. Not today, we have but not today. Okay, what about in the past? In the past I'd feel in favor then I'm. Gentlemen Waynes to be recognized to speak. Yeah yes. Because let me explain some concerns in they were loose this amendment Thank you. Representative Glacier. Could I ask Mr. Chairman thank you may I ask Representative Bowls question would you. Gentlemen you. I'll try. I just want to make sure I understand this position of the Chair and Representative Bowls you are understanding now opposes this provision, where this theory. The collect yes. Representative Neo I just wanted to relate right again this was done last year, it was received very well by the clerks and enable them to help with their staffing and their offices retain good quality employees losing I think there was no reason to stop it these year I think we should continue it and I move up in the amendment. Representative I have a question, Correct me if I'm wrong. The clerk of court is an elected position that is expected to provide a service to the community with wherever staff he or she has and the salary of reserve represents during the maybe a higher paid person, and a low paid person or even a lesser person, so do they not have the flexibility to decide how that office is put together I'm not quite sure how to answer that question, but actually I would defer to Tanner having direct experience to maybe address the gentleman's question? Thank you for the question, the salary these are statutory, the amounts is allowed to deputies there is no flexibility among the clerks Further questions further debate? Representative [xx]? Briefly thank you Mr. Chair. I don't know about AOC, but I would be and willing to venture that all 100 clerks of superior court will be strongly in favor of this, I have gotten calls from several of them in the past week in support for this. These folks do a tremendous job with limited resources, and we need to appreciate what they do, and give them at the tools that they need, I urge your adoption. Seeing no further hands, all those in favor of the the amendment, please signify by saying aye? Aye! Oppose No? No. The chair is having a hard time determining if in favor of the amendment, please raise your hand.? Clerks will count. Mr. Chairman please raise your hand? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes clearly have it, the the amendment is adopted. The next amendment is offered by representative Louise number 77 for the staff, AMD-20V2, AMD-20V2 Representative Louise is recognized to explain his amendment? Mr. Chair and members, thank you, as the provision was explained earlier today. The intent of this provision was to move from the Department of Public Instruction to Department of Administration and take certain, particularly the state suplus, the disposal of ceased vehicles vehicles. I have received some correspondents from GM Financial Toyota, the Auto Dealers Association, and even some concern from the clerks of court, regarding to change the amount of time

that is required before the vehicle can be disposed off. What this amendment would do, is allow the sponsor's intent of moving the program from DPI to DOA, but it would not change the amount of time that's required before the ceased vehicle could be I would respectfully ask that the committee adopt this method failure to do so, for this subtitive of a policy change I think would make us need to review this again in a J committe Representative Cliveland is recognized. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'm aware that Representative Louise has a concern over the this out of constituent concern, he's had several meetings with other pokes, I've never been invited to any of them I have asked him what was going on, asked for meetings, and I've never been given that courtesy. This item has been worked out for the past four years between DPI and DOA, there's been a thorn for DPI for many many Years, we've finally come up with a solution that is going to considerably increase the funds going to LEAs and it's going to put the program in a much more professional setting. The people at [xxx] have been doing this, and they have the ability and the talent to take care of it. I would ask that you defeat the Amendment.  Mr. Chairman Chairman Luis  May I ask the distinguished gentleman from Hanslow a question?  Does the gentleman, yield?   Of course gentlemen, representative Cleveland, you said your intent was to move the program from DPI to DOA. This amendment doesn't change that don't understand how the objections that you just raised are relevant to the actual text of the amendment, which have to do how fast someone seized property be sold. The amendment in effect takes the change out of the budget. And since its the PED, it did Mr. Chairman, are we doing AND 20 V2 We're doing AMD-20 V2 Is that the amendment the gentleman is, bring to debate which doesn't mention the PED? My apologies a had wrong The gentlemen is now in possession of the correct amendment and if we give him just a moment to look at that, should he wish to comment. While he's looking at that other questions or debate by other members? Seeing none at the moment, Chairman Cleveland. Thank you Mr Chairman. This amendment in effect puts back the language that's presently in the law that allows a vehicle to sit on a lot, and be charged the storage fees against the vehicle, and it sits there until the vehicle gets down to I think a value of $1500, or 85% of it's value, that is one of the reasons why the is not efficient. That's one of the reasons we worked over the past four years to we do it and, make sure it will give the LAs the maximum benefit this usual program and I still have to defeat the amendment. Further discussion. Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman. Chairman Louis if this is considered the first time on this amendment or the second time, since weren't actually on the same one to start with. Just to be clear the law which has been vetted about when you

can seize and dispose of someone's property, the gentleman from Onlso is correct. This is current law. The intent is it was made known to me is that department of public instruction want to be lead of the administration board on this program, the gentleman so to move it to department of administration. This ammendement doesn't change that, but if we are going to get it to the time required for a vehicle that's been seized and been sold, most especially those that still have liens against them, in which the lien holders would like the right to come in and pay off the lean, and claim the thing, and pay the storage fees. I'm glad the gentleman mentioned the storage fees, because of course as he's aware, by statute, at least 50%, and in the case in the East, 60% of the storage fees go to the schools. But but just to be clear on this, the mere fact that we are having this conversation for a budget provision should give the members in the room polls, and lastly, just to make clear, the gentleman's intent to move it from DPI to DOA is a accomplished by this, without interfering or potentially damaging a lean hoarder's right, or an individual's right who owns their property to make sure that the case is properly adjudicated. I respectfully ask for adoption of the amendment. Mr Chairman. Thanks Mr Chairman. In working through the years is program, I wanted to make it more efficient for the early age so that they would get more money. Lien holders are protected, anyone that has a lien out of vehicle they come in and get their vehicle there problem with the line holder being protected. The whole purpose of this program is once the vehicle cease is to apply additional funding to the early age, not to the contractors that are doing the program and that's what is going. So I'd ask your support in defeating this amendment. Further discussion or further debate on the amendment. Seeing none, all those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying Aye. Aye. Opposed No. No. the Ayes appear to have it. Is the call sustained? we will allow a show of hands. All those in favor of the amendment please raise your hand, the Clerks will count. will the Sergeants-at-Arms be still at the moment, if you don't mind, while the Clerks do the count tell them to stand up, tell them to stand. I can't cope with this, they need to stand up. Clerks are having some difficulty. If you are in favor of the amendment, please rise. It's exercise. Watch your hand. you may be seated. All those in opposition please rise. Please be seated.

The ayes were 41, the nays were 26 and the amendment is adapted next amendment of offered by Representative Greo Martin. This is AML-35V1 AML-35V171 for the staff and Representative Martin Martin is recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you very much Mr. Chair this is part of the transportation budget still and the provision as it currently stands in the budget would allow the department to retain outside legal council on transportation matters but also specifically on workers compensation claims brought by department employees and as I've looked at this issues I've gotten seriously concerned that this does not represent a good use of the tax payers dollars. We've got a good set of in house council that are all ready getting paid to do this work and as as I looked at it in other areas of the budget in other areas of government specifically in the realm of workers camp where outside council has been sort, the cost of the tax payers has been anywhere from six on up as much as it would have cost had we kept it in house. With all due respect to my colleagues who are lawyers who do work it's not as specialized or as highly skilled nearly the law as some others and it's something that's I mean our current staff of lawyers is more than capable of handling. And so, my amendment would delete that entire provision and hopefully not incur the added expense the taxpayers of having to pay private lawyers. Would appreciate your support. Representative Glazier. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, and I support Representative Martin on this one. I agree with Representative Torbett on the first part of it that is that there are occasions in which transportation issues, project issues are very complex, and that is a specialized area, and I believe the department ought to have the outside capacity but equally true is what Representative Martin is saying, is there's no special talent or skill needed on the workers camp generally, that is we have workers camp throughout the every agency in government and the AGs office is perfectly able to handle that, or to outsource it if there's a particularly unusual case. And I cant see giving deal to that authority, my suggestion is to pass the amendment and then for Representative Torbett if he chooses to put a new amendment in tomorrow that's more limited that deals just with the project issues which I think he's right about, but this is, this is a potential sort of boondoggle issue on the workers camp. Representative Torbett yes thank you very much, I don't know much about [xx] but I would like to offer a [xx] amendment if I could. I don't know how to do that but we've agreed to to remove the part dealing with workers comp. Well. Go ahead. I think inquiry of gentlemen, would you wish rather than doing a perfecting amendment to withdraw this amendment and offer a perfected amendment to more on the floor, when we take it up on second reading.? I  think I would Mr. Chair and just to confirm that I would have Chairman Tobit's support for that amendment on the floor tomorrow. For the removal of the workers compensation portion.  For the removal of the workers  compensation portion that's what I've heard.  Thank you Mr chair and I withdraw this amendment tomorrow and have an amendment for the floor ready to that effect tomorrow. Amendment is withdrawn. Next is amendment is offered by Representative Brody number 60. amcf-55v2, 55v2 and Representative Brody is recognized to offer his amendment. Thank you Mr chairman what this amendment does is, it sets aside the proposed new language in the set off debt collection act. It's just a proposed new language I propose deletion for the purpose of requiring the Department of Revenue to put this in bill form and send it through the committee process instead of the budget. The carrot at the end

of the stick is that the Federal government will scour the or people or entities that own North Carolina money and collect it for us and North Carolina will do the same for the feds. The problem is, this program has been available to the states including North Carolina for decades and it sounds like a great program but if it is such a great program, only eight states to date have signed up for it. I believe the answer as to why this program remains unpopular among the remaining states is in the details which we don't know. The committee process will finds out the details, and if it still proves to be a good program we can have it enacted during short session. Yeah, I believe it's better to be safe than sorry, and I ask of the support of the amendment. Representative Baldy, we have some questions up here at the podium. What we would like to do is just place this and get some clarification from our staff and we'll come back to it later, thank you. The next amendment is number 53, offered by Representative Avila. ALU-5V6, ALU-5V6. Representative Avila is recognized. Thank you, Mr Chairman. This is actually a budget item that we're inserting that will follow bills that are coming before the House, to expand the age for foster care up to the age of 19, and I would ask for the committee's support. Questions? Representative Stevens. Thank you Mr. Chair and I'm sure Representative Beverly knows my question, this covers all the programs we're working on. Thank you. Further questions.? If not Representative Cleveland you have a question? Thank you Mr. Chair OK no question if not, all those in favor say aye, aye. Any opposed? chair does pass. Amendment number 58 H97-AMH- 24 version 4 Representative West Thank you Mr. Chairman, what this bill or this memo will do, it would create a pool of money for small towns in [xx] counties, for the water systems that have exceeded their useful appreciate the adoption of the amendment. Questions? Representative Whitmire. Question for the amendment sponsor. Representative West. I yield. Just where does the money come from? And also it looks awfully neither tethered. How how broad does it cover? It covers small towns under 12, 000 people in Tier 2 counties. The money is a pot of money there's $20 million oven[sp?] to water rural infrastructure money, it would just make sure that some towns in Tier 2 counties can apply and get it. Other questions? Representative Blackwell?  I have a question for the amendment sponsor, on line eight where it talks about 202 county in the municipality has population less than 12, 000, can you explain how the 12000 was determined?  Excuse me choose a number that fits a small town in 202 counties follow up question follow up, since it`s just number and you want to fill a lot of towns in 202 counties is that something we might can talk about for the floor. Representative West if you want to talk about it, we're happy to talking about it. I'm sure they'll be a lot of talking going on tomorrow, other question? Representative Magredy. I'll just speak in favor of the amendment, we've tried to put more money into the water and wasteful; infrastructure grant program and the issue out there is really a lot of small municipal system that are failing, I think it's a good amendment and I support it OK, no other questions, all those in favor say aye? Aye, Any oppose no this pass.

