[CHAIRMAN] For discussion purposes, all in favor say aye. [GROUP] Aye. [CHAIRMAN] All opposed. Motion carried. Senator Cook welcome back to the House and welcome to House Finance. [SENATOR COOK] Thank you Mr. Chairman, it’s good to be back here amongst so many of my old friends. It’s good to see folks I haven’t seen for a while. Anyway, let me get it on. Senate Bill 790: it was a very simple Bill. It’s morphed. There’s a couple of pages to it now, and I’m going to tell you about the part I know about which was for Hatter’s Electric. As you may recall, we increased their sales tax from 0 to 7% and this is a utility and group of customers who haven’t had a sales tax in 70 years, so I just thought that was a little too dramatic and we’re trying to give them a break for one year. For one year they would have 3.5% instead of the 7%. And then after a year it would go to 7%, if there’s no objection, all of the other municipality—excuse me—electric co-ops are in agreement with this--no problems--and the rest of the Bill, I guess I would ask Cindy, staff to explain. [CHAIRMAN] Ms. Averett [??] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. The PCS adds three provisions to this Bill. The first one is one that the House passed in it’s version of the budget and it’s a very similar situation to Senator Cook’s [??] There are 8 gas cities, and in those gas cities those customers have not had to pay any of the excise tax on pipe natural gas in the past. When House Bill--the tax reform bill--was passed last year, the sales tax was imposed on all customers. This break was not afforded, so in a similar situation, the sales tax for those customers was going to go from 0 to 7% in one year. So in a similar fashion, it phases the rate in. This was included in your House Budget. It’s in this Bill because it is time-sensitive. That rate becomes effective July 1st. So for these people to have this reduced rate, this Bill will need to pass this body and be signed by the Governor by July 1st. The second thing that has been added to the Bill is something Representative Turner is familiar with. It is something that this body passed last session. The site infrastructure property tax referral program. One of the requirements to be in that program is that the land must have been in the PUV system. This removes that requirement because there are, in fact, large blocks of land that are vacant agricultural land that aren’t in the PUV system that would like to take advantage of this and can’t because of that requirement. And lastly, it makes a technical change. You may say both versions of your budget delayed the effective date as to when dealer administrative fees would be included in the highway use tax base to October 1st when you passed House Bill 1050 earlier this session, that change was in it, so the last section of the Bill simply repeals those provisions that would have had that fee becoming effective July 1st. [CHAIRMAN] Questions from the committee? Representative Tine. [REPRESENTATIVE TINE] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’d like to thank the Chairs of Finance for helping us out with this. With the Hatter’s Co-Op portion of it. The reason that it had an exemption was because it was the only co-op in the State that did not have a protected territory, and when the other co-ops gave it up, this one stayed more like a public agency, and so that’s why it existED that way. And I’d also like to make a motion at the appropriate time, sir. [CHAIRMAN] You’re recognized for a motion. [REPRESENTATIVE TINE] I’d like to make a motion for a favorable report for the PCS unfavorable to the original. [CHAIRMAN] Members of the Committee you’ve heard the motion on the floor. Any further discussion or debate? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. [GROUP] Aye. [CHAIRMAN] All opposed? Motion carried. Thank you. Senator Cook. [SENATOR COOK] Thank you members. Chairman. [CHAIRMAN] It was a pleasure. At this time we will hear House Bill 1220. Hope for Hailey. Representative McElraft [REPRESENTATIVE MCELRAFT] Thank you Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. Dr. Fulgim[??] and Representative Carney are also members. Doctor Fulgim had a surgery and I don’t believe he’s here right now, hopefully he’ll be here this afternoon. I believe, Mr. Chair, that representative Carney has an amendment. [CHAIRMAN] Has it been passed out? It’s being passed out. Members of the Committee the Carney amendment will be passed out. [REPRESENTATIVE MCELRAFT] All this Bill is, this amendment is doing it it’s on page 3
line 45, we're deleting the word "oil" and substituting the word "extract." The word extract is used throughout the bill. This is just one of those technical changes so I ask for your approval. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Discussion or debate. Representative Collins. Members of the Committee, you've heard the motion from Representative Collins to adopt the Carney amendment to House Bill 1220. Further discussion or debate? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. All opposed. Amendment is adopted. Thank you, Representative Carney. Representative McElraft. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. The only finance piece to this bill is a 50$ fee. It is a registration fee. When the child and their parent and the physician decides that this is the medicine that that physician, that neurologist, wants that child to be on then that child will have prescription, it's not really a prescription because it's not an FDA approved drug, but it will be an order from the doctor that will go to DHS. That child will be registered at DHS. There will be a fee of $50 and then that registration will go to the local sheriff. That way we will have record of which children are on the CBD oil and we will have, the local sheriff will know and that way we will have record for the state. We will know then and the data then will be presented at our medical universities. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Motion for proper time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll hold that, thank you. Representative Jones. Representative Jones. Representative Burt Jones. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was going to also do the same. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Warren. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I support the measure and intend to vote for it but I'm curious, since the oil's an extract of the cannabis plant where is this supply of plants coming from? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The plants will probably be coming from the only known source that has lab work done to test its' purity, which is the Charlotte's Web source in Colorado. But the, each medical university will select their own source, a proven source to those physicians there. Each medical university does not have to participate in this. We have found out that our three medical universities have been chosen by GW Pharmaceutical. We have gotten, I've heard about Duke and UNC through the grapevine. We haven't gotten proof of that yet but Wake Forest has given us the notice that they have been chosen by GW Pharmaceutical to be part of the clinical trial for Epidiolex which is the same thing CBD oil in an FDA approved format. That will probably be two years down the road. So that university wants to compare the two, though a Charlotte's Web, a CBD oil, and the FDA version of it. So we're very excited that we have that opportunity for our medical universities. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there somebody here from the medical community that can answer a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, may I help you? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm not that sick. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What did he say? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm not that sick. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You could be, we're not done yet. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll ask staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. Who deals with this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there any adverse consequence or additional liability for a physician who recommends a treatment that's not approved by the FDA? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ms. Riley can you answer that question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do not know what the adverse effects would be. We're not privy to that information. I would imagine the physician would have liability for anything that he prescribes. They take responsibility for that, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr.- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McElraft. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We did talk to urologists at UNC, had a long conversation with them, Dr. Fulghum and I did. I'm sorry he's not here but they do non-FDA approved clinicals all the time. In fact, the Epidiolex is non-FDA approved
It will be in a clinical trial. They do accept that responsibility and the parents know at the time that these are not FDA approved clinical trials. And the parents I’m sure have to sign off for it. But I will have that information for you on the floor today. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. A couple questions. The first one being is there a neurologist here today who can speak to this from a medical perspective? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir, that question was already asked. There is no one here from the medical community. [SPEAKER CHANGES]?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That came forward at this point. [SPEAKER CHANGES]?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well as Representative Starnes said yesterday, we’ve always in finance been able to ask questions on other parts of the bill and not just this and is there someone then [SPEAKER CHANGES] Dr. Fulghum just came in, so maybe he can answer your questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That, and then Mr. Chairman I have another one after that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right, if you’d like to go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Dr. Fulghum to the rescue. I told him ?? express and it didn’t work. [LAUGHTER] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Fulghum, over here. Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m wondering if you can speak to the medical issues involved here, in your role as a health professional? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t know where you started on this but the cannabidiol is a component of a hemp plant. It is also a component of a marijuana plant. It is a drug that is now being studied around the world, particularly in North America the FDA and US particular has declared it an orphan drug. And also an IND or an investigational new drug. It’s now being studied in several medical centers around the country. It’s been found to be effective so far, in very early studies, in controlling intractable seizures. In intractable seizures involving two main syndromes involving children. Dravet and Lennoz-Gastaut are the two ones that are fairly rare but genetically are linked. And other people who have intractable seizures meaning their not responsive to three or more medications. Not responsive being they can’t take the medications or they’re not controlling the seizures. And these are people who are having maybe hundreds of seizures a day. The GW pharmaceutical company in the UK is producing a pharmaceutical grade drug called Epidiolex. Epidiolex is the drug being studied and approved by the FDA for the study. It has not been approved for general release yet but early indications indicate this is going to be a good drug full of purpose as it’s meant to be used for. There are other drugs that this company produces in the general line. They’re studying this but the FDA has very, very strict type production controls as well as controls involving how this study goes, what kind of reporting goes, and I think this particular type of bill would help you to allow Epidiolex to be used in this state, under the control of neurologists at the university centers, enrolling their patients in studies and following in outcomes. And I think this is the scientific way to do it. This is the best way to figure out if this thing really works. And also it gives these people the protection they need not to be arrested for using an illegal drug. So I think this is a good bill. It’s got some tidying up to do I think here and there. But frankly I encourage your adoption of it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, second question and related to what Representative Fulghum just said. I had a visit yesterday from health professionals from Carolina, UNC Chapel Hill medical center, and they pointed out that this research is planned. And I am concerned that the bill on page 3 lines 44 section 3 uses the word encourages these universities. And my question is whether you can except the group, the group get excepted from the amendment that we do here on the floor that would say the following. The General Assembly directs UNC Chapel Hill, Duke and/or Wake Forest University to conduct research. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, at the time, absolutely. At the time the bill was written, we were not in the clinical trials. We
...I have begged DW Pharmaceuticals legal staff and they have begged to part of the clinical trials. They have just selected us I think this week or last week so we would love to have that amendment. That would be great. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you don't mind would you run the amendment on the floor so we have a length calendar? [SPEAKER CHANGES] (??) run it on the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Staff did you approve the amendment? Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ms. Riley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We can cert- we can direct UNC to do the study. I think it might be difficult to direct Duke and Wake Forest since they are private institutions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Wwll we can always ask. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Martin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. I just have a comment not a question. I think most observers of the general assembly would agree that you don't have to be a brain surgeon to do this job and that's an understatement. But, I just want to say it's sure nice to have at least one around at times like this. [LAUGHTER] [SPEAKER CHANGES] We need all the help we can get. Representative Hager, you're recognized for motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to make a motion for a favorable on House Bill 1220 as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Unfavorable to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Unfavorable to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee you've heard the motion on the floor. All in favor say "Aye," all opposed. Motion carried. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rolled into a PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative McElraft and company. At this time we will hear House Bill 1182. UNC non-appropriated capital funds, Representative Bill Brawley Mechlenburg(?). [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ryan Brown...somebody will be back. Representative Brian Brown, Rodney Moore is also on this bill and Nathan Ramsey. This is a non-appropriations bill for the university system. These are projects for which we do not appropriate money. They will be covered with revenue bonds and contributions from supporters on the universities. But, it does require our permission for them to issue the bonds. We have the fiscal note or the notes on the second page detailed what the projects are at the different universities. What the fees will be. The first one on ECU there's an asterisk it says it's a new fee. They actually have a fee that will be expiring this year so they are eliminating fees as they are adding fees but we're showing it as a new fee. And the rest of them go down. We have representatives of both East Carolina and West Carolina in the audience today to answer direct questions. I think Representative Brown would like to make some comments on East Carolina because really that's the biggest one. But Mr. Chairman I want to go ahead and move for a favorable. Representative Brown if you would recognize. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. Asked and affirmed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members thank you. Chairman thank you. Just a brief comment on East Carolina University's it is a project for a new student center at ECU. The last student center that was built Linden Hall was build in 1974. At that time we had about 11,000 students and about 31 or so student organizations. We've now blossomed to about 27,000 students and about 402 student organizations. We've also seen tremendous growth on our Health Science campus so part of the allocation will also go to build a student center out on our Health Science campus. Very much need projects with our expanding campus and then we really hope that you support this. If you have any questions in terms or how the projects will actually be funded please don't hesitate to ask but I don't want to waste the committees time if not necessary. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me ask Representative Brown a question on East Carolina, he's talking about there'll be a new student(??) free of $425.00 per student. That sounds pretty high. How does that compare with other public universities? It's actually right about the middle and we actually have representatives here from East Carolina if you would like to have them address it. We've actually in terms of what we're looking to do the fee hasn't been raised in many years. There's no mass increase this year so it is going to be a step program and the student body has actually voted on this increase as well as the Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further questions, Representative Lewis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just for a motion to (??) [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have one on the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll ask this first to the bill sponsors. Has the general administration, I know Representative Brown just indicated that about the ECU project, but has general...
