[BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] Okay. >> Red, gray. Who's offering me a message? [CROSSTALK] [BLANK_AUDIO] You ready? [BLANK_AUDIO] House Finance Committee will come to order. First of all I wanted to recognize Nicole Trip, Zoe Sharp, Meagan Colston/g and Darren Jans/g, they're in the pages today. Thanks for being here. And of course our Sergeant and armed staff, Reggie Seals, Marvin Lee, Terry And Randy Wall, I appreciate your service. And of course we have our finance staff on board, Greg Ronny, Trina Griffin, and Rodney Bazel. And first of all I'd like to recognize subcommittee chairman representative Steve Ross to send forth a report. [BLANK_AUDIO] Thank you Mr. Chairman. The subcommittee on the de-annexation met roughly about 15 to 20 minutes ago to be exact and we had 4 bills, Senate bill 739, House bill 1128, Senate bill 77 774 and Senate Bill 852 have all been moved to full finance favorable. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. And the first order of business will be PCS for house bill 972 without objection that bill is properly Before us hearing none the bill is before us properly and we'd like to call on Representative Fair Cloth, and Representative McNeill, Representative Boles, and Representative Hurley, [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Yes sir, you're recognized Thank you Mr. Chair, Finance Committee, for allowing us to present House Bill 972, this is a police body camera bill, has been through many meetings during the interim, it's a culmination of those meetings have a had a successful reported out of J2 a couple of weeks ago is before you today and I'll direct you to page 4 line 16 and 17 cuz there's a fee for copies and I'll read that to you. A law enforcement agency may charge a fee to offset the cost incurred by to make a copy of a recording For release. The fee shall not exceed the actual cost of making the copy. Mr. Chairman [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Any of the other sponsors need to speak? [INAUDIBLE] >> Mr. Chairman. >> Who's seeking recognition? Representative Bishop >> For a motion at the appropriate time. >> That would be the appropriate time. >> Mr.chairman. >> Representative Alexander you are recognized. >> I have an amendment I would like to sent forward >> And has the amendment been submitted. >> Yes. >> And I think the amendment has been passed out to the member members >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Okay, actually after reading the amendment, the chair rules the amendment out of order is really not pertinent to the finance issues and so we can now move forward. >> Mr. Chairman over here Representative Lukie. >> Yes Representative Lukie that's actually not the case into our rules, if the bill is in the finance committee any amendment that's related to the bill is eligible for consideration, I have copy of the rules, the committee rules that shows that. [INAUDIBLE] [BLANK_AUDIO]. I guess we need to submit the amendments so that everybody can see it. >> Yes please. >> I'm gonna hand out the amendments so everyone can read. >> Could I have one. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [INAUDIBLE]. There seems to be a confusion we're dealing with with the representative
Alexander amendment. >> [INAUDIBLE] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] In the interest of fairness the chair would Would like to check to make sure that all the members of the committee have representative Alexander amendment in hand, H972CSSA115 I think he's reading. Mr.chair. >>115 it's the same on both. yeah it is. Mr. chair could you clarify because both of them have the same number, I'm looking at the bottom. Which one is the correct. Correct amendment but I have two of them. >> I think it would be an order to let Representative Alexander specify which amendment. I think it's hers and [INAUDIBLE] The amendment is the number that you read on- >> Representative Alexander. >> Okay and after you specify that after the members specifies the amendment the members then recognize to explain the amendment. >> It's vision Version one, yeah it's H972-SA-185 [INAUDIBLE] version one. >> And the member is recognized. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is a relatively should be Be non controversial amendment within the spirit of the overall bill it simply would allow any of the five categories of individuals specified in the bill. Who can attain a Recording. It just explicitly states that they may receive it and disseminate it without restrictions, which is implied but not explicitly stated in the text as it is before. [BLANK_AUDIO] The chair moves it in order to let one of the Bill sponsors speak to the amendment first. Representative Fair Cloth. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, the sponsors would ask you not to support the amendment. It does interfere with The superior court judges authority in this