OK this is amendment number 50H97-ALL-13 version two. Representative Daltrey? Got enough in there No sir, I didn't. OK. Thank you Mr. Chairman, this is a request from AOC regarding a provision especially courts that could be set up and NSA wants to make it through to district courts US state having it's best practices and is working effectively Since their isn't any in questions Rep. Stevens. Thank you Mr. Speaker looks like somebody woke me up out done it just a question for Rep. Daughtry I think somebody came forward recently and said the district attorneys offices were having some concern of not being included this process by ANC when they might have to provide extra staff for some of these specialty courts have we addressed that in any way that will be addressed, thank you Mr. Chairman that will be addressed rest the cause of this amendment, Other questions if not all in favor say aye, aye those oppose oppose no the amendment does pass. Amendment 48 H97-PC ES30383-LRXF-11Rep. Torbett you have this amendment I think it was chairman this going on top of my head I only had one, what we are trying to do is being more efficient in transportation this is simply just says reduce the purchase and acquisition of right away back by 3% in an effort to just reduce overall cost and also save on overall maintenance Mr. Chair Rep. Stam I'm out of place because try to find the staff person who was working on this, I don't think it does what the sponsors think it does and I'm wondering if they do well unto displace it till Luke Gethowater gets up here and we can discus it with staff, Rep Tobett would you be will to displace it the advice of council? Yes Mr. Chairman. Council decides you there. OK, we'll displace this and come back. Amendment number 7 PCS303 83-LRXF-11 Representative Tan? Excuse me Mr. Chairman, could you. Yes Madam Could you read read the top number that it`s a little bit easier if you read for me. H97-8mk-20 version 3 47. Number 47, Representative Todd, Thank you Mr chairman, this to me from the community college system, inside the budget is innovative grands programme to help establish news programs for the community colleges and the languages they felt was a little too restrictive and they asked for the broadening of the language here. are there questions? Yes Representative Grey. I'm sorry, I'm just trying to [xx] exactly what this does Mr. Chair and I wonder, could someone explain just a little bit what it is, how it's broadening it? Mr. Chairman Mr. Chairman. Yes Chairman. I can explain it. Representative [xx]. Yeah, the language inside of the budget states that basically, they further they could be interpreted that, if any programme similarly exist inside the system because they currently say as inside the college system that it may overly restrict the availability of this funds to develop another system in in another area so that's why they changed it to completely curriculum program approval application. Representative Glacier [xx] thank you [xx]. Other questions?

No questions, all in favor say aye, aye. Any opposed say no, it's amendment number 52 H97-AMQ-6 version 1 Representative [xx] you are up I want recheck AMQ-6 version 1? Yes Madam This is one of those amendments I'm not sure if the term dejavu or the be groundhog day applies here but I think many of you understand the purpose of what this amendment does and that is to remove the requirements for newspaper publication for government information we recently in the house established through a vote of the majority to establish the fact that the citizens of this state are entitled to know what the government is doing and I would suggest and strongly urge you to vote no against this amendment it looks [xx] in it rental or lease at $ 25, 000 but I know many of us in here are sure used to purchasing contracts which had a minimum of $ 55 million and it was amazing the number of $4, 999, 999 contracts we had and they all could be grouped together for the same project and I don't want to see head down the road here. Our citizens deserve to know what were doing with the their money and we need to keep it the bill we passed allowed a movement towards new technology in future but were not ready to make that complete change yet please vote for this amendment. Questions Representative Ford you look a little curious about you have a question? Yes Mr Chairman I thought you did. I thought you said vote no and then she said vote for so I'm definitely confused I apologize for the confusion it was vote no against the purpose but definitely vote yes for this amendment to help strengthen the majority that we passed in house bill 156 earlier in the session thank you. Point for clarification. Other questions? If no other questions, all those in favor of this amendment say, aye in the oppose, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. It is approved. Next item is amendment is number 54, H97ALU-11 version 1, Representative Bur. you're up. ALU-11, version 1. Thank you Mr. Chairman. This amendment if you're looking in the special provisions, on page 99, you' ll see last few years, we've obviously been working to improve the quality on early childhood education, and making sure that we're focusing on those children that are truly at risk and what this amendment is doing, you'll see the aging come percentage level, today the way it is in law, is that birth to five is that the percent of the federal poverty level and if those children 6-12 is at a 133% and this amendment will move it up from birth to 5, they will go birth to third grade which will allow for all children up to third grade rather than having an age will have a grade so they can finish up that full grade without being removed from their child care facility or from receiving subsidy and we'll make sure that they're at that same level so I know been a big effort and the General Assembly that we've all participated in to make sure that we're doing everything we can to make sure that our children are able to read by the third grade and this is to make sure kids that are truly at risk up to that level are covered and will increase the number that can be eligible up to third grade and would ask for your support of the amendment. Thank you Representative Barb question Representative Fisher. Just a comment Mr. Chairman, this is a really good gradual step towards making sure that children who are below the age of being able to take care of themselves once they leave school to make sure that they have good quality care after school and before school that matter and I would actually concur with this amendment and

hope that you would support it, thank you. Thank you. Representative Thank you Mr. Chairman thank you Representative Barr for bringing this amendment forward our focus the chair and his committee has been on birth to five years of age however we understand what the amendment is trying to get at and we feel this is a reasonable compromise so the chairs have no objection and we'd encourage you to vote for the amendment Representative Mc Grady I'll just add my thanks to Representative Barr for bringing this forward this should be worked on several session now and it's a good amendment heard it's adoption All those in favor of this amendment say aye, "aye" and the opposed say no. Amendment carries okay amendment number 55 H97-ALU -6v3 also Representative Barr thank you Mr. Chairman this amendment is just moving to correct what I believe was oversight in the HHS budget and that it's adding back into maternity homes at the same funding level that they've been at I believe since 2011 and would ask for the member support what this is doing is the funds are currently used in our 100 counties to fund the placement pregnant women with limited income and in need of help into licensed maternity homes and certainly a good program and I'd ask for your support in this amendment question Representative Avaler Not a question thank you Mr. Chairman but to ask for your support on this representative Barr s right we move the state funding into the reviews while we overlooked the block ground portion and would like to have that reinstated through this amendment thank you Thank you no other questions all those in favor say aye, Aye! Any oppose? It also approved. Amendment number 7H97AMH-97 version 2. Representative Mucky rise Okay, it's AMH-27 Version 2 Thank you Mr. Chair this is another case where we thought our position was the vacant and it was all ready sealed, so we're eliminating reduction to that position and increasing a cut to oil reserve in the office of land and water stewardship. So this just [xx] position that was all ready filled in the [xx] after we got our information I hope that you will support that. Any questions? No questions All those in favor say aye, "Aye", any oppose no passes its way, Amendment number 73 H97ALL-14 version 1 Representative Glacier Thank you Mr. Chairman this is what was talked about this morning when representatives doctrine in [xx] and surely we are delivering their report. It adds in the relief for an [xx] with regards to them asking for a petition for certificate for relief. I know of position. Thank you No opposition No opposition Thank you Representative Glacier. Any questions, comments? All those in favor if not say aye aye, Aye! Any opposed? It also passed. Representative Dollar. H97A AR-6 Version 1.62. Amendment number 62. If memory serves me, that is the five days. Yeah.  This is the amendment that we've actually put in the last several years, to give five thankable days to our State employees. It is for obvious reasons, quiet popular, and it's a really good thing to do for our State employees and it's generally enjoyed pretty wide spread support, would be happy to answer any questions. Questions?

No questions.? All in favor say I ask, Aye? Any opposed, no, it passes as well. Member number 82 H 97 ALG-9 version 14, Representative Cliveland you're up number ALG 9, Yes Thank you Mr. Chairman, this is nothing but technical corrections that need we've been made, removing somethings in the money report, and certain columns that shouldn't have been there, correcting some wording strictly technical. See if there any questions? No questions, all those in favor say Aye, "Aye", any opposed no, gate passes as well. Memo number 56 H 97, ALU-7 version two, Representative Bowl you're back up Mr. Chair I've asked that amendment be displaced for now, I'm working with Representative Marvela for some other options Okay, we will displace that. Amendment number 51 H97ALM-18V3, Representative Mackelrath Thank you thank you so much Mr chair, this is my last amendment, thank goodness. This is the department of commerce requested a number of modifications to the composition of the reduction we made. These changes maintain the net value of the reductions to the agency but shift a few reductions to areas that were deemed more appropriate by the secretary. In other words, we asked them they had positions the wanted to keep, and so we asked them to find the money They did find the money, and it does not change anything really as far as the amount of money. We just asked the to find it in different area barriers of comers. I would appreciate your support. Any questions? The chair has does have one perfecting amendment on line 14 Deputy Attorney General. We're going to change that Deputy General council, correct title. Is that Thank you Mr. Chair that would be great. I thought that that had been done, thank you. Okay. Thank you. All those in favor of this amendment say aye, in the oppose no. It passes as well. Amendment number 65, H97AML-18 version 3, Representative Buskaville You're up. Thank you Mr Chair. Which which one are we telling him again? This is -18 version 3 Okay, Do you have so many you couldn't keep up   I only got two, this one that begins, moves to amend the PCS On page 249 Yes sir, I would like to displace that one, Mr chairman okay. We'll displace that for the time being and Representative [xx] we'll take your next one this is amendment number 66H97AML-13V4 Thank you Mr chair, I will be brief look on page K2 of the Monday report, looking t the transportation section, looking at section number 13 is dealing with public transportation which is a particular import in rural communities like mine, we don't have traditional by system we have to rely on grant funding, for example, through this rule capital grant program to fund like the carts program ] that I have in my area. My amendment is adding $ 750.000 to that fund. It's taking it from the $ 214 million that we have appropriated for resurfacing. So it takes $ 750, 000 that we have appropriated for road resurfacing, and it puts $ 750, 000 in there for rural  transport. I urge your adoption. Thank you Representative Baskerville, are  their questions? Representative Torbet.  I'll just respectfully ask committee members to vote against the amendment. Other questions? Ok you've heard the