… administration’s signed off on these projects? [SPEAKER CHANGES] General administration and the Board of Governors have signed off on all but the Western Carolina. I do have an email from the Chairman of the Board of Governors, also including their Finance Chairman and the incoming Chair, that they intend to approve the Western Carolina at their next meeting, so we are flipping the order on that one, but since we will not be here when their next meeting takes place, that would delay them for a year. I will also say that I have personal knowledge of the Western Carolina, as my son was an undergraduate there. Their cafeteria’s undersized for their student body and it’s sometimes difficult to find a place to sit to eat, so they’re really trying to get… this is what theirs is for, dining hall. If you’d like to have the folks from Western Carolina, they’re here, and then I have a copy of the email if you’d like to see it, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d appreciate that. It does make me a little nervous. I understand what you’re saying, but we do not have official approval of this through the Board of Governors. I understand what you’ve just explained about how it’s forthcoming and we may not be in session. Rather than take the committee’s time in terms of hearing from Western Carolina, I would just ask, because I’m not having time to find it in here, what is the amount of student fee at Western Carolina compared to the one thousand or so that is in reference for ECU? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please step to the mic, Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Western Carolina right now is 387 dollars. Appalachian is 579. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, excuse me, what will the fee by what this…? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That will be the fee with this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I may, for Western Carolina, the total fee’s including this project can only be 300 and change? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s correct, sir. They’re not requ… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley, let Mark Bondo, staff address that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mark Bondo, Fiscal Research. If you’ll look on page 2 of the fiscal note, Western Carolina has the maximum fee that they expect to increase will be 136 dollars to support this project. Currently, as Representative Brawley stated, their current debt service fee is 387, so this would be an increase to that fee. For 2013-14, their general fees were 2,040 dollars, and so this would be an increase of that amount of 136 to that amount. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? Representative Brawley, you’re recognized for your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move favorable to the House Bill 1182. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, you’re heard the motion on the floor. Any further discussion or debate? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed. Motion carried. Thank you. At this time, we will hear Senate Bill 741. We have a PCS. Representative Carney moves to have the PCS before us for discussion. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed. Motion carried. We have it before us. Senator Barefoot. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill would simply authorize Bladen, Columbus, Franklin and Hoke Counties to require payment of delinquent property taxes prior to the recording of deeds to transfer real property. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For a motion at the proper time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to point out, if you’d notice we did this for a town yesterday. These four counties are asking to be added to a list that already includes 76, I take. From 76 to 80. There’s no opposition that I know of other than Representative Stam, and I’d like to allay his fears by agreeing to take the same pledge that our other Representative did yesterday that as long as I’m here, I won’t vote for that for Wake County. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The rest of us haven’t taken that pledge. Representative Blust. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ??, you’re recognized for your motion. Representative Blust, ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I move for a favorable report for the PCS, unfavorable to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Members of the committee, you’ve heard the motion on the floor from Representative ??. any further discussion or debate? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed. Motion carried. Thank you, Senator Barefoot. At this time members of the committee, we will hear House Bill 1154. Representative Boles. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good morning, Mr. Chair.
... committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’re glad to have you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We hope you feel the same when you leave. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Another very simple bill that we have. Also like to welcome everybody to Pinehurst. We have the Ladies’ US Open this weekend and hope that you’ll come down and hope that you’ll come down and spend the weekend with us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of order, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Of course. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Advertisement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, thank you for that advertisement. Thank you for that unpaid advertisement. Representative Boles. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a transfer of a historical African American school building that was built by the people of the community of Taylortown, and end of segregation, is was merged in with the school system. The school system has since vacated the building and the town would like to have it back, and what we’re asking is that instead of county commissioners having to buy it back, is that the school board can sell it back directly to the town. All are in agreement with the county commissioners, school board, the town, and I’ve got an article – newspaper article, if anyone would like to have it. They’ve all agreed upon this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A happy moment. Thank you. Representative Warren. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion at the appropriate time please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re recognized for your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion to give a favorable report to House Bill 1154. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, you’re heard the motion on the floor. Any further discussion or debate? Representative Blust. Hearing none, all in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed? Motion carried. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Boles. At this… [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? Pinehurst. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you again for that editorial moment. At this time, we will hear House Bill 1070, Town of Duck Imminent Domain, Representative Tine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, this was a bill that was asked for unanimously by the town of Duck. It adds the town to 19 other towns in two counties that have an expedited imminent domain process available to them to access and facilitate beach re-nourishment. There’s one difference. There was some opposition to allowing the town to take property to create public beach access parking areas. We removed that provision portion of it and it took care of any opposition. I stand ready to answer any questions. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Explain the practical effect of this. You have a hurricane and what, a house washes away and so then the town wants to come in and take that property? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is more the availability of access to do a beach re-nourishment project, so for example if they need to lay pipe across somebody’s land or they have… Up to the edge of the waterline is the state’s property and then the rest is the owner’s. If they need to lay sand on that area that’s the owner’s, they can do that also, so it’s an expedited process. And happy to turn to staff if I haven’t answered your question properly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Hager. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Tine, can you tell me why you need it expedited? You’ve got processes for imminent domain now. Why does it need to be expedited? That worries me a little bit when we start taking folks’ property expeditiously. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And it’s in order to protect that exists along the - [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, follow-up. Whose property? The town’s or the people’s? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The people because you have all these properties along the way and we’ve had beach erosion over time, and we do have some funds that are available now to be able to go ahead and do some re-nourishment projects in order to protect property, and so they’re trying to move as quickly as possible because it changes of course based on the weather events that we have out on the coast. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I want to see if I’m understanding. I think maybe I can envision the situation you’re just talking about. You have… even a nor’easter up where you are can tear beaches up and strip the sand out, and maybe you’ve got an area there where you have ten property owners from all over the United States, and maybe you can’t get in touch with two of them or something like that. Is that the kind of situation you’re talking about? You need to lay sand across the whole path but you can’t get in touch with some of them or something like that so you need the ability to go ahead and do it so that the other… so that everybody’s property can be protected and not just the eight you could get in touch with, or am I missing the point entirely? [SPEAKER CHANGES] With the Chair’s permission, I’d like to ask staff to clarify the ?? down to the details, if that’s alright. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. Mr. Roney. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What the bill does is it does authorize this quick take procedure where they could just go to court very quickly…
do eminent domain on the land, and then the, the ramifications for that are for... you know, put off for another time, so the town immediately has possession. And, the, the purposes that the town can do it are pretty broad. It's more than just, just beach nourishment if you look at the bill. But, the policy decision to allow the coastal communities to do it... I mean it... you know there's a large list of coastal communities that currently have the authority. I'm not really familiar with how... like operationally these coastal communities have actually used this authority, but it's adding thought to a list of coastal communities that have the authority to ??, and then, then if you look at the bill, there's, there's a lot of authorized purposes for this, and then the bill excludes DOT from the authorized purpose of public access. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley, Robert. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Understanding there may be a problem where this needs to be done at times, and the questions being asked, are any of the communities currently affected by this, asking to get out of it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not to my knowledge. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes, then Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, under the normal process, without the expedited quick-take, how long does it take? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Like to refer to staff? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, staff, how long does it take to do the normal eminent domain, what's the time frame? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't know the answer to that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think Representative Stam does, Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] An extra thirty days at least. But if I could extrapolate on that... [SPEAKER CHANGES] We'll come back. I'll come back to Representative Starnes, if he could answer your question more thoroughly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Usually the problem with quick-take is not the quickness of it, but that it's a... it uses the DNV, diminution in values, which is not fair to the property owner. But I examined this with Representative Tine, and they are not, they are not doing the bad part of quick-take. They still are using Chapter 48, measure of damages, which is favorable to the property owner. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, well I guess, and I, I know that other communities have this, or little towns. But my, my thought is... I mean ?? nourishment, that's a long, detailed, involved process. You just don't go in today, lay a pipe, and start sucking up sand and rebuilding it. I mean, that's a slow process. And so, I don't understand why they need to rush. I mean you make... this, these are the types of things that a local town would make plans for. And they get... they make their preparation, and it takes time. I just don't understand why they just can't work it through the normal, orderly processes, as opposed to having to go through the quick-take to expedite this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I, I was hoping to save the committee time, but I can explain the the long history we've had over the last decade and a half with regards to ?? nourishment. Which, originally we started with a federal program that was permitted and processed to be able do it. And then, it was under those rules the federal funding fell apart in regards to it, so therefore, we already identified offshore sand, and everything else. We, we more recently have more damages to the beaches and ?? which made it more critical to re-nourish those areas to protect the properties that, that are along that area and protect our infrastructure ?? twelve along that way. So it has been a long process, and now we've just had a county decision which said they are going to utilize funds in a different way. Because, before when it was federally funded, then you had to have public access which means the ?? wasn't allowed to participate. But now it is allowed to participate by ??, so now they're in a critical situation in regards to their beach. And now they also have money and funding available, so they want to go ahead and take care of that while they have the opportunity to do so. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And Representative Samuelson can shed some light on this issue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I don't know if I'm that perfect on the bill itself. So often I hear in our various committee's, when it comes to coastal issues, I'm gonna let the coastal legislatures decide. And one that I've learned to work with over the years is Representative McElraft; whose currently covered... almost all of her district is currently covered under this exact same provision. So, I went out and asked her, and she looked and said "Oh yeah we really need... this is no problem whatsoever." So, if you wanna know what the coastal people say who are already living under this, and, and have to operate under it; she thinks it's a good idea. So I would urge your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much for that enlightenment. Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The only improvement I could make to the bill would be to try to include Wake county... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh dear.