process do not support. >> And Representative Stam is recognized. >> I would echo that and make this following observation. If you add the Senates you gonna have a lot fewer recordings Is released by superior court judges. In other words, if the superior court judge doesn't say anything about release, you can copy it. But there maybe circumstances under which especially involving minors or informers or things like that, that the superior court judge might very well be Be willing to release it to you but not without a restriction on further use. So I think I would recommend you withdraw the amendment because it's gonna inhibit your cause. [BLANK_AUDIO] Mr Chairman. >> Representative Alexander after having heard those comments, would the member at this point consider withdrawing the amendment? >> Well, Mr. Chairman I think we just should go ahead and take it to a vote. Because I disagree with some of what's been said about what this amendment would do. We're already within the text of the bill, have dealt with part of the objection, this amendment simply strengthens the spirit of dissemination And strengths the ability of those people are already listed who are who's pictures or images show up to be able to do what they would like with those recordings once they are in their depends. We should all be embracing this and sing kumbaya Mr. chairman. >>Representative Bishop. >> Thank you Mr. chairman just to comment expand on what Representative Stam said. If this subsection of the staff. Establishes the provision for a court to exercise discretion control by a number of factors as to whether to order the release of the recording. It makes sense. If you are gonna commit that to the discretion of the court to allow the court to decide the scope of the release. And say to whom it should go, how broadly. Including a none limiting release as the amendment would suggest. But their is very good reason to establish that procedure commit that to the discretion of the court and then keep the tied courts hands behind his back so it has to do an all or nothing order. I oppose the amendment as well. Representative Collins is recognized. Any further comments or questions? At this time you've all heard the amendment. It's time to vote on the amendment. Those in favor say Aye, those oppose say No. In the opinion of the chair the No's have it. And now we are back on to the proposed committee substitute. Representative McNeill. >> Mr.chairman that is our comments on the fee portion of the bill. >> Representatives Reeves. Yes Mr. Chair I have an amendment to sent forward mine was the H972ASA187. >> In the interest of firmness to you let me, let the chair make sure that everybody has a copy of the amendment. And the. Bill sponsors do not have a copy it seems. >> Do the other members of the committee have Representative Reeves amendment in hand? Representative Reeves you will be recognized in a moment just let the primary sponsors have a chance to read it >> Yes sir. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] Okay I think the primary
Primary sponsors have had a chance to read it, and following proper protocol it would be time to recognize Representative Reeves to speak first since it's his amendment. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. And what I would explain is first I'd would want to say sincerely I appreciate the effort that have been made by the primary sponsors on the bill. It's a tough bill to negotiate between all the parties that are affected. And they have done a great job. We had a real good review of it in J2. And this issue is just something that did kinda come up in Judiciary Two and I'd like to not just entrust it, to release an agency. And what the issue is, it's simply this. Right now under the bill as it stands there's still an option for the Chief of Police or the head of the specific law enforcement agency about whether or not they would release the video to their basically employer. Whether it be a city council or town board or something of that sort. What we're asking in the amendment is that that be required. That they go ahead and turn over the video to that agency, with the theory being the Chief of Police specifically would be the employee of the city. And so therefore I wouldn't want to have the uncomfortable situation where the chief could tell the city council or the city manager, city attorney, no I'm not gonna turn it over. And my reading of the bill right now they could do that. I would agree, I think there would be an argument made that in practical sense, that won't happen. But I would say that it only has to happen once for it to be a real issue. And so what I've decided to do is merely mandate that the chief, or whoever the head of law enforcement agency, is turn that video over to the city council who is his or her employer. [BLANK_AUDIO]. Thank you for the explanation. At this point the Chair would recognize Representative McNeill to speak on the amendment. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your amendment Mr. Reeves but I'll have to ask the committee to not approve this amendment. I've just had it for a few minutes but I see a couple of things that I consider to be a problem. Number 1, it lists The Board of County Commissioners. I think a sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer of the county. He doesn't answer to the county commissioners except for budgetary. I think to put the County Commissioners in a position where they will be overriding the sheriff is not very good policy. Also later on page six it talks about use of force. As I explained in J2, law enforcement officers use force everyday. state allows law enforcement officers to use force to make a law for the rest. So I think to open this up every time a law enforcement officer has to use force, and there are kinds of force. Law enforcement officers have what's called the use continual, use of force and a use force continual, the first phase of use force is the officers presence. So how are we gonna construed this using force, ever time an officer is present? I think this gets really kind of way out in the weeds with that and also I believe