comments all those in favor say those opposed say No, No, all   [xx] the Nos, it does not pass OK were passed the next batch of five I know this is exciting news were down to about 40 amendments the next batch of five H97AM-28 version 3 Representative Halloway amendment number 91 thank you Mr. Chair, could you tell me the member again [xx] Yes, Kempser Tommer[sp?].  Okay, thank you, I appreciate that members last year in the budget we added cash to Tommer[sp?] to the park system and this is not taking money from any where but rather take taking the money from the parks and Recreation Trust Fund and just press upon that 100, 000 of that will go to Kansas Tommer[sp?] for renovations, they definitely need that, its was a added again to the system and it is not taken from anywhere it's just specifying it from where it should come from, that they should get 100, 000 I ask for your support Rep. [xx] Thank you Mr. Chair while I appreciate what my good friend is trying to do, I if we start this slippery slope, we're going to get everyone trying to get money for their parts going around the protocol we have set put up with the board in and so I would ask you not to support this amendment. Representative McRady.  Thank you Mr. Chairman, I share representative [xx] views on this. I think we're making a huge mistake if with Trust Fund, we start allocating for specific projects the solution here is for a application to be made each department for this funds and then the department board will allocate them appropriately I would urge you to vote against the amendment Representative Hollaway thank you and though I appreciate the Chair's opinions however last year in the budget we added again [xx] and what good does it do to add a part to the system and then give them no money? And that's exactly what were doing and we added this and I want we send a random last year and this was a really big ordeal and when we did this we actually left last year with a agreement that we would try to come back and put funds his session [xx] I'm a little different position so I'm over here having the beg but again I just don't understand why we would to add a park to the system then give them no money so that's this all this is doing and again we are not taking it from anyone other than from the park system that's where this money is for I ask for your support. Representative Pendelton.  Mr Chairman may I ask Representative Hollaway a question please? Representative Halloway have the question. Yes sir. I'm glad to yield.  I can't tell, who owns this camp? Camps for Thomas in Stock county it is a it was actually owned by a one time NC state but through legislation last year between the House and Senate the park system took it over. So that's the point I'm trying to make is we took in a new park then we gave them no money last year while we are doing this and working on this agreement and we told them that we would come back this year and try to give them money so the money is not here in the budget so I'm trying to hold the promise that was made last year. Representative Makerwith Thank you Mr. Chair and you know this year we are incredibly happy that we get even extra 12.5 million to the part of fund. We just can't keep, we cannot start this slipperly slope bypassing the people who make those grands and deciding I'm here with  the legislature. There are funds now, we have given a 100th anniversary of this year as part of stay parts, there are fine sale and I know that the support people are listening  to theirs and I know that the priority has been said with Representative Holoway and I hope this sponsor will take care came sutoma  but we cannot keep doing this, we will have, just like someone said, 70 other people come out on the flow and try to do the same thing for their parts, please vote this amendment with all due respect to my friend. OK, you've heard the debate, all those in favor of this amendment say aye , aye those oppose say no, no lets do a show of hands because I cannot

exactly tell from up here, show of hands, those in favor of saying aye, why don't you stand up, make it easy for the counters, stand up for your ayes 33 good yeah Okay. we get on that? Okay, all those nos please stand. close vote. The ayes have it 33 to 32. Close vote. So, it passes. Next amendment is 6897 AMD 24 Version 4, Representative Pittman, you're up. Okay. Alright. Thank you sir. I noticed [xx] one I have. The administration at Stone Wall Jackson came, asked me to come there last May to take a look at some of the old buildings that are falling apart, and when inspecting them we found thing like floors fallen through, pouches fallen through, one of the buildings had a tree growing next to it, the the tree growing up on the foundation up through the building come back out through the window, it was all kinds of things like that, while we were inspecting the buildings and stuff falling off the roof while we were standing there and that sort of thing. They've a problem with people coming in there, vandalism and this sort of thing, and they're fearful somebody actually is going to get hurt, possibly killed in one of these building and so what they wanted to do is to put fencing around these 13 buildings to keep people out to stop vandalism and is a public safety matter. There's been some talk about trying to renovate these buildings or trim down whatever and I was told that to try to renovate them, you're talking about something like $2 million per building just to get rid of the asbestos and that sort of thing, tried working it safely for this and nothing was done and well that I was told be taken care of in appropriations and didn't happen, I was told that it would be in JPS and it ends up in so I hated to have to bother any other part or careful budget for this, but it was only the way ahead to do it and just cilick the run through waht this would do, if you look on page M1 and 2of the money Report. Would take 25, 000 from the Dorton Arena roof replacement leaving 2, 280, 000 there. We take 50, 000 from the water resources development, leaving 5, 033, 000 there. Would take 5, 000 from army facility development projects leaving 613, 000 there, and on second page number seven. Plant sciences building would take 50, 000 from there, leaving 4, 950, 000 and from engineering building item eight would 50, 000 leaving 11, 850, 000 and from item nine western school science and Math take 20, 000 their would leave 1, 580, 000. Again I hate to have take money from these other things but we really need this fence and done

for public safety Act, Stnley Jackson, I appreciate and I support the amendment. Thank you representative Pittman. Have questions representative Dickson? Thank you Mr. Chair. Members I would ask you to vote against this amendment, the plant size and food process initiative is one of the greatest visionary things that we've had in the state of North Carolina in a long long time. Those folks have gone out and raised about $9 million is a private money to go towards this and I would not be in favor of taking one penny away from this plant size and food process initiative I would encourage you to vote against the amendment, Rep Angela, Thank you Mr. Chairman I would like for the in the room dealing with this sort of thing if we are talking in terms of liability as a danger to the public who holds that liability and what kind of limitations would their be limitations we did have few attorneys in the room let, s see the best attorney here to respond to that we need an attorney to respond to the question, who is paying the retainer fee. Mr. Chairman I trying to figure out how to pay for it sir. Mr. Chairman Lambeht yes Mum, I think you repeat the question Rep. [xx] had a question we dint hear it, OK we have a response in staff less you repeat the question Rep. [xx] Repeat the question. The question that I have, it sounds like it's definite danger to the public and my question is, where does the liability lie if someone is injured and there is a law suit. Representative Doughtry is actually qualified.. I'm the best lawyer in here so state has sovereign immunity unless there is insurance. Representative Avila will that help? Okay. Other questions? Representative Arp. Mr. Chair what I'd like to do is applaud my college, Representative Pitman for the effort. The problem is, when you take the money from funds to repair roofs. Those are estimated funds to complete that project, when you deplete that project, there is not enough money to complete that project, and so I would ask you've vote against the amendment, another question representative Pittman you have the last words. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I understand, the people heard everything of this I have a heartburn too it was rough on me coming here morning trying to figure out where I'm going to take this money from? Because I didn't want to take it from anywhere but if the bill has been given a chance to start with we wouldn't be in this position it should have been already somewhere in the budget and so am trying to do the best I can to protect safety in my district, this is a request from the administration [xx], and if I had some other way to do it I would be glad to do it, but this it`s all I`m left with just trying to do t this way as much as I regret having to, then I would appreciate you voting for the amendment. Thank you representative [xx], you've heard the debate including an expert legal all those in favor say aye, aye, those oppose say no, no [xx], no have it, it does not pay us amendment number 81H97AMK-27, representative Greisure, thank you very Mr chairman this is a change in one word and the proposal with regard to elevating education and the issue is we are measurable because we don't have the measures set yet this is to say we do want to look at student success but we dont want to get in a debate of what's measured what's not yet I talked to Rep. Horn and I think their was no opposition, question to Rep. Horn I talked to Rep. Glaser and I'm able to that provistion thank you, all those in favor say aye Aye, all! any oppose no, it does pass amendment 68 H97ALH-15 version 12 Rep, Horn ALH-15 Version 12. Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is tech correct. We went back over the bills we all know how quickly things move, as we get through this part I worked with staff just to go through details and I can truly tell you there's nothing new in here.

This is just technical corrections and I urge your support Okay. Question? No questions. All in favor say aye. Aye Any opposed, no. It is approved. Okay amendment number 95 H97AMD-25 version two Representative Whitmire Miss Chair I will be brief before I start for plain purposes is their any prospects of a break tonight as far as food or anything else just curious for everybody's benefit? Is that an offer to bring everybody pizza for everybody or? I think we are OK 35, 30 to 35, 15 and back well. Representative Whitemire do you participate that your amendment is going to draw the opposition or is everybody happy with it? To my knowledge department effective yes they're happy with it, and I can say this in 30 seconds or less, if we can, if you want to move on. Well The, I'll tell you what we'll do, we've got about, we have some amendments that are out there. What we'll do is we'll take a vote This one and a couple more, we're going to get Representative West amendment. And then at that time We''ll break for dinner because actually it looks like we have around 30, 35 amendments, some are being withdrawn, some other those are still in the process of being redrafted, and I think we'd probably work better to do that and come back and see if we can get through our business, I will tell you, I was going to wait and tell you this later, but I'll tell you this now, staff has advised me from someone who has been here for a while not too long, but a while, and she advises me that this is a record number of amendments and so appreciate the committee's patience as we work through this issues. Okay. Representative Whitmore, you can proceed. Thank you Mr. Chair as briefly as possible. For little over two years the Department of Agriculture and the National Guard have been working together with several other missions. Our cope is set it can feel exist and this gives the national guard with their armory funding  latitude [xx] 20-20 to be able to use it for an opportunity that is a missionary that they're are seeking to get for first respondent emergency response training, and it also helps with Bruk mitigation because we have an area that's unique East to the for some things that some of our military bases have interest in with the guard being in one be the gate keeper, I ask your support questions? Representative Mcgreg, I just want to verify that is MD25 version yes. We have no problem with that and it had taken all the military encroachment buffer fund and that still leaves an extra . 75 million so we are okay with this. Representative Whitner. Foe further closer I had that amendment good and would have come above us, however because of tend county with law I ended up basically amending what I had had and I have been working on for aumouries so it basically is more the flexibility issue that the guard can use this we needed it until April 2020 and it's certainly compasetic with the cooperation between Arg and the national guard. Okay, any other question. No follow up. We are here in fact that's even better, thank you. Thank you, all those in favor of this amendment say aye, aye, any oppose no, it does pass thank you Rep. Whitmire H97ALM-21 member number 84 Rep. Stam Thanks this is 400000 tell you what coming from first is from rural development I believe Rep. McElraft will support that it's going to another project that also supports rural development you may remember two months ago you passed house bill 108 for building site plan development get pad

ready sites loans to local government you likely remember that and I was asking the floor well how much you are asking for and I said for the first year the planning money 400000 so that their will be a strategic rigid plans so this would not be done [xx] but where it's really needed and will produce the best result so that's where the money goes and where it's coming from state within commerce, their you go, questions Rep. [xx] thank you Mr. Chair I'll just say that the Chair support this amendment Thank you, no other questions all those in favor of this amendment I don't know why I couldn't see you. Representative [xx] Yes Sir I thank you Mr. Chair. I just want to remind the members of what House Bill 108 it is it pretty much establishes this establishes $400000 worth of seed money to develop what would be become the ministry of industrial development in the State. I think it's a harmful bill and I think we don't need to appropriate any money for it I would ask you not to support this amendment other questions no other questions all those favor of the amendment say aye, aye those oppose no, no the opinion of the chair the no's have it, division all of you in favor if you would stand up This is the Stam amendment. Representative [xxx] you're standing up, he is standing Okay those opposed, you can sit down, sorry, will stand Ow wow Okay, the ayes do have it 21-26, It passes. This is the last one before we take a break, amendment number 86 H97-AMH-31V2, Representative West. Thank you Mr chairman, what this bill does, the funds are appropriated to the clean water management trust fund for military buffers this ensures that that money is spent on military buffers. Appreciate adoption of the amendment Questions Representative Cleveland. I hope staff looks at section 147B and gets to the base no more question correct. Representative Shepard thank you Mr Chairman the same question I've you got micro based camps then you got Station act, which are two different entities, and I don't know that makes a difference but it make Representative Whitmeyer ask the amendment sponsor a couple of questions. OK, Representative West, a question? I yield. Hadn't had a chance to study it deeply, but when we did House Hill 484, the Low Level Protection Route which was a big barrack[sp?] issue, our low level air routes which all of our bases use them, that plays in in places, where the language is about being adjacent to the property direct, but we also have satellite training facilities. This may not be the best example, but like Bogue Field and others where you may not have the asset that's a critical need at the installation itself. Marines especially they practice secure landings there as an example, but I think this might be better to wait till tomorrow just to have a chance to look at maybe some unintended consequences. It's got some things, low levels routes I think might need to be re-looked training areas that are not contagious with the base that are used in many different times and