Out of order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Since the ?? I would like to vote for a favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. Members of the committee, you've heard the motion on the floor after the brief discussion. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion carries. The bill is, thank you for your kind presentation. At this time we will hear House Bill 1059, venus fly trap taking penalty, occupancy use tax. Representative Davis, Representative Starnes moves to have the PCS before us for discussion purposes only. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion carried. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a local bill that is comprised of two sections. The first section is concerning the venus fly trap. As many of you all may know, the venus fly trap is a very unique plant. As a matter of fact, it only grows within a 100 mile radius of New Hanover County and grows nowhere else in the world. The basis of doing this is presently under our present law if you go and take a venus fly trap to steal it, it's basically just a slap on the arm, slap on the hand misdemeanor penalty. We had a situation in Wilmington where there was a large venus fly trap area where these plants grown in natural habitat and someone came in and stole just a vast number of these plants, so in order to try to deter people from doing this in the future, I was asked by conservancy agencies to go forward in legislation that would make this a felony. The reason a class H felony was chosen is because presently under our general statutes, larceny of a ginseng is a class H felony, larceny of pine straw is a class H felony, so this is consistent with the punishment in those particular situations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Carney. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, at the proper time for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I had a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think we, which one, my cousin or me? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was looking at Representative Rodney Moore. I'll come back. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, Mr. Chair, I just want to make a motion at the appropriate time, but just to let you know I am familiar with these venus fly traps growing up in Wilmington and always enjoyed the plant life there so I ask that you adopt this with all speed. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for that kind information. Representative Warren. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Warren. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question for the bill sponsor here. I notice in the environmental bill we have, the Senate bill we have here that the venus fly trap, the penalty for that has been suggested raised from $75 up to $175. I'm just curious, I didn't see in there. I may have overlooked it any provision about changing that to a class H felony. I was curious if you were going to propose an amendment on the floor for that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I respond? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you have to, yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, and thank you for that question. Actually yesterday in Judiciary C I sponsored a bill called the omnibus criminal amendment bill, which is a multitude of criminal proposed changes. One of those would be to make the theft of a venus fly trap plant a class H felony statewide. So actually I have these two things basically going on at the same time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. I'm willing to vote for this local bill but I do want to caution you and I do want to ask the legislators from these 4 counties to really think about this. A class 3 misdemeanor is like nothing, you know, less than a speeding ticket. Class H felony is what you get for strangling somebody and causing physical injury. It's what you get for activities designed to overthrow the government. It's continuing criminal enterprise. Now whenever somebody wants to race up, you know, a lot of local people, make it a felony, we can't prosecute without a felony. There are a lot of class 1 misdemeanors, class A1 you get more time actually but without putting the label of a felon on somebody and the assembly just has this yo-yo thing, we're constantly making things felonies and then we're expunging all their records. Am I right? Yeah. I mean, let's be real about this. We worked on the justice reinvestment project in the 11th session and we changed a lot of penalties with the idea of let's structure our sentences so they're correct. Now every time somebody wants to over-felonize something they bring up get ginseng and pine straw, and those should be changed. They should be misdemeanors, but a class H felony's a real crime. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For procedural purpose, Representative Starnes, would you mind reporting from this occupancy tax subcommittee? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank
Speaker: Someone be recognized for the underline portion of the new handover district committee ?? middle in the favor of the port from sub committee because this district is out of complaints but it is moving and we are very happy for that and the chair i can make another comment off course when i was in the college i was the Venus ?? hope i would be guilty in men slugger, Speaker Changes: It could happen at any moment Representative ??, Speaker Changes: My question is been answered Speaker Changes: Thank you my goodness Representative Corney Speaker Changes: Thank you Mr.Chairmen i look for favorable report 59, Speaker Changes: Thank you you had the floor Representative Luke, Speaker Changes: Mr.Chairman i have a question for Representative ?? and for staff you ?? that the decision situation in ?? is out of complaints and now is in complaints with his bill can you explain that please, Speaker Changes: All right new handover county and ?? located with in it are convoluted collection ?? before the guidelines were adopted,so basically nothing in Wilmington and ?? guidelines,now the district view ill stand for the incorporated areas never cleared me when we have new ?? county ?? but Representative Davis was a county commissioner he had got the bills passes non other less but the district view has to be used for ?? which is an accepted guideline,but there is a district view don't need any beach nourishment collected ?? rough;y of a million dollars is not been used for any type of purpose,and also they do have some canals that they do wanted to have dredge ?? is not an acceptable use of ?? tax funds not will this be under this bill but they say they can but they will agree to view district and applies with the guidelines they get and going followed everything else has used into it 2/3 traveler related issue,one thirds for tours activities, Speaker Changes: Follow up and this may be for staff but what is this after doing with beach nourishment what is this bill have to to do with beach nourishment because you said that ??, Speaker Changes: 100 percent ?? tax collected under business view goes under ?? nourishment but they font have any because and they don't have any nourished and collecting this tax in a just a fund ?? because they can use for ?? nourishment,when they passes they bill they said wanted from ??nourishment they got it but they wanted to ?? nourishment, Speaker Changes: so you are taking way the ?? nourishment use it's gone under the bill, Speaker Changes: It's i may, the whole thing create is as Representative storm says ?? and at the present system hundred percent of that was to be used from ?? nourishment that was it out complaints got ?? because you know 100 percent can be used for ?? nourishment ?? when it realizes no beaches in ?? so since 2006 we got million dollars in this fund just siting there it can be used so this legislation bring into complain were about from now on when that money comes in two thirds for tourism promotion and remaining for tourism related expenditure ?? you have two choices the other choice would be ?? don't leave that choice ??, Speaker Changes:Thank you colleagues for the explanation,