and I'm gonna turn this over to representative Faircloth to explain, but I believe the bill is sufficient in the wording to cover up Mr [INAUDIBLE] wants to do. >> Representative Faircloth you're recognized. >> Thank you Mr. chairman, I would remind you That we're talking about two types of law enforcement agencies her, the sheriff's agency which representative McNeil spoke to with respect to the municipal agencies, it's a different relationship there and in a municipal agency you have the chief of police of the folks that re under him, he then reports To a city manager, in most cases a city manager. He also has a police attorney and there is a city attorney. And all of those are involved in the administrative process and the way we have ordered the Bill would allow those four people to negotiate if a question were to come up And if the council decided that something was going a skew in the street and they needed see this, they could very easily under the bill the way it's written, they could go to the city attorney and say we think it's time that we look at this bill we need to talk to you about it. I mean look at this image, we need
Talk to you about it and if the city attorney says, if you want to sign here saying the majority of the council would like to look at it I will go over and stalk to the spirit of the judge, he will then take that request over to the judge, if the judge They can view it then they will be able to view it. So we take care of it in the structure. >> Thank you sir, their are few members listed to speak and if you are seeking to make a motion. If you would postpone just for a. Moments and will start at the top of the list with Representative Stam. >> I just think it's very unnecessary living aside the county commission sheriff issue. If a city council tells the manager, they wanna see a recording and they don't get that recording. I don't think that manager is gonna be manager very long. But you do need to have a buffer, between the council and the professional involved so that at least their could a little buffer in their. >> Representative. I have a question for the bill sponsors. I'm not on the judiciary committee that heard this bill and we do seem to be delving into judiciary and other committee type discussions on this although I understand it is permissible to do that on finance. But can you let us know where does the bill, where is this issue stand as far as all the parties is their still significant opposition or did the cities, the counties, law enforcement, pretty much come to agreement on this mater and would we be tampering with something that's pretty much been. been worked out among interested parties. >> Their is wide agreement of the sheriff's association support if they have representative here. We also have talked to many forks in management and cities. Without personally talk to city attorney and others. Their is broad support for doing something because right now a lot of this is hiding behind personnel records and other things that we are changing. This is the first really open possible view we've had of these police recording. And it's a developing area and there is broad support out there across the community. Are there some people that want more? Yes there are. But we feel like we've hit the right blend right now and have a lot of support even to the private colleges that have police agencies. >> Thank you sir. Representative Hager you're recognized. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. In looking at this amendment, I have to say I'm a little confused on it in the fact that, and I understand Representative Reives talked about the Sheriff reporting to or working for whoever you call the County Commissions but I've never seen it like that. the budget is set by the County Commissioners. But I elect the Sheriff. I vote for the sheriff just like I do the County Commissioners and I agree with what Representative Stam says. There's need to be some buffer between those two. So I would ask the members of this committee to vote no on this amendment. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Representative Warren you've been recognized. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. My point has already been made by both representative Hager and Representative Stam and I would be voting against the amendment. >> The amendment response is recognized. Representative Reives. >> The reason I'd wanted to king of jump in early, this actually does not apply to the sheriffs. The reason that we use language of County Commissioners because they're Or cities or municipalities that actually don't have city councils they actually have town commissioners things of that sort, if you read the language of the amendment and I'll be happy to refer this to staff, it specifically only manages people who are employed by a specific agency, sheriffs cannot be employed by anybody they're elected officials so this amendment, absolutely positively does not cannot and is not intended to apply to sheriffs, the only people it applies to as you see is a specific custodial law enforcement agency who is employed by a particular council or anything of that sort so if that's the objection to the amendment then I would ask that I then have support for the amendment because this specifically doesn't address that and again if anyone would like to ask staff I believe that we word this so it does not apply to sheriffs. Second, the use of force is actually something that would allow to be defined by The agency that has the videos.