I mentioned both fields and I'm sure if my brain will start working I can think of some more I'm afraid we've got some issues here we have to resolve Okay Representative McGrady I want to speak in favor of the amendment the notary buffers in past sessions have been money have been allocated to plain order management trust fund and I understand I mean out makes me a little nervous that I've supported two amendments by Representative Wess and that's probably one too many but I will support the I'd urge support again for Representative Wess amendment because I think it reflects the intent with respect to the military mostly an Eastern issue actually Representative Penilton I speak in favour of it but it needs to have two installations at the State of North Carolinas largest facility. Facility is not on that camp Butner needs and I believe camp Macol needs to to be at it Okay Representative McGuire Thank you Mr. Chairman I would certainly support this but I think we need just like representative Witmure said we've let's talk about field and we've been having encroachment issues around there because of people living on emrol dire etc. So I really think we need to clean that part up and I wonder if we would just leave it to military insulation period and not the way name them, would that? Yes, would you approve of perfecting the amendment to not name them, but just say Military installations? Representative West, one option is to proceed with this and then fix it tomorrow. Let's just proceed with it, we'll run a technical amendment tomorrow.   Correct, till tomorrow with anything then you'll have a chance, the opportunity to talk about it between now and then. OK, and thank you for bringing that up. OK, you've heard that discussion, there will be an amendment tomorrow to try to fix few things in here, but generally all those in favor will say Aye. Aye. Any opposed? OK, we are at a break time. I don't want to remind you that the room will be cleared and locked by the Sergeant-at-Arms. So, you can leave your materials here and feel safe and secure. If you would be back promptly by 7.30, 7.30. Thank you. committee will come back to order, members will take their seats, all extraneous conversation should be taken outside, We will pick up, is Representative Horn here? Yes You have an amendment sir? next amendment we will take up is, was that your seat from when we recessed. It's ALE-24V1, amendment 88 for the staff, Representative Horn's amendment and the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker, I hate saying this, but it's a simple amendment I really hate saying that. It's actually just, it's an amendment to the snappy, it's not an amendment to the special provisions, it's not a money issue, it's strictly an amendment to the snappy on page F2 item 9, the very last sentence. Just for clarification sake and to keep all my friends happy so that they work together nicely in our digital program proceeds. You can see they changed that licence to read the state board of education, contract with the front institute, to support both of this activities and has to do and of course

with additional ask your support Mr. Chairman. Representative Torbett. Can I ask young, the good man from sweet union a question please? Does gentleman yield? For the benefit of some of us, would you mind cluing us into what a snappy is. You know I I've only recently learnt that myself, but I hear that term all the time, that's the summary explanation that's in your money report? With each item in your money report? Further questions? alright, seeing no hands, all those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying aye. Aye. Oppose no. The ayes have it, the amendment is adopted. OK, the next amendment we'll take up is AMC-51 V4. Representative R. Johnson's Amendment, Amendment 93, AMC-51 V4, and Representative Johnson is recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This provision in this amendment will allow grocers to go into [xx], North [xx] desert areas, giving them a task credit, and providing healthly food. Let me start over. This amendment will address the areas around the state which have a food desert this Palor program would be funded by the Department of Commerce. If people in high property areas have access to [xx] along with other healthy food it will lower the risk of diabetes obesity in other health related matters, and I hope that you would accept the amendment. question, comments on the amendment, saying none, representative Dickson Mr Chairman and members in the absence of our spokes lady, we would ask you to not vote for this amendment, we'd ask to defeat this amendment. Representative Glaiser.  Thank Mr. Chair, I wonder if I could direct a question to representative Dickson, if you would be willing to yield. The gentleman yield? Yes Sir. Representative Dickson, and I understand, I wonder, if this amendment were reduced to the amount, but would there be opposition to maybe temporary displacing it for a minute, to allow Representative Johnson to work with you all on funding a small amount or perhaps from a from a different source that would fund this really important program.  I think it would be a idea Representative Glaicer the problem that we have of the source of where it is coming from. Mr. Chairman. Representative Stem. Before somebody decides I seem to remember something in the budget, a pending legislative things that I thought had 5.5 million in it for pending legislation, and think was one of them in there. Could somebody. That is, that is correct . I believe that Representative Brown is recognize. you Mr. Chairman, to representative Stan's point, there is that provision that is in the budget for this things, however this bill actually addresses different stores what is currently in the budget is for corner stores there is a significant difference in the two, so take that information with whatever purpose you would like to take it, but there is a difference between the two. So, it's in a similar vein but it's dealing ith

two diferent types of some, through facilities as we understand it, Representative Stern. To speak second time, obviously that bill could be amended to the whatever the sponsor wants it to be, or the committee wants it be, the fact that they're not exactly the same isn't a reason to take a million dollars from the roll whatever it's called Rep Grazer, Thank you Mr chairman and I wonder Representative Johnson if you might be wiling to temporarily just place this yes I would The amendment is temporarily displaced the next amendment is offered by Representative Richardson amendment 67, it's AMQ-7V1, offered by Representative Richards Thank you Mr chairman, the amendment before you deals with the opposition of closing the revenue call center in rock [xx] which is in Echcon county which is a tier one county and if this closes, we will lose approximately 60 jobs and the rationale for doing it was because they could not keep people employed there`re eight vacant position in that particular facility at this time with a number of about 60 employees, we also were told that the the thing was not suitable, the commissioners there have passed a bill to relocate that center and I think it would really be a a devastation to a tier 1 county to move that many position out of it's considering we are a tier one area with difficulty and economic development, and when growing is [xx] has the ability to attract multiple types of facilities or economic opportunities, we also are told that the community there was like of training facilities there, we have three outstanding community college, nurse community college, Atecom community college, Wilson community college, we also has Balton college and [xx] college and those Colleges have said that if there is need for training, they would be more than willing. So I ask you to please support this amendment and do not take 60 jobs out of a tier one county to remove it to a tier three county that could have other opportunities and understand that this particular facility will only hire up to 100 people an therefore they have probably 50 in staff already in Greenborough so that means you're putting at least 10 people on unemployment I ask you and I urge you to please vote for this rural counties to keep 60 jobs to help with this economic development thank you. Chairman [xx] thank you Mr Chair as much as I sympathize with Representative Richardson I understand the heat that this causes Wilson but this is a transition is two years in the making with the Department of Revenue we have begun in moving folks as many as we can from Wilson to Greenborough of course have multiple universities the problem has been with the call center in Wilson is that the job pool is very limited we and lots of turnover and ability to fulfill jobs and we just ask you to please continue on with this process this is good for the state of North Carolina for the majority of the tax payers and I jut urge you to please defeat this amendment thank you Mr Chair. Follow up Mr Chair follow up. We say that were interested in rural development in rural economic development and that were trying to find way to keep them incentives but when you go in and take 60 jobs out of a community that does not have any future outlook for bringing in other employment and we do have training facilities in that area. The community college said they had not been contacted about training but be more than willing to provide training our mayor is begin us to please do not reduce his tax base. So I urge you to remember how to tough if is for rule want counties to employ people. Chairman Redhill   Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'd like to echo what my colleague Chairman brown said. We don't take great delight

in the fact that some people are going to be loosing some jobs. We have to do what's in the interest of the state as a whole. This is a project that's been in the works for several years and the idea was that people have the option to transfer from the call center in Rockin mountain to the new facility in Greensville the new facility in Greensville was built to accommodate 100 people currently there's 50 so there are 50 openings left to be filled which we hope will be filled by transfers from Rockinout and we're trying to consolidate and save the state mind again this is a process that the Department of Revenue has brought in on this is something that has been without its problems in Rockinout and what we're trying to do is simply get to a better level of call service in the department of Revenue something that we can all appreciate and it's going to be done at the new center in Greensville which by the ways in the two counties Guildford county 202 Follow up If one more call up if you hold for just a moment I want to call Representative Willimham has not had the yes I saw it is not in a chance to speak in the appropriation committee before so let's let him hold a discussion here then we'll come right back to you Thank you Mr. Chair I represent Rockingham the part where the center is located which is in the edge kind of and side which you probably know Rocky out is in two counties Nash amd Ejko and I'd just like to echo what representative Richardson said we in Eston county which is of course one of the poor counties in the state and to talk about transferring from Rockinout to to Greensville that's probably about 200 miles over 200 miles si and I don't know if they pay enough money for people relocate from Rockinout to greens bellow so I would urge everybody to think about this. This is really important to our area, I mean these are jobs that we just I understand, I was told that the departmental revenue said that they would prefer to have this location one in this, one of the estate, one of the East inside the estate, because it's almost like a back-up. Something goes wrong lands go own and say in greens bellow. We need a backup place and this would be that place, so it's real is confusing to me to think that this been planning for two years and the Department of Revenues saying that they want this questionnaire so I would urge that you could reconsider this and support the amendment. representative Richardson. He's stated what I wanted to state Mr, Chairman thank you. Representative Insko, thank you, Mr. Chairman I I think I have a comment to make more than anything I really do agree that we have to go the ext ra mile to help our rule, president with the great unemployment rate, high unemployment rate in our rural counties, and I'm just wondering if I can ask representative Richardson a question, lady you? Yes, representative Richardson you mentioned that there was a community college there, do you know if the they had ever been contacted and can you just count in on, what they could do in the future. According to the president of mass community Edinton community college they had not been contacted because there had not been in a need and I talk to the mayor and the mayor said the only complaints he had gotten from the centre was that there was not enough paper in the bathroom sometimes and so this has really taken im by surprise because they were not aware and Mass community college and Wilson community college and Edgcon community college were outstanding community college they are training for all kinds of jobs there, so they could easily train for this Chairman Radell thank you Mr chairman and the department of revenue when they appeared before a general government committee on appropriations, was going it full ahead with this plan. They saw nothing to hold it back, they were not concerned with the transfers and ability to consolidate, [xx] was a goal for them that they were behind so, it's a little surprising to me to hear that they might be saying something else to different members when they had the opportunity before our committee to lay out any concerns that they have and for whatever reason, they did not,