Rodney Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Very quickly, Mr. Chairman. There was some discussion after my previous statement about I enjoyed all kinds of plant life in Wilmington. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That was your admission, and we thank you for sharing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me clarify. There is a beautiful garden in Wilmington called Early Gardens and we enjoyed many trips to Early Gardens, and let me just say for the record, this was not hemp related that I enjoyed plant life in Wilmington. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I did not inhale. So that's, I just wanted to clear that up. I heard a lot of banter around the room, but just wanted to say that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] News travels fast around this complex here. Representative Hager. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think I've got my question answered by Will, make the observation that Representative Moore is sitting beside Representative Alexander. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, Rodney, when you're in a hole, stop digging. Mr. Chairman, actually I think these questions would best be answered by staff. The idea of a felony in 4 of 100 counties sounds a little odd to me. I understand that's the only place venus fly traps naturally occur, but I just wasn't sure if that was a common practice, and the second part of the question is this says the section would be effective for offenses occurring, OK. Never mind. I understand. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We're glad to help. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, but yeah, on that, on the 4 counties only felony, is that an unusual provision in North Carolina law? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley, it is somewhat unusual and when this bill was in the Judiciary Committee the staff to that committee contacted the criminal law folks at the School of Government to confer with them and while it's probably not the preferred method, they did not see any constitutional problems with it and again I think to your point to the extent that this is kind of a localized offense and also Representative Davis explained in the subcommittee yesterday that the areas would intend to publicize this or the conservancy groups would intend to make it known in those areas that this would be a felony. So with that information from the School of Government, they felt comfortable with that provision, and just to follow up, since Representative Davis has indicated that he is making an attempt to make it statewide as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Blust. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley asked my question too. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Carney, you are recognized for your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that we give House Bill ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, you've heard the motion on the floor. Any further discussion or debate? If not, all in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion carried. Thank you Representative Davis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At this time House Bill 1052, Representative Hager. Hm-hm-hm. Jeopardy. Representative Hager, you are recognized to explain your bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And the committee is waiting for you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. This bill was vetted yesterday. Representative Luebke I think asked most of the questions but what this bill does is take some of the, back when telecoms were regulated. As they become deregulated moving through the system, they kept the fee regulation in place until the regulation was complete. This basically does away with a lot of that fee regulation and as we found out yesterday, Representative Luebke asked a question it is meant for a hold harmless issue where the other folks would step up to take up the extra slack. And Mr. Chairman, Trey Raben is in the audience if we have any tough questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. Questions from the committee. My goodness. Representative Hager, you're recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that House Bill 1052 receive a favorable report, to the PCS, I believe it's a PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's not a PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not a PCS? Just favorable then, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. Members of the committee, you've heard the motion on the floor. Any further discussion or debate? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed. Motion carried. Thank you.
As a little bit of cleanup, House Bill 1059 was a PCS in that motion, and we didn’t include that in the motion so we’ll add that to the motion. At this time we will have but last but not least, House Bill 1145, Insurance and Registration Required for Mopeds, Representative Sheppard. The PCS is being passed out. Representative Warren moves to have the PCS before us for discussion purposes. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed? Motion carried. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good morning Mr. Chair and committee. House Bill 1145, basically the PCS will change some information that you will receive - [SPEAKER CHANGES] Your mic. If you’ll turn the mic on please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. House Bill 1145 is an attempt to register mopeds. In the state at this time, there is no current oversight over mopeds in the state of North Carolina through on our highways, and so what House Bill 1145 does is require that mopeds be registered through DMV and have plates on those. There was also in the earlier portion of the bill a requirement for insurance. That has been taken out with this PCS. What we would like to do with this PCS is study the requirement for insurance and any other requirements that we may need to do in the future as regards to mopeds. This bill came to you because many people contacted me complaining about the situations with mopeds. There have been many accidents on the highways with mopeds. At the current time, there is no oversight on mopeds; they are not even registered or plated with DMV. There’s no way to correctly collect data that we’d like to collect with those, so this is just a starting point with mopeds to ensure that they are registered and they have plates, and then to do a study in the off session that would come back and report to the transportation committee that would let us know if we need to do anything further as regards to mopeds. I’m here for any questions if you have any. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, I’ve talked with Representative Shepard many times about this bill and I’ve found that it’s really, really something that’s needed. I actually thought that probably we had some things in place for mopeds, but there’s really not any kind of registration or regulation of that moped industry. I know many of you have probably gotten some information from the moped association about the pushback for this, but I really do believe this is something that should have been done a lot time ago. They travel on the highways, and certainly we need some protections for those other folks that travel on the highways. I strongly recommend that… Of course, I’m a little disappointed that the insurance part was taken out, but I’ve had that explained to me about why we need to spend a little time working on that, and I strongly encourage you to approve this bill and for a motion at the proper time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Carney. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the bill sponsors for taking out the insurance piece when it was in Transportation and putting it into the study because I do think there were some questions there, but I agree with the previous speaker that this is something that does need a comprehensive study and to look at what we’re going to come back with. As we heard in Transportation, it’s not only a public safety issue but a law enforcement issue, and we heard from both of those segments, but I just want to point out to the committee that we regulate a lot of vehicles that have wheels. We regulate bikes in some way, that you have to wear a helmet. We regulate golf carts, we regulate ATVs, we regulate motorcycles and of a lot of people use these to get to work, but it’s because they can’t drive their cars anymore for whatever reason, and some people are using them as a preference to get about on, but anyway, I want to thank the bill sponsors for making this a comprehensive study, and I do urge us to take a serious look at this next year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair? I would like to… In regards to what Representative Carney said, this bill has been supported by the League of Municipalities. Also the police chiefs of North Carolina have supported this and the North Carolina Grange Society have supported this. I reluctantly took the insurance part out, but I do believe it needs to be further studied. There are a lot of questions that we need to have answered about the insurance part, but I’m also concerned about many times when there is an accident. A lady contacted me last…
-week. She was hit by a moped in a shopping center, the police came, did a report, and after the accident and the report was done, the moped driver did not have insurance, did not have a driver's license, or anything, so her insurance had to pay for the damages on her car. So I am concerned about that aspect of it but I, based on the information that we were getting, it's better I think to study this little feather, and come back next year and see if we need to identify any other areas that we need to work on as far as this bill is concerned. And it's not my intent to keep anyone from using a moped to get to work or to class or anything, but I do think that if they're going to be on our public highways- and we've got to look out for them, and also look out for others, then we need to have some sort of requirements on mopeds, we don't have any at this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Hanes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm looking at your bill analysis, the vehicle registration portion of it, and I'm trying to understand what a moped owner would need in order to have the moped registered. I see that they need a manufacturer's certificate or something like that but is there anything else that that person would have to provide when they go to the DMV to register their moped? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Miss Griffin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Under the bill, in order to be registered, other than the moped meeting the requirements to be used on the public highways, they just have to produce the manufacturer's certificate of origin. And the owner will also have to title it and pay a titling fee, but under the bill they have to present a manufacturer's certificate of origin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I respond [??] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Of course. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hanes, also if they also do not have that, the manufacturer's certificate of origin for the moped, they can submit an affidavit stating why the applicant does not have the manufacturer's certificate of origin, and attest that the applicant is entitled to registration. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up please, sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So do they have to present any type of ID to register the moped? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Miss Griffin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think Bryce Ball over there might have the answer to that question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bryce? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bryce Ball with fiscal research. GS20-52 with regards to the application for registration and certificate of title require the identifcation of the owner's name as well as other identifying information including the mailing address and residence address. So, standard information including included in the certificate of title. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Well I was pleased when I heard you were going to study the insurance part, but then I'm looking at this study and it says it's going to be the DMV, the Department of Justice, Department of Public Safety, and the Department of Insurance are going to study this, and then they just give a report to the legislative transportation oversight. Why would you not want to have a legislative committee to study it and bring in these outside sources for information? You know sometimes I think that we have to filter the information we get because we're the ones that pass the laws. Would you be willing to change that to a legislative study as opposed to outsourcing it to these other departments? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Shepard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes, I sure would. I think that's a great idea. we'll work on that for you before it gets to the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] -we'll work on that for you, if it makes it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Don't say that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Would you be amicable to let all of it be studied? Including the registration piece? Because if identification is required in order to get a title, that means somebody may have to have a driver's license and may- Can we study all of this at one time? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Carney [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I appreciate the question from Representative Holley, but what I do think that what the registration does do for us going at forward with the study is to show how many of these we're dealing with out there. I do think it gives us some sort of data that we can draw from when you study. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yep. [SPEAKER CHANGES] [??] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further questions or comments from the committee of Representative Holley, do you have follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative [??] you are recognized for your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] [??] Chairman, I move for a favorable report for the PCS unfavorable to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, you've heard the motion on the floor. Any further discussion debate? Hearing none, all in favor say "aye"? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed? Motion carried. Thank you. This meeti- (recording ends.) -
There was no sound on the track.