This isn't some random or nebulous fault that we've got out there, this would be something that for instance if Sanford City had a situation and they were having to define the use of force Sanford City's use force definition is what would control that secondly. Thirdly, the problem and again I hope you understand this is not meant to be a hostile amendment at all and it is not about other agencies being able to get a hold of this or anything of that sort. I'm specifically talking about employer employee relationships. And right now my reading of the bill and I would like I guess it would be better to ask staff is that if the Chief of police decided that he wanted to a city manager I'm not going to turn over this video, I think he has that authority under if this bill and so anybody from staff that can answer that question? [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] Checking. Susan Sights/g from the staff you're recognized to clarify. >> Thank you Mr. Chair, as to the last question Representative Reives is correct that it is It is with the head of the custodial law enforcement agency to make the disclosure of determination only the disclosure determination other than, for administrative purposes they could release it to within the law enforcement agency for administrative purposes. And as Representative Faircloth has explained the city manager, the city attorney, police attorney in most incidences would be considerably within the administrative unit of a city police department. So I think yes arguably there is the potential that can say, no city manager I'm not gonna let you see it. On the On the other issue of the direction over the share of the way this is written it says any city council or border county commissioners which has direct control over a specific custodial law enforcement agency. And all but one incidence that I can potentially think of a board of county commissioners would have Have no direct control over a Sheriffs department including the Sheriffs deputies who are, well they are paid by a budget funded by the county commissioner are actually employed by the Sheriff him or herself. It is possible and I am not fully aware of how exactly the set up, we do have at least one city county police department Charlotte, Meclenburg and I do not know the details of how that is set up but it is possible that that board of county commissioners may have some direct control over that agency, I don't know. >> Mr. Chairman. >> So it's possible that they could potentially apply to that but otherwise I don't believe that it gives any control over Sheriffs department but it would over city police departments. >> Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman. >> Who is seeking recognition? >> Over here. I would like if I could ask Paula that question. >> If the member would hold one second and, Representative Alexander you're recognized. The point is earlier was made I think by one of the sponsors that under their interpretation that city council, they've wanted to view this information Would have to go to court to get it, that doesn't make very much logical sense. If I'm sitting on the city council and some issue has arisen and that viewing the video could help resolve that issue into Calm down the public fears the process of having to go into court to get essentially an employee to release something to me, is more than likely to make The whole process appear to the general public to be much more convoluted than is necessary, and because of that I would think that the amendment as it has been presented is in line with agreeing with the spirit of the The document. The underlying bill is an attempt to improve access, I get that. It's a step in the right direction, I get that. We debate I think over how far the step needs to go in order to arrive at that the best position, visa ve the general public and I would urge
members to positively consider the region name, and considered in the spirit in which it has been offered, and consider it as something that will improve and that detract from the bill. >> Senator Browley you're recognized. >> Thank you Mr. chairman, I've got several comments I think relative to this whole discussion being from Mecklenburg county which always seems to be the odd out wire in North Carolina, Charlotte Mecklenburg Police department was formed when a Mecklenburg County Police force was merged into the Charlotte department, it reports to the Charlotte city manager, but does have jurisdiction in all the un incorporated areas of the county and does have jurisdictions in the towns and until Mid Hill established their own police department was the law enforcement enforcement agency from Mid Hill, in Gastin county next to us there is a Gastin County police department that reports to the Board of County Commissioners who are actually the county manager, the other 98 counties do have a sheriff patrol outside their municipal areas, the sheriff as a constitutional officer and he does not report to the county commission but all the police chiefs report to the city mangers as a former city commissioner for the town of Mathews I know I only had two employees, the town attorney and the town manager, the police chief did not report to me, also while this bill is to make this recordings more accessible is not to make them universally broadcast, and my own experience in Mecklenburg County dealing with the bodies there, if a city council person or everyone on city council gets a copy of the video I guarantee you it will be on the 6 o'clock channel 9 news in it's entirety that same day Same day. Court I do not think will unreasonably deny access to the video at the request of the city council made by this city attorney. What I think the courts will do is put conditions on the further release of that video which will include not giving it to Channel 9, channel 3, channel 36, channel 11, News 14 Carolina pick it, but it'll be out there if we do not have some control on privacy. Thank you Mr Chairman. >> Yes Mr Chairman. Representative Collins, your recognized. >> Thank you, I'm really confused now, I guess this is a question for either Representative McNeil or Or Rep. Fair Cloth. This member says, any City Council or Board of County Commissioners which has direct control over a specific custodial law enforcement agency, shall have the authority to do so and so, we've already established that County Commissions don't have authority of the sheriffs department. In my understanding I think Chief Of police are generally hired by the City Manager, and then the rest of the cops probably hired by the Chief Police so the City Council doesn't control that either, so will this amendment apply to any law enforcement agency would be my question. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Yes sir of course. >> The structure you Spoke about is correct, the city manager is over the chief of police. The city manager reports to the council, but the council is not a part of the authority that decides on the operation of they police department. They are a policy group. >> In representative, Ross, you're recognized. >> Thank you Mr Chairman. Chairman Browley actually covered right much what I was gonna say and Representative Fair Cloth just now. In North Carolina we operate under what's called a Council Manager form of government. The Only two employees that a city council hires and fires is a city manager and a city attorney. The city manager and the city attorney for that matter are responsible for all human resource issues, personnel issues and that's who everyone answers to, the city councils don't get involved Involved in human resource issues, personnel issues. To me this is really almost a mute point and the City Manager being the top of the food chain so to speak, he is the one that really is in charge Everyone under that works for him. I agree with Representative Fair Cloth if you bypass to the city council then you really gonna have a mess. I dealt with city councils for about over 20 years And it's not something I would wanna deal with but I contend that this is not necessary because already all those that need to have