I think this is probably more of an instance of an agency trying to protect numbers and protect perceived their budget. We cannot work according to what agencies desire, we need to do what's best for the people of North Carolina and consolidation plan has been well thought out, it's not something that has been rushed into. Had some many conversations at different levels about it and I sympathize with the Representative in that area who stand the potential to lose some jobs but folks, this is in the best interest of North Carolina and I think we need to press forward so I'd ask you to vote against the amendment Further discussion, further debate, Representative Palmer Thank you Mr chair. I get tired of us playing rural and urban is that we are constantly doing that here and to me, it seems like we need to be compromising more. Why not look at 50-50, 50 in Rockingmount, 50 in Rockingmount and 50 in the other area, Greensvelle. You know the relocation cost for people to come out and working [xx] is going to cause money, is that a part of the package, relocation cost, for those people who take jobs Representative Bram Thank you, I just pleased like pass this body to go along with the general government committee on this issue like I said with this has been a couple of years in the making it has been a very slow and gradual transition [xx] no concerns, there were problems at the rocky [xx] this is not a case of us trying can rule against urban at all. This isn't done because of the efficient need for efficiency and effectiveness in the services that the citizens this state desire and expect from our state agencies. So I please ask you to vote for this amendment. Further discussion further debate? All those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying aye, Aye,     oppose no, No. The no appear to have it the no's have it and the Gray amendment is not agreed to. The next amendment is ATR -13V1ATR-13V1 representative of [xx], amendment 94 for the start and the lady is recognized to debate her amendment thank you Mr. Chairman, we have special provisions, the continuation of thank you M. Chairman, we have special provisions, the continuation of decision for motorium was based on a concern that if we didn't do that there would be a tremendous explosion of facility that would go above and beyound the actal need that we had but since the more torments has been in place for atleast three year, it can It could be four we felt like it was time to take a look at those two areas and they are home care licence, home care agencies as well as licence special care units in the state and determine in this intervening[sp?] period of time that we have developed a need were not arriving at good access for our citizens and we might need to reconsider the moratorium[sp?] and this year extension would give the department the ability to do that and we have outlined somethings that they need to look at in order to make a knowledgeable decision at the end of that time. I would ask for the committee support, thank you. Discussing the debate seeing none all those in favor signify by saying aye, aye, all oppose no and the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Next amendment is offered by Representative Holoway EMH-29V3 amendment 92 for the staff Representative Holoway is recognized to offer his amendment. Thank you Mr. Chair I this is amendment that I have been working on with Representative Ted Davis, but Representative Davis is on finance so I'm having to run this in here and what it does it provides money for the cape verde water development project, the city [xx]

is willing to march this dollars, dollar for dollar so is 2.5 million dollar that will march with 2.5 million, where I'm taking the money from is from two different grand funds that are in dinner, I'm trying to take from these grand dollars that were stay away from people projects and other items like that and the money I talk is none recurring it was none recurring money that was added and the splinted between the two, for me personally I would rather see money go somewhere that we know where it's going, that we know we can have some and maybe benefit, I don't know if you are swimming in the water front but, but I think it needs a lot of work and it can use this dollars and I address go there and these grants are still fully, there's plenty of money in both of these grant allotments and I think that they will be operating just fine without this money, but I ask for your support for the water front, thank you. Chairman Dickson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, the proposal here is to circumvent the manner in which these things are set up. This very worthy along with other worthy entities can make proper application. If we would approve this amendment in this manner, we would be convening the manner in which this general assembly has set these funds aside to be asked for in the and I would ask you to defeat this amendment. Representative Holloway. Yes and thank you, Representative Dickson. You may or may not be aware, but this particular project they can not apply for either one of these grants through that, they will not be eligible for either one of the grants that we're taking. So, to say that I'm circumventing it and taking money that they could apply for that's not an accurate statement in this case. And again, if we're interested in jobs and economic development, and as I said both of these grants, both these parts of funds. There's more than enough there, I did not touch the recurring money. I only took non-recurring, this is a non-recurring item, and the city's match dollar for dollar. So they have skill in the game, and if they could have applied for these grants, I wouldn't be running this amendment and working with Representative Davis. Chairman, McGrady. I would you to vote against the amendment. Not that long ago we made a, approved an amendment that took six-figures out of one of the funds that we set up to provide grants and now we're up to 7 figures, if we go down this road and we keep allowing the political process to make these decisions where do we stop? And I just, this is related to the coast last time I looked Stokes County wasn't near the coast so their are process for getting projects done and their grand programs and a range of other things, but if we start doing this sorts of projects Jickson I'm not trying to damp on this project specifically where do you stop it we are all about to being when are you going to say no? Rep. Yarborough make a statement the clean water management trust fund doesn't have plenty of money there are plenty of areas that are suffering from clean water regulations that are looking forward to try and use that money.  Further discussion further debate, those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying aye. Aye  opposed nay Nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Next amendment is offered by Representative Gill it's ALH-16 V3ALH-16V3 amendment 87 for the staff and Representative Gill is recognised to debate her amendment. Thank you Mr. Chair this amendment removes the if the Lady would suspend for just a moment, this one should have been passed out by the staff [xx] might not have it we have a couple a couple of members do not have it, if the sergeant of arms could get them.

It is ALH-16 V3 and the Representative Gill is recognized to resume her remarks Thank you Mr. Chair, this amendment deletes the funds for the charger schools accelerating programe, and moves the one million dollars to teachers assistance, and it increases the amount of money that we have in the budget budget for teachers assistance by a million dollars, and the reason for that is, because we were discussing the Charter school acceleration fund, and even though it's indicated that it's for Rural Counties, it is also stated that the charter schools are already approved by the State DPI, so to give them additional money, in my opinion, or if it was indicated that it would be start up money, and this would be the first time in the State budget that I've read, where there's startup money for charter schools, and I think that we certainly could use it for teachers assistance to help with our third grade reading program, so I ask you to support this amendment. Representative stand, I'd like to comment on this, Representative Gills who's the chair of the State of the White County Board Of Education, because White County has lot successful charger schools, one of the complaints is in the Rural areas, and this is not limited to Rural areas by the way, but it's sort of eliminate the allies where the great level proficiency is less than or equal to 65% on intergrate test, but there is a planning Year and that's where the money would go is after they approve, but for the planning year and that's where a lot of chores of risk of failing is not the pieces of paper that got the approval, but getting them to operation. You don't have to say anything, but do you wish to be you recognized or you want to save yourself? No, Mr. Chair I was kind of yield to represent the black world and see if this can be temporary displaced because I think has got an amendment that may fix some of these to prior be first. Representative Clerk Representative Gracious hit the nail on the head. I don't know that my amendment was satisfied Representative Gill but I have been working with a number of interested parties and we discussed this in committee and we continue to discuss it to in an effort to tighten up some of the requirements related to this and I do have an amendment that is we haven't heard yet. If representative Gill might be willing to let that be heard first and then we could decide whether that is what you wanted to amend or whether she wanted to go ahead and amend this, and then I'm going to come along and ask the committee to consider another amendment line. Representative Black will the chair is not if you are saying you have an amendment up here, the chair is not in possession of that at this time, so what we would do is we would free displace this amendment, and we'll see if we'll get folks together on it. [xx] While we are working on that issue, and Representative Black Will, I believe we are in possession of a substitute that AMK-28V7, that's what you have? Okay, well if you all have your discussion, we'll do another amendment and then come back to that one. The next one we have is offered by Representative Pendleton it is AMD-17V6 Amendment 26 offered by Representative Pendleton and

the gentleman is recognized to offer his amendment. OK I don't have an enormous problem with creating another cabinet level of department but it does this really doesn't qualify the Department of Military and Veterans affairs I spent about 26 years of my military service in the North Carolina Guards I've been around for the law, the 31 states have a depart to have a military department and they lead agency in the military department cause the national guard because that's the biggest military enerty in the United States. I'm not talking of about duty active basis. So it would be very very confusing with the department of defense and those 31 of states of not all the states, if the national guard were not in this department. So I'm going the secretary Frank Berry Frank, would you let us take the guard away from DPS, your department, and move it over to this military department? And he told me no, because it would numerous reasons and they all made sense. So I'm not going to argue about that with it. Currently, the office of the military advisor a retired general office and an administrative assistant. And division of veterans affairs has 79 employees. Our budget that we have laying before us gives five new employees for veteran service officers to work in the five VA hospitals. to state, which will be a God-send for our veterans. We'll have state employees in these federal hospitals. But if you create this department, it takes about $300, 000 and they hire a general counsel and four other support staff. Well that's just taking money that's really not doing anything, for a department that doesn't qualify to be a department because when you have around 85 employees, that's a section much less a division or department. Now if you want to do it just to be nice and have a name in there for veterans and all, but my proposal is, and I'm not adamant about it, but my proposal is I've asked a command sergeant major and four retired general officers, would the veterans in the military, would they have more prestige being housed in the governor's office or in the separate department in another building with a cabinet secretary? They all said, no, in the governor's office. so this would say instead of creating more bureaucracy if you really want to spend $300, 000 let's take 25, 000 and divided by 12 cabbies[sp?] and give them to these four counties every year, that can't afford to have a full-time veterans service officer. And they need them, but they can't afford to have them. So somebody maybe the zoning manager and where a part time has a veterans officer. But this just creates a direct route of all armed forces and veterans affairs. I'm using armed forces, so that Department of Defense and the other states that have military departments don't get it confused. it takes the same divisions of Veterans Affairs divisions, the governors jobs for veterans, North Carolina affairs commission same thing it does onto the way we have in a proposed budget, but they're in the governor's office. A Division of Veterans Affairs is put in there also that way the veterans and the military have got the year of the governor because cabinet secretaries cannot just go over and sit down with the governor, they have to make an appointment. Being right there in the building where the general is right now, he just go in and drop in on it that's my reason, and if we really want to spend that kind of money again these poor candidates need veteran service officer if you just got spend to it, but if you think, we'll they're going to have more prestige if they're in their own department it's your call. Representative Riddell thank you Mr. Chairman, to all my junior officers out there this might be the only time you'll see a lieutenant arguing with a general. Stand into attention when you you talk to me. I would note that in this arena of battle a chairman is higher rank. The gentleman will thank you Mr. Chairman. With great respect to my colleague, Representative Pendleton, I will like to ask that you vote against this, you look establishing here is the Directorate of the armed forces in veteran affairs, I think we should title it