access already have access when the bill was written so I can't support the amendment. >> Thank you sir In the interest of fairness to people who want to speak, we'll try to get to people who have not had the opportunity yet so at this point Representative Cunningham you're recognized. >> Thank you Mr Chairman. I have another concern because in Charlotte Mecklenburg we have a community relations board that takes a look at questionable cases sometimes that have resulted in death, and that board was created by the city council, so my question to this now is is that board going to be able to have that accessibility If the question comes up that the council members have requested and cannot get that access to that video. So we saw the case with Jonathan Ferrell happen, and now it looks like we're putting in some obstacles that could prevent our community relations board from being able to function to sometimes work in the best interest of not just one individual but the entire community. So I do have a concern and I have looked at the amendment that he has put forth and I would like to see something worked out so that that bill continues to function in the best interest of the public. Thank you. >> Representative Jordan you're recognized. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I had a point about something that the amendment sponsor went over last time he spoke. On line seven with the term use of force being defined by the specific custodial law enforcement agency We have 100 counties and 550 sun cities and towns so it seems to me you have a potential of 650 different definitions of use of force and I don't think that will be a very good policy for the state so that at least needs to be removed if the whole amendments not approved either. >> Thank you sir. Representative Bishop? >> Member on the list is Representative Alexander. >> Thank you. I have a question to the bill sponsors and my question is what would happen if a city council voted to order the manager to have something released? What is your interpretation of how the bill would function under that kind of situation? >> [CROSSTALK]. >> I'll direct you to page Four starting on line one, [BLANK_AUDIO] and basically see three points there where it says it may disclose or relate a recording for any of the following purposes, for law enforcement training purposes within the custodial law enforcement agency for any administrative, training or law enforcement purpose, very broad, any law enforcement purpose. I believe that very clearly enables the city manager to get a copy, be disclosed or be released to him. And if the city council wants to order him to do that it has to order him to do that I think probably the next thing they'll order him to do is to pack his stuff up and leave but I think the bill takes care of what you all are concerned about, as has already been pointed out the city council really has no direct Direct control over the Custodial Law Enforcement Agency, the city manager does, they do control the city manager, I see that nexus there but I think the bill handles this perfectly and again I would just re iterate for myself and other bill sponsors I would just ya'll to not approve this amendment. >> And the final member on the list before we take a vote on the amendment is Representative Leubkey. >> Thank you Mr Chairman. My concern here is that the bill without the Reive's amendment does not really deal with the issue of public confidence in law enforcement. We've had this issue in Durham and many other and Carla Cunningham is referenced Charlotte and the way, the bill is drafted and let's just take what was referenced here on the top of page four these three reasons. These reasons do not deal with why a city council might want to
see the video. The city council might want to see the video because the issue has raised a great public storm. The public is very concerned about what has happened and the city council is elected by the citizens of the city. So the way it is right now without the amendment you do not have an opportunity for the city council to express itself to say we need to see this video except for ultimately going to court. And it seems to me kind of odd that the city council which has been elected by the people, It hires the city manager, the city manager goes in and talks with the chief law enforcement officer, the chief of police and the chief of police is now persuaded that this information needs to be released. So the city council has to go to court in order to get this kind of information. They are the, representatives of the people, and this is a recipe in the bill the way the bill is drafted it is a recipe for the public loosing confidence in what's happening in the police department. The amendment improves things by saying that the city council can request this, Information and doesn't have to go to court. And it would seem to me all of us must be concerned about some sense of legitimacy that broad sectors of the city would have in what's happening with this videos. And when the information is not available except by the city council going to court, it seems to me you are saying to the citizens, your city council really doesn't have the power here. The power is with the police chief who is not elected by the people. So I think the amendment is a good idea by way of putting some balance in it if the amendment were to pass and I could count. So I know where the amendments very likely to go. But if the amendment were to pass and I said Representative Faircloth and representative McNeill. I think you could tweak the amendment in such a way that responded to some of your concern but still helped us help the citizenry have more confidence in law enforcement. The bill as written does not not do that. So I support the amendment. >>Representative Stam >> This is somehow repetitive but I'll summarize. The city council may not know Some of the issues of privacy minors, confidential informants, other investigations and they meet, the chief of police may know that. Ultimately if the chief of police does not do what the city council wants to do. Their is the same remedy you remember Robert. [UNKNOWN] is the one who fired the water gate prosecutors cuz fire ups told him too. This can happen so ultimately they can get it but thankfully they may be stopped for a day or two while political winds die down and people remind them, oh yes, somebody might Might get killed if you do this. [BLANK_AUDIO] At this point, the chairs provided the ample opportunity for minority and the majority this week. and its probably appropriate to take the vote at this point on the amendment and so the amendment before you has been discussed thoroughly Those in favor vote by saying aye >> Aye! >> Those opposed vote by saying no. >> No! >> In the opinion of the chair the nos have it. We are now back on the PCS. Any further discussion Order bait on the PCS. >> Representative Browning you're up so. >> I would like to give a favorable report HB 972 PCS unfavorable to the original bill will be reported to the floor. >> Mr. Chairman. >> You've all All heard the amendment- >> Mr. Chairman >> Recognized. >> Thank you. I'm looking on page 4 lines 16 through 18 which the Bill sponsors initially draw our attention to and I have this question. Are we saying here That the city council will pay a fee to the police department in order to get the copies? The city council pays the police department to get the copies?
[BLANK_AUDIO] >> We recognize that As I read the bill it says a fee for copies a law enforcement officer may charge a fee to cover their cost. I would say if the charge the city council a fee it probably wouldn't be a wise idea but it says they may charge a fee Follow up >> Would we expect that individuals who were in this process went to court in all that. Would they be charged fees. As opposed to the city council. >> You are recognized sir. >> There again they may charge a fee. Somebody came up to the police department and wanted 20 copies. They would probably be charged the fee. They might not be charged the fee for one copy. But they are again two, they are only allowed to charge whatever fee it cost them to produce the copy so. To burn a disc of a video, I don't know what the appropriate cause would be that, but I wound think it would be over $10. Thank you. >> The appropriate motion is before you. Those in favor vote by saying Aye. >> Aye >> Those oppose No. In the opinion of the chair the Aye's have it. And you've received a favorable report. [BLANK_AUDIO]. [BLANK_AUDIO] Committee members This point without objection SB481 will be properly before the committee, hearing no objection the bill is probably before the committee. Representative Stam you are recognized >>. Thank you Mr.chairman And staff is passing an amendment we go ahead and do that as quickly as we can. Some corrective language that with the parties involved and part of these bill I think brings some satisfaction and everybody involved something they had agreed to. We've got right up here. It should been passed out in just a moment right here. It's just a date change that would allow, some ample time on the utility piece. [BLANK_AUDIO] Chairman. >> Yes. I would first like to move that amendment so that we're talking about the bill as it should be. >> That would be in order sir Okay. >> I'll make that motion. >> I think staff is passing out the amendment. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Mr. Chairman as they do that I want to thank Senator Barringer who's here with me to answer questions as we go through the bill, as we look at the crowdfunding piece and I wanna thank her for her leadership. As well as Representative Martin, Senator's Heiss and Senator Gunn- >> Noted. >> We've been working on crowd funding for quite a while and I think we've got something that works for everyone [BLANK_AUDIO] Mr. Chairman I stand ready to answer any questions on the amendment. This is just a date change if there are any questions. >> Do all All of the members have the amendment and I'm seeing no indication, yes, Representative Setsir/g, you're recognized. >> I move for adoption of the amendment. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> You've all heard. The motion those in favor vote by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Oppose no. The amendment In the opinion of the Chair the amendment is adopted. >> Thank you Mr Chairman with your permission I'll continue. >> Absolutely sir. >> Okay. What you have before you members is the Senate Bill 41, the PCS which funds small business through a mechanism you've all heard of, we've talked about it for quite some time Quite some time hit the legislature and it's known as crowd funding and it would enact the North Carolina providing access to capital for entrepreneurs and small business act [INAUDIBLE] and allows North Carolina investors by equity or debt offerings from North Carolina issuers that the transaction meets requirements for registration, disclosure, reporting, offering limit, and investment limit. The following For an exemption notice is $150 and would be used by the securities division of the North Carolina department of the Secretary of state to administer and enforce the ENC [INAUDIBLE] act, part two of this bill would require the department of revenue to publish on its website redacted versions of written determinations responding
to taxpayers questions this is our private letters ruling, this is a transparency case and we've added to this PCS And then part 3 would prohibit a city from imposing a fee on gas, telecommunications, electricity, or video programming utilities for activities conducted in the city's ride away unless the city's ride away management expenses related to these activities exceed distributions under article 5 of chapter 105 sales and use tax. These are the 3 components of the bill I know that we've talked about crowdfunding for quite some time and I believe Senator this got a unanimous vote in the Senate. It is a very good piece of legislation that shows basically a year and a half of working collaboratively with everyone involved including the secretary of state's office. This understanding what federal law would look like but most importantly giving opportunity for business to grow all across North Carolina and allow investors with some protections to invest in new businesses here in our state and I would urge the adoption of this PCS and hopefully this is something that we can get moving on quite quickly. >> Are you up for any questions? >> Thank you sir and Representative Collins you're recognized. >> [INAUDIBLE] appropriate time thank you if you hold one second and Representative [UNKNOWN]. >> Any other members seeking recognition? Representative Moore you are recognized. >> Thank you Chairman Hastings very quickly I have a question wanted to see if the ligament municipalities had any type of thought on the provision in page eight lines 37 