[xx] with the Directorate of Armed Forces in veteran affairs idea of moving the veteran affairs to a cabinet level was in the governor's budget, one of two agencies that he requested cabinet level status for with the military and North Carolina has a long an happy tradition of working well with the military and one of the reasons we're doing the elevation o the Department of Veterans and Military Affairs to cabinet level is to further accentuate that, is to let people in Washington DC know as well as military numbers here and their families and all the [xxx] support that they have here in North Carolina that we are serious about embracing our military presence here in North Carolina. And what we are doing is, we are creating four new positions. We are eliminating one position down in Elizabeth city, if you look in our money report you'll see all this is on pages, J4 and J5., and  we are simply umbrelling all the various veteran organisations and groups. We think it's a wise move, something the governor has asked for, I think he has a good reason for doing it, and I think this will go a long way to further cementing a very positive relationship with the many military men and women that we have here in North Carolina currently serving. Thank you Mr chairman.  Rep Stern. I'd like to speak in favour of the amendment. I rose to the rank from private to corporal, and lieutenants did bad things to me but I never saw a general so I have nothing against them, but I was in a unit of about 80 people and I rose to the high level of chairman of the head detail for this barracks. That meant I get to do the six every morning and it's really strange to be the head of the cabinet department, overseeing fewer people that are [xx] It just doesn't equate. It doesn't seem to me an organization or optimization of resources. Representative Chairman Radio[sp?] thank you Mr. Chairman. Optimization is making the best use of the relationships we have currently and trying to elevate then join even higher optimization that's what we are trying to do here. This amendment friends lowers that relationship, it kind of subordinate it back to where it  was before. What we are trying to do is again make it very plain where North Carolina stands in relationship to our armed forces men and women and the many basis that are here and you think about the economic impact all of this basis have and the ancillary benefits are drawn on from that. We have a very good and a serious relationship with the military and this is simply a way again of embracing that and elevating that to a higher status. So I would encourage you to vote against the amendment please. Representative Stephens Thank you Mr. Chair. I guess I just got confused but this is a very extensive, appears to be a very extensive change in policy that probably deserves a greater review than we can give it in this budget. So we have something that all ready in here, why don't we do this as an independent bill to talk about consolidating and deal with all these issues and give us our own great later time to deal with this, I guess that's why I would say let's oppose this and study it separately and try and do a full bill that gets a full hearing Representative Bill. Thank you Mr Chairman. I wanted to ask the members a question. Its the gentleman from YQ gentleman yields. Thank you Mr Chairman, I would enable this eliminates the various and severance officers that we have in our local counties not at all, in fact going back to what Representative Steven said, it doesn't change anything that was already being done except for not hiring a corporate council and employees to staff to bureaucracy, no, those are county employees, but the state veteran service officer, it doesn't change a thing about it is, and talking to that other person, I don't know how much experience they've had in the Pentagon, but I was Civilian Aide to the army in the Pentagon, and I know what it takes, and what they look at. The military is very protocol oriented, and being in the office so the Governor, as his four Generals told me and the Command Sergeant Major, they think it's more prestigious to be in the office of the Governor than they do an inedependent Department at some, or else, so I know how the military thinks 26 Years work.

Representative Queen, Thank you Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment, I think it makes common sense from my stand point I think the service to veterans will be enhanced by this as well as the prestige of the whole enterprise for military so I think it makes common sense and I appreciate it being brought forward. Representative Floyd Thank you Mr. Speaker I'm on General Government and we had a long discussion in general Government on this, and how do we prove our existence as we laced our relationship with our military community, and I think that the Governor made a bold step when he created the military affairs, and put it in his office the first tools that it needs, and I think that this will kill the effort that we're trying to do in general Government, so I'm opposed to this amendmnt Representative Brawley, and I would just for clarification, so people can know in case it's not clear, what is currently in the budget is what was requested of the Governor at Cabinet level Agency pulling together, so I don't is a substitute for that similar substitute for that I just thought I'll fill that clarification but representative Brolly Thank you Mr. Chairman you're limited eliminate the first part of my questions, first I wanted to ask Representative Rodell, if this amendment was a concept that his committee had vetted? Gentleman is recognized to respond Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you for the question Mr. Brodley this is the first I've seen of the first union of the chairs on the general government committee on this idea. May I ask a follow up? Follow up. What's in the budget is what the governor requested did you vet that proposal? In general government yes and with compensation to government staff thank you Mr. Chairman I would like to ask as the amendment sponsor a question Gentleman you Did the gentleman ask the governors opinion of this No I didn't the governor is not a veteran Did the gentleman discuss this with the chairs of the general government committee? I did not thought that with my military experience I could make that decision on my own Alright any further questions following from that No sir I'm talking about for my own for the vote I'm sorry sir if you will suspend I had already recognised representative speshali we will come back and recognise you in order Representative Speseli Thank you I do wamt to acknowledge that as a retired marine staff seargent that the general and the lieutenant and are both wrinkled than I am Ok any comment about this The governor was trying will pull together his assets that's basically what he's asled us to do Okay and what you in the bill are ready is what the governor had asked for okay so that's what we need to do it working I've out there with Solarii Campanio we've talking to a bunch of veterans group slowly hut surely it's coming together let's let it come together let's let the governor what he asked for let's let his program work I think what Representative [xx] put here certainly has some merit, and it is worth looking at down the line but for right now I think we need to give the governor what is asking for and allow the state, basically to pull all the assets that have been scattered throughout the state and nobody seems to know what it is that the veterans can benefits are? What the state offers this and they've been pulling it together. Let's let it continue to work, let's give the governor what he asked for and let's vote this thing down right now. Representative Torbert I'm going to suggest those involved in the debate should drop and give 50 but move the previous question. Well that I think we are close to the end of the debate, so I won't take that as a motion at this time, representative Penaltone do you wish to speak a final time on your amendments yes I did realize this is going to cause some controversy again I'm just trying to say not to build in other bureaucracy. I will be glad to withdraw this from being [xx] I don't want to cause any thermals in the military and the veterans and all that. I was just trying to say $300000 in pulse, but I do want to offer when it comes around again I do have of one a very small amendment I want to offer.

This amendment will be withdrawn and the other amendment will be passed out. The next amendment that we will take up is offered by Representative Brody AMK-29V2, AMK-29V2 amendment 100 for the staff and Representative Brody is recognized to explain Thank you Mr. Chairman. What this is, is a pilot project.  Mr. Chairman. Gentleman I suspend. Who else is missing this amendment AMK-29V2. The 26 220. I am sorry, AMK-26V2, AMK-2 V2 put your hands up if you still don't have a copy of that amendment. AMK- 26 V2 Representative Brody's amendment. Representative Brody you're recognized to debate your amendment. Thank you Mr. Chairman What I'm presenting to you is a pilot program for Hansen[sp?] county schools, but I want to say this is a very unique program and I ask you to hear me out before you make a decision on this. What happened was while we were all preparing for the Christmas holiday in 2013, the new Anson County Superintendent of Schools as well as his staff was preparing for a competitive grant offered by the Department of Education and the Department of labor, the federal Department of Education and Labor, and this was called the Youth Career Connect Grant, and that was in December and when at that time this program qualified automatically for funding if they would have got it this is a, and during the 2014 Short Session we found out that Anson County did receive this grant and it's a $2 million grant spread over four years and it was only 1 of 28 offered throughout the country and the Anson County was the only school system in North Carolina to receive this grant, and you can read a little about it. It goes for ninth grade and tenth grade as well as the other juniors and seniors, but it's not only a connection between the high school and the community college, it also has a work component in it and this grant for $2 million in order to, well as we went through the 2014 short session, we had changed the law and all of a sudden this became ineligible automatically ineligible. So the intent was there, Anson County was going to do this, it became ironically ineligible, but so what? That's what brings me here today is that they're requesting a one-time non-refundable $140, 000 which basically covers the tuition

cost for the community college, and after that it will be on self-sustaining, we do see this as one time appropriation and I'll ask you to answer the question. Further discussions representative, If not Representative Horn do you. I just was going to comment that we have been working on this for quite some time. It's a great opportunity to leverage dollars and solve a problem for a county that desperately needs some help. So I really hope that everyone can support this thank you. Representative Mitchell do you further discussion if not the vote is on the amendment but put forward by representative Brody. All in favor of the amendment indicate by saying aye, opposed the amendment in the opinion of the Chair passes. The next amendment is by Rep. Bumgardner it's number 61 for staff. It's 97-AMC-56 version 1 Rep. Bumgardner. I'll find and amend it. Just a second please folks have this amendment? I do have it Mr. Chairman. Could you repeat the number? I'm sorry Mr. Chairman H97-AMC-56 version 1. I believe Representative Bumgardner had a bunch of hand written ones but this one's a typed out one. Who is missing the amendment who needs it? Mr. Chairman, are these the handwritten ones you going? No, this is the typed out one. AMC-56 version 1 It's a one line amendment. Anybody else need a copy? Okay, Representative Bumgardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's true all my hand written amendments you can toss aside because I've been told their not going to be heard, that's fine. This amendment is very simple. It's starts page 239 where we revise the STI scoring standards House Bill 817 that was passed last session, that the ink's not even dry on the bill yet and we're already changing all the qualifications and the standards because we were going to get politics out and how we can structure and so we did that, we did a good job on that but this Bill is undoing some of that, making changes when we don't know yet all the line of vacations that what was done before, and I would like give the bill that was passed a chance to be effect eve the work before we change we go off in a new direction, and I would ask for your support for this amendment for the debate. Representative Torbert, Thank you so much I would do respect about Binagery McKerry from Gaston I have to actually vote this down simply what this does is that we are given a work grop which is the group of independent if you would folks that have gathered together in a room and had made this waded determinations. We're giving them the authority to look at the Opio goes relationship under decision making process we just now split evenly with DOT at division level and we feel that we want to wait a little bit more on the fiducial responsibility of elected people on the MPO, RPOs, they are responsible to the citizens that put them there, instead of the bureaucratic process which is currently in the departmental side of the house so all were doing is pretty much saying guys you all can make that determination you can give the local just a little bit more you an give them a lot more. You can give whatever were allowing that to be determined the spot[sp?] group in the hopes that elected folks

with judiciary responsibility to people that put them there can make those decisions more so than just that is in the bureaucratic process so for if you vote for the amendment you're pretty much supporting the bureaucrats and if you vote against amendment you're pretty much supporting the people that put the elected people in position to make those determinations representative Brawley you defeat the amendment. Representative Brawley. Thank you Mr Chairman I did have similar concerns on this section and had a discussion with the Chairman Torbett earlier today and he has swayed some of my concerns for those of you that are new we passed the bill by overwhelming by partisan in both house in 2013, this strategic transportation investments lower, which did to a large extent try to change from my traditional way of doing things and rally where basicly this body said where all the roads went in regional projects we said that they would be 70% delivered by data, and 30% by local input, and local input as implemented by the department was half of it was from the MPO RPO, and half of it was from the district engineer district projects the most local it was 50% data, 50% local input of which 25 that was 25% by the MPO RPO go 25% by division engineer. I think there had been a proposal to eliminate the division engineer and actually I was someone that gave that a hard look when it was first implemented because I was concerned about the bureaucrat. I have watch this play out in Meckinburgh County and have realized that the division engineer plays a role in protecting local governments because for example in Mecklenburg County, the city show in Mecklenburg County can basically control the LPO, which means all the 7 pounds in Mecklenburg county or even Mosco, which is now part of [xx], would be vulnerable to that, and the District Engineer would have some input in moderating that. This bill does not eliminate the District Engineer. What it does do is ask the prioritization for a group to look at putting more weight to the MPORPA and that could be 5545 which would still allow professional people to have a lot of input. So, this is an earthy one, I'm uncomfortable with it, but then I got to admit, STI was my baby, I was primary sponsor. And it hasn't really began implementation, and will not until July 1st, so haven't done any project under it. We've done one round of scoring that was under what was call, State Prioritization of Transportation 3.0 and the reason they're working on 4.0 is try to incorporate the problems that were identified in the way that 3.0 worked I appreciate some of the things that, no, that's not strong enough. I have appreciated and admired consider believe the work that transportation Chairs have done in this part of the budget, and they have courageously taken on some very difficult issues, I will express I had great thank giving. But after my discussions I was willing to not offer my amendment. This is more informational than anything else. But I knew that if I suck your choir, everybody was going to wonder what Brawley think cause it is his bill. So yeah I'm a little nervous on but I've one go around the amendment and that's kind of where we are Representatives Bob Gardner and then Representative Allan representative Bob Gardner Thank Mr. chairman, we haven't even fully implemented STI we already changing it because a lot of projects got a score a lot of people didn't like the scores the projects got and so now they already want to change the formula for scoring those projects,. That's what's going on here, beginning on page 239 that's what this whole section is about, it's like going to the butcher shop in the butchers selling your pounds of hamburger but it's got his fingers on the scale, so we are helping some projects here and we are helping some other, we're changing criteria and I would ask you to give the