through 41. >> [BLANK_AUDIO] Mr. Chairman I believe someone from the league is at the back- >> Is anyone here from the league and if you would step to the microphone and please identify yourself. >> Thank you very much and I'm Rose Han Williams director of Public and Government Affairs for the North Carolina league and municipalities. We have worked with utility colleagues in the house and Representative Stam on this to make something that we might not love a little better. Most cities have already adopted their budgets for the year so this will be a change to them that they're not prepared for and so this bill allows them to keep their budget process going, keeps peace where they are for now and then we'll have to deal with this next year. So I appreciate that but this is something that we accept, I guess. Thank you. >> Any further comments n the amended PCS? If not Representative Collins you're recognized. >> Chairman Hastings as someone who has been a primary sponsor on two different crowd funding bills first with former Representative Murry/g and most lately with Representative Miller I'll gladly offer recommendation that we accept the proposed committee substitute civen a favorable report unfavorable to the original. >> And that would be rolled into a new PCS? >> Yeah as amended and rolled into a new PCS and I guess sent to the floor? >> It would be a favorable report. >> Yes indeed sir. You've all heard the motion Oh, okay. And those in favor vote by saying aye Aye. >> Those oppose no. Chairman Sand your bill has received a favorable report. At this point I think we're [BLANK_AUDIO] House bill 1128 and Representative Bradford your recognized to explain the bill. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman members of the committee, this is a bill that was requested by the town of Cornelius town of Cornelius is my District. This takes a donor holes on the west side of highway 115 and annex as into to the city. The property owners actually would get a better tax rate because right now there could be a county [INAUDIBLE] tax service versus becoming to the town. They'll pay the town tax and they'll save about half a penny it's gone through local gov/g, it went to annex and de-annexation. Seems to be sailing through and I'm certainly happy to answer any questions and I appreciate your support on it. >> Representative Collins. >> I just have a question. According to annexation laws now don't communities have the final say on whether the annex Don't you have to have a positive vote of majority of the property holders in the areas to be annexed? >> Is that question directed to the staff- >> That question is directed to staff I guess. >> Mr.
Chair do you want me to? .>> Yes [INAUDIBLE] with legislative analysis First and foremost the general assembly has preliminary power to define the boundaries of towns so the general assembly can annex and de-annex at will. Now the general assembly has given towns some limited authority to annex and no authority to De-annex, so if it was a town trying to do it, it would have to do it under the general statute that the general assembly has set. And then if you are looking at those statutes, there is a statute to voluntary annexation where the town [INAUDIBLE] have to be in paper for it. And then there is a satellite annexation thing, there is some Some of this annexation procedures do have voting requirements, but if you said the general assembly doing it, then it's under its constitutional authority to set any boundary. >> Representative Collins. >> Then I have a question for the bill sponsors then if it's okay- >> Your recognized. >> Representative [INAUDIBLE] I guess my question then is how do the affected parties, the affected property owners feel about this. I would be loathed to do something that I'm not willing to give cities the power to do and that's involuntarily annexed. So I'd like to know if these folks are being voluntarily annexed or not? >> So I did ask that question myself [CROSSTALK] Sorry Mr. Chairman. That's a great question and most certainly I ask that of my town and some of these parcels belong to the county already, some or the parcels belong to the town, and there are some parcels by private owners, I don't have signatures, if you will, but I will tell you this has been discussed multiple town meetings We have police cars and fire trucks driving by this parcels everyday, and right now it really is becoming a safety issue because of one of this parcel owners have an issue. We having to let CMPD respond when you have a town of Cornelius police officer right around the corner. The town is often responding anyway, so it's really using the dollars of the town to respond to issues that That technically they shouldn't be and they'll have to, so this just relieves some of that issue. If this committee requires that we have to have every personal private owner to sign off on it, I don't have that. >> Further discussion further debate. Does the chair, are you looking for a motion, to make the motion including the sponsor? >> Yeah, I have to [UNKNOWN] >> Representative Stam is seeking recognition, he's recognized. >> I move for Thank you sir. You've all heard the motion, those in favor vote by saying aye. >> Aye! >> This opposed no in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it, you've received a favorable report. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Now we'll move to SB739 Senator Barefoot. [BLANK_AUDIO] Without objection the PCS is before us, hearing none the PCS is properly before us. You're recognized sir. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, this bill annexes the new Roswell bypass for the town Town of Roswell for the purpose of delivering fire, police, EMS to the bypass and also putting in some sidewalks that will connect the bypass to the new high school that they build, it's just an annexation of state right of way. >> Representative Stam. >> I move for favor of report You've all heard the motion? Those in favor vote by saying aye, those oppose no. >> Aye. >> In the opinion of the Chair the Ayes have it. [BLANK_AUDIO] Okay. At this point we'll move to SB774 and that would be senator Tucker or his designated representative who would be chairman Horn. Welcome sir, and you are recognized sir. >> Thank you Mr. chairman. De-annexation, well there's a two part bill, part one Union County which I also represent in the division of Senator Tucker, Representative Brawdy and Representative Arthur Contemporaries this de-annexation is part of a three parcel set that go along Ray road a well traveled road and the three parts are separated in the middle of them is this little triangle Angle
of 6.9 acres of which about two acres is usable, the owner of the property of all the property all three parts one guy seeking to de-annex from Marvin that small part so he's got one parcel to be to be developed. I've spoken to some of the folks that live nearby that support this, I'm aware that this town of Marvin does not but I seek your support for this de-annexation. The second part of it, I will turn to my comrade [LAUGH] >> Representative McNeil is recognized, thank you, does the second part of the bill deals with a de-annexation from Asheboro I will say that I have a resolution here signed by the city council of Asheboro, some of them major that they support this This de-annexation had to request to the property owner, this is originally a 50 sum acre track that was annexed into the city as part of a business, there was part of the land that they did not use and would never use that they solved this problem individual and now they want to be de-annexed and I have the privilege and the support of the city council. >> Thank you for the explanation, Representative Warren you are recognized. >> Yes Mr just for a motion of appropriate time please. >> This is the appropriate time sir. >> Mr Chairman it's Representative Carnie over here. >> Yes Representative Carnie you are recognized. >> I just have a question of the bill sir, maybe Representative Horn. >> I will try to be more specific in my answers than I was in my presentation. >> I thought you might like a second chance. >> I appreciate it. >> I read your mind, just curious, if Marvin doesn't want to be, doesn't support this and Asheboro does, did you give any consideration to separating these two out and run them individually. >> This was the original bill, senators Tucker's bill was just the town of just a section Marvin that became a two part bill At some point in the process, so that was the original intent, it is a two part bill, it's a fairly simple bill, apparently senator Tucker din't object, no one asked me but I don't object either. >> Thank you. >> We've all heard the explanation Do we have someone including representative Horn. >> May I have a follow up I'm sorry. >> And that would be in order. >> [INAUDIBLE] meeting our conversing. So if there are not gonna be a Marvin where are they gonna be, I meant where in Marvin they will be in the counties. >> The other two parcels are in Union county, the entire area as union county, actually across the street Union County and down the streets union county, there's this triangular piece that happens to be in Marvin and as I mentioned I went over to take a look at the piece, most of it undevelopable, etc, it's about two acres but in order to have a parcel that can be worked reasonably to fit in with the nature of the neighborhood etc you need the entire piece, you can't have a little chunk right out, almost dead center. >> Just a follow up comment, I don't mean to be giving you a hard time at all I just think this is the first time Have ever had one like this that part of it is for it and part of it against it separated out, I've always sung separate it out. But thank you. >> Representative Lukie your recognized. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, Senator Turcker did a very job in the local- >> [INAUDIBLE] I'm sure. >> [LAUGH] No comment sir. Your explanation was just fine, but Senator Tucker went into great detail about the different pieces and [INAUDIBLE] elaborated on some of the points that you've made. If I understood him correctly the town of Marvin or the village of Marvin does not Does not want to have this parcel de-annexed. >> That's correct. That's what I have, they sent me no resolution to that extent. It was strictly from conversation with one member of the council and the mayor. >> Thank you. And the County of Union has not affirmatively said we want this. >> Correct Correct. So is it fare to say. >> You are recognized for a followup. >> I'm sorry thank you Mr. Chairman, so it's reasonable to say then that really this is the request of one developer who would like the de-annexation so that I guess he can proceed with the development? Is that Well
[BLANK_AUDIO] the reason I'm hesitating to ask is you're asking me to read Senator Tucker's mind. I should know better than that as probably all of us should. >> Point of order here