criteria that we have a chance to work and vote for this amendment, thank you.  Representative and then Representative Martin, Representative Allan question Representative [xx] and then a comment Does Representative Blorry yield? He yields not understanding your commentary job, appreciate it was it, I guess the amendment is over Representative [xx] I will have trouble voting against the amendment because it is what I basically believe, I was not oppposing enough to do it, I proceeded to the request that are [xx] but it is out there and it is discussed Representative Allan No comment. Well, the discussion we had earlier on right after everything passed, seems like you and I are on the same wavelength they are division engineer had too much authority when the department actually interpreted local input as being [xx] they work for the state so I thought you would be against this to delete what we're trying to do to get the locals more authority. This gives the locals more authority percent authority gives more way than the division engineer who works for DOT the rest have it is stricken couple of things we feel that DOT left out, and, so, it's perfecting 817, not getting rid of it, so, to vote this amendment is to try and wipe out what we are trying to do, slightly and perfect. Representative Mad and then representative Tai briefly just to say that I think Representative Browly is largely convince me to Representative Thorm got a an amendment and I will be doing so. Representative fine. I would ask that you vote against the amendment and I think there's some really misunderstanding about the process that we're going through so hopefully I can clarify a little. This is the fourth formula being developed right now didn't developed the formula in 817, we directed the work group to develop the formula so they came out with 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 and 3.0 scored all of the projects for the first five years and that is set. 4.0 is being developed with or without this amendment with this language without the language. 4.0 is being developed today and it is going to come out and it will be used for future score. There's no specific amount changes to the formula in percentage wise or any numbers in there that says you have to put this amount, 5% towards this or 30% towards that. So to  say that we are actually just trying to move specific projects forward, if that's our intent, we are just awful at it because there is no way that we can affect particular project by not stipulating any numbers. The last thing that you should understand is that the work group asked us legislative input. The work group sent us an email said, we would like you to weigh in and tell us whether these things are appropriate things or not for us to be looking at. The Senate chose to send a specific email with specific percentages in there and really I think did do some of the things that you're concerned about Representative preserve. We chose to just say in general these are some considerations that you should be making when you're developing the next formula, so I would ask you to vote vote against the amendment Rep. Goodman[sp?] you have spoken twice if you are sure then I'm going to Rep. Torbett then we need to move to a vote it's ten minutes to nine. Representative Bumgardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman I'll be short. I think what DOT is getting tonight is legislative input I'm pretty sure they are and their is no reason, we cant move forward at a later time some of the changes is that are trying to be implemented here. We don't want to do this now in the budget thank you. Representative Brody, I want to give Rep. Torbett the last word here Rep. Brody that's acceptable to me I did want to correct a few things and I think that's approriate one in spot two predated STI, spot 3O was the first alteration, spot four that they're working on now has with a study group and it is under the edges of DOT in the Board

of Transportation, Representative Iler said that when the original local input was split with the division engineer, he and I were in agreement, I was concerned with that but having seen it operate I have realized that the division engineer having a large voice has turned out to be a good thing. I also do want to agree with the statement that this not eliminate the Division Engineer but does allow or does encourage the sport, or it tell a sport group to give a greater way, and it could be 5149, we don't know. My preference would be let sport group do what they do and then what they develop is vetted afterwards, but I did also it is not my intent to say that people are trying to do specific projects with this, we'd prefer we do this a little longer before we start tinkering with it, thank you Mr. Chairman. Representative Torbett then we'll vote. Thank you so much Mr. Chairman, yes I think this was a massive undertaking after Representative Brawley but it was involved with it last year. It had been years and years since this size transitional piece of legislation came to the aid and assist of transportation and people of North Carolina, but because it was so large I think it's tough and very, very, very hard for people to get a real grasp and real understanding of unless you're really engrossed in it, that being just shed off something that are constantly off load out there and whether it's spin or fear, I don't know or maybe just a misunderstanding is that this doesn't impact any the projects have being scorned down there, they're pretty much cemented. What we're terming, viewing as Frank Mansion and his region of time mention is looking ahead and the next determinations I think are like 24 months out, two years down the road. So we respond to some requests, we've offered those requests we have stated that we believe people in elected positions should have perhaps a little bit more weight, the department of transportation, based on their locales, and that's pretty much jest of it. It has no bearing on any projects, any, the way those projects are on the list to be built or any of that. That's just either just not knowing how the process works or just trying to sway votes, that certainly I can say Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  We'll move to a vote, the vote is on Representative Bumgardner amendment on favor the amendment indicate by saying aye.  Aye.  All opposed.  No.  In the opinion of the Chair, the nos have it, Noes do have it and Representative Bumgardner[sp?] I guess you can run your amendment again tomorrow on the floor if necessary, We move to Representative Barrow. H97AML29 and version four, this was displaced, I believe Representative Stamen and Representative Burr were conspiring on this one. That's the notes. Okay. Wrong notes on top of the amendment Representative Bowl. You said 8ML29.8ML29 version four. Yes sir thank you Representative Bowl. You said 8ML29. 8ML29 version four. Representative Torbert. Thank you Mr. Chair just being brief I do respect Representative Bowl we had a long conversation but to throughout the state thoroughly agreed with what he's doing, but I wanted to give a full understanding just in case. It has always been a very high if not the number one target in priority to get the transfer back to it's whole, we have worked over past years to reduce that amount, this year we were able to pretty much follow the course we had

set and not have to use somewhere in the neighborhood of $26, $27 million to fund drivers [xx] so we had made that adjustment, this dollars right here the money that was brought to attention of the Chair and that would adjust a badly needed agency up to the market and that agency was our state however trail officers, we still have this to have 100 of people applying for jobs now that they maybe disturbed pretty because they just simply been left behind and the intent of the chairs was to provide this $3.7 million to aid and assist in getting them up to market we explained that to the board chairs and I believe that's the way it was accepted and if the chairs would like to make any further comment because it is not in our streamline to deal with employees salaries. We were just simply trying to find the means and mechanism to fund highway patrols. I guess it's several call is when the fund and how they withdraw. Further discussion on the amendment. Mr. Chair. Sorry Representative Burr I just wanted to follow up and certainly hear what Representative Tobit is saying but just to be very very clear to everyone this amendment in no way affects the highway patrol. The money that was being transferred out of the highway fund wasn't a direct preparation to find anything with the highway patrol flip to page five of your special provisions you will see that line 31 within the adjustments to availability it is adding additional money into the general fund from the highway fund. So this is just simply eliminating that transfer and taking it off the bottom line. There is money left on the bottom line, and again it no way affects the highway patrol there. They continue to see their raises and changes are in the JPS budget and will not be affected in any way by this amendment. Rep. Blackwell. A question for Rep. Burr, if I may. Rep Burr, do you yield? I do. He yields. Okay. Help me understand the impact of adopting your amendment. 3.7 million was to be transferred to the general fund and therefore would be available for use in balancing the budget, right? Transferred to the general fund, yes, go ahead  Yes, so if we don't transfer ain't we reducing availability by 3.7 million and where are you and your amendment, what are you reducing  it appropriation for to equal the 3.7 that's not going to get transferred? That's correct and if you will look at my amendment there you'll see the two places where it's reducing the additional availability within the budget, it's taking it basically off the bottom line, with the additional money that is left within the budget. We see on page six line five and appropriate remain balance remaining, when using that amount.  Chairman Dollar members I understand what the gentleman is desiring to do the concern I have two concerns. One which was already expressed by Chairman Torbett because the purpose of the money and what we in fact use that money for was some much needed salary increases within the highway patrol we've been working on over several years, but my comment gets really to Rep. Blackwell's question and that is where's the money coming from? This is coming off the unappropriated bottom line and that is a do able thing that's the reason why the amendment is in front of us. It's not a desirable thing it's not a good place to be pulling money from the unappropriated bottom line and I do think in terms of the broader issue clearly it's going to be further discussion in the budget as we move forward in the process goes to the senate goes conference about entirety of the highway patrol as to whether it should be in the high fund or whether it should be in the general fund and whether or not their should be some transition thereof so I think honestly I would just respectfully request that you vote against this amendment with the

understanding that the bigger issue which it's a 200 hundred plus million dollar issue is going to get probably quite a bit of discussion before this general assembly is over and all of that to be mailed into certainly be melted into one of the discussion so with that said I would request that you vote against the amendment Rep. Holloway thank you Mr. Chairman and thou I certainly do respect chairman's Dollars comments and certainly I know it's tough to put together a budget but looking back at the beginning of session and all the comments that we made about our need for our roads and our highways and the dollars that we need and discussion about gasoline taxes I think to me it's difficult to transfer money from the highway trust fund and then keep that debate open. I think this a good amendment, transform a set up as a trust between the people of this state to make sure that that money went to the roads. I think that's what Burr meant asset choose report the amendment to support the roads representative Bob Gardner and then Thank you Mr. Chairman. I had a question I wanted to ask Chairman Dollar if he'd yield does gentleman I yield Thank you Chairman Pandora. I'm apparently having trouble understanding and that's what I've heard but if you would explain to me how how this is tied to the highway patrol because looking on page 97 line 43 and 44 I don't see anything about a highway patrol, and I do wonder why we're raising all the dnd3s[sp?] by 50% and still money from the highway from the zero fund, could you explain that please.  Well the the fees I believe are separate issues or somewhere on the transportation team can talk about the fleet respect to the $3.7 million,  and that is to generally correct my a friend it is the highway fund its not the trust fund but the highway fund from which the highway patrol has been funded now for sometime but that $3.7 million was coming out obviously they have been in the process of working to with the fees and other actions to increase the amount of funds available in transportation but currently the bulk of how we're patrolled is paid for with funds that are coming in a very similar way out of the highway fund to the general fund for that particular purpose so, and this addition now was factored in to all the calculations with respect to salaries and alike even though it may not verbally show there that was the way it has been treated and I'm just saying that what we need to is we need to just let that happen and then as we move through to friends and all it all gets pulled back together for the broader to bigger discussion with respect to the transfer with the highway fund representative Bangadi you still got the floor Well thank you but on page 97 line 43 and four so those don't directly relate to highway patrol those don't I'm I correct in that I apologise I'm not looking at the bill right now let me go to Representative Stam and we'll come back Representative Stam. I was consulting with Representative Michel here, and he and I were in 89, and I think only Leo was here in 89, the Highway Patrol has been part of the Highway Fund forever. It's not a diversion that was done later, there were diversions but not the Highway Patrol, so I don't think we should get on our high horse about the Highway Patrol being funded from transportation money, it is the Highway Patrol.

Chairman, Dollar, you both have the floor and you were going to answer a question are you? Call the question, let's vote. I was going to do that next there's no other speakers. Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, Mr I just had one additional comment Representative Bowls. Thank you Mr. Chair, in regards to the driver education reduction from The Highway Patrol there, they're absolutely right about that, and I believe that that was something that was done in the previous budget, and it was already set to take place for the here and in the budget that was written last Year, we gave the Howard patrol a raise last Year, but there was not any in the amount of money being transferred out of the Highway Fund into the General Fund last year, so that has been the that we've given these increases in the past and not increased the transfer, so it's been done both ways I guess you could say, and this is just simply preserving the dollars in the highway fund, which is something I know we've heard a lot about this Year, concerning the transfers in trying to eliminate as many as those transfers as posible I think it's good policy, I think it sets us on the right path, something we've all taken very serious about doing the last few years as we've worked whittle down the transfers from over 400 million down to the mid 200 million and would certainly like to continue to see that numbers reduce and for those things to be moved over to the general fund, make those decisions and certainly in a year where we had this big surplus it would be a year to consider slowly whittling down on that so I would ask for your support on the amendment. The vote is on the Burr amendment. All those in favor of the amendment indicate by saying aye. Aye All opposed like sign. No. In the opinion of the Chair the nos are in the majority and the amendment is not adopted. The Chair would like to inform everyone that I have only got three amendments in front of us. We're going to do a bill check I mean an amendment check here momentarily, but there is light at the end of the tunnel and proceeding down the tunnel, Representative thank you Mr chair amendment 97AML21 11 and I think this was the one consultation on with Rep. Stam. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's correct. Rep. Stam got involved and we just pretty much struck the confusing language. As I was saying during the initial presentation is that we're just trying to be more efficient and we're asking DOT when they purchase right of way they try to reduce that right of way purchasing by 3%. You can think of it as a two per. There is a great possibility, I won't quote the exact numbers, I don't have them but if you can reduce your cost in right of way acquisition by 3% then naturally you'll reduce some amount of money in your long-term maintenance of that last land you have to maintain. We move for the approval of the amendment. For staff that was 102 the amendment. Further discussion on the amendment. Representative Floyd.  Just a quick question to the amendment sponsor. Does the gentleman yield? It would be an honor, he yields. The question that I have here so if you say reduce, so will be learnt over it proper, I guess what I am asking is with random to get proper compensation within the headline will be forced to do 3% less,  Miss chair I actually Representative is not, is not talking conversation we're just talking about actual land acquisition how much land did you think they need for this project and the scope of project today maybe a football field on each side of the road maybe will just move little bit less in the footbal field about to do the project, so we're going to focus on being more efficient in their line of acquisition, has not been a compensation. This continue to yield Be an honor. Representative Floyd, obviously I want to know I got a bill commission I would commute the bill sponsor because we do have a are a right of way what we really don't need and to maintain. Thank you so much sir. Representative Martin, Thank you Mr. Chair, I just wanted to make a comment I really appreciate Representative Floyd's questions, but I wondered if the Chair would remind Representative Floyd it's a little bit after nine o'clock and some of us, don't have ability to step as late as he does. I think he was just reminded. Representative Avila I'm sorry,

I'm not on transportation so I'm not quite clear on this because in the original language it talks about reducing the total size, and now it talks about reducing the amount of funds. What am I missing there? Representative Torbett, can you respond to that? I'm sorry representative could you just repeat that I have a difficulty to hearing you. Thank you so much I just. The language in the budget as it is, says that it's for the purpose of reducing the total size of each required and then in the amendment it says reduce the amount of funds expended so how are we compared [xx] they are equal reducing the quantity of [xx] you had to purchase or reduce putting the funds to purchase the same land that you do for 3%. The 3% is it still the active numerical if you would there. Does that make sense or not? Rep Stern, do you want to further respond? You can reduce the funds by being more careful of what you take like what do you take a person's access or no access, or the shape of what you take, so what you are trying to do is save money, not necessarily acreage, so it could mean like you could slightly alter the root by 2 feet this way, instead of 2 feet that way because you do less damage, so the amendment work clearly accomplishes the goal of the committee by reducing what you trying to reduce which is how much money we have to pay for it. Rep [xxx] Thank you Mr chairman right, I thought the language was a little ambiguous when I read it and it does say funds expended per project what the intend I think is to reduce the amount of actual land worth buying and thereby reduce the amount of funds while expanding, but, that's not really what it say is. Representative [xx], Well, I guess this is the question of representative Stan Representative Stern you know that and I know it and Representative Torbett knows it and this deal she know it. They will know it.  Representative Millis This a good question for Representative Torbett. Representative Torbett you yield. I do have a swam having a problem hearing for something for that side. Get me to in regard to the amendment itself although confused about how this can be achieved at runaways 50 feet wider, 75 feet wider, 135 wide I mean I'm little confused how we actually limit by way of 3% something that is still in protocol, we can go those 68 right of way or a 64 foot right of way. I'm just a little confused on what this will achieve and will this harm projects that may not be able to meet that 3% this is honestly a friendly question because I have not been a part of the committee process. I just want to see if this is actually achievable because I am very supportive of any type of savings. We do believe it's achievable of course as we progress we're doing consistent oversight. If they come back and say, look on this project it was not available. We could not achieve it on this project. I think it would be with our permissive language to just say we understand but we are looking at decreasing the cost by 3% by reducing land acquisition, smart acquisition if you would like Representative Stern was touching on, just making it constantly aware  so it's always at the fore front, it helps save on that cost. Representative stern.  I don't know the answer there maybe an issue. Representative [xx] did you want to be?  Just very briefly with is not the only thing it's like where you control access how many points of connection you cut off a land owner, there is ways to reduce the cost of acquisition other than making an unsafe road. Representative [xxx]. Thank you Mr. Chairman just linguistically I got a problem, I have a problem here because I can understand how reducing the total size would automatically reduce the amount of money spent but I don't see how reducing the amount of money spent necessarily reduces the size so I just feel like the [xxx] that is already in

the budget is better than this amendment. plus it's a point I [xxx] it should be rights of way not right of ways.  Rep Stern did you want to be heard on that or? Well, I would only agree with him in the grammatical point. He is correct on the grammatical point but and fix that. Further discussion then the vote is on the turbot amendment. All in favor of the amendment indicate by saying I opposed in the opinion of the jury the amendment passes. Last two that we've got will come back Representative Zip Mayer. H97ALH19 version 7. have that Representative Wiemar. [xx] as possible a few years ago when many guard members were deployed the twist desistance which is a very key recruiting tool was reduced. It made sense then the capacity now is lacking coupled with the fact that our active duty is drawing down and there is some incredible skills set and talents that they need to be able to compete fairly with for their neighbouring states. this money, $200, 000, in the each of the next two coming years will go a long long way as far as making sure we have the best and the brightest in the national and I would ask for your support. Further discussion? If not, the vote is on the Whitimire amendment, Did Representative Black will? Did you? I was just going to say I think the educational Chairs are agreeable with this amendment. Thank you, I'm sorry I missed you. Any further discussion question? If not, the vote is on the Whitmeyer amendment. All in favor indicate by saying aye, Aye! Those oppose no. The amendment has been adopted. Last amendment we have got in the queue and we are going to do a check. But is Representative Black Will's amendment, H97 AMK 28, version 7. And if any of you have amendments that you think we have missed, please if you wouldn't mind come up and let us know that. Representative Blackwell. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I might comment that I appreciate Representative Gill talking with me about it and I think she's agreed to withdraw her amendment here in the committee and will consider maybe doing a revised amendment here on the floor tomorrow, but for the present, what we are doing here is revising the language that you see in your special provisions on page 34 and 35. In my opinion what we're doing is tightening the language up, we're trying to make clear by these changes that this program to help develop charter schools as options where they don't exist is only going to be available in counties that don't already have over a single chatter school, in other words, if you got 1 school then they might consider, but if you got 2 or more chatter schools, you wouldn't be eligible for this program. we've also revised it to reinstate a requirement for a match, the match is with respect to the $100000 some Dollars that will be potentially available for a school to receive in the year that's, probably it's planning year, which is the year after it first approved by the State Chatter Board to become a chatter school. In addition there would be no match required, but there would be the potential for 100 thousand in the year preceding the application to help those areas that are lacking in both human resources and fiscal resources, to help the understand the asses for applying and how to get together the application and the proposal. Under the circumstances here, we think this will strengthen the program by trying to ensure that it is only going to serve those areas that are underserved and we'll as I said, we would require the match to begin for the second fiscal year of the biennium and continuing thereafter if the program is continued. Be glad to answer any question, but ask the committee's support. Representative Glazier.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Thank you Representative Blackwell, and well, I have large problems with the program and will be very much supporting Representative Gill's amendment tomorrow I think Representative Blackwell's amendment makes a bad provision better, and does do some seriously significant limitations on, at least if we're going to end up doing this, where these things go, and I would support this amendment and urge people to do that.  Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? Representative you have a question for Representative Blackwell. Gentleman yield? Gladly.  I am not sure I have read this well, is this for a total of ten charter schools up to? I believe in the amendment we have taken out on the number that's involved. The appropriate is for one million. So if there's $100, 000 grant available in theory, that if you use a $100, 000. For each grant that would be a maximum of ten. Thank you. Further discussion, further debate. if not, all those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying aye, Aye, all, opposed no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. The chair no longer in possession of any amendments that have not otherwise either been dealt with or withdrawn or ruled out of order. Representative Neel. For an announcement? For an announcement. The gentleman has the floor for an announcement. The house pinching every time a committee meeting is scheduled for nine o'clock, and when 4:15 tomorrow has been moved to 11:00 A. M. Let me also mention for everybody I think we'll have an actual session at 10:00 A. M. In the morning. I think originally that session was going to be proforma, but my understanding now is that we will now have some degree of session tomorrow, just take a look at your inboxes to get clarification. on that for 10  session for 10 in the morning. We would not be taking up obviously we'll not be taking this bill at this time because this still has to go to pensions and retirement. Before we go to a motion, Rep. Glazier Just for a point of privilege Mr. Chairman. Just to say thank you actually to the person who is to my left and it's a pleasure to have Skip Stam to my left You don't get him there often. I've been trying for 13 years to do that, but people should know that he stayed all day and to congratulate him and Dotty. Today is their 42 wedding anniversary. and Mr. Chairman I would like to get home tonight before midnight Your contract runs out as I understand amendments so you better get it renewed, there one house keeping thing and that is the sergeant at arms obviously your bills will change for the bid after today's activities but any papers in ask will the Sergeant of Arms be recycling, if you want to keep anything you better take it with you, with that further discussion, further debate, hearing none the gentleman from the west, Chairman West is recognized for the motion thank you Mr. Chairman, I am moved with house bill 97 as amended be rolled into committee substitute, five will report to the committee and five to the regional further move the step the authorized [xx] technical corrections and also conforming changes related to reconciling the various amendment adopted all those in favor say aye Aye, oppose no No the ayes have it and the bill is agreed to and I thank the committee and I thank the staff for all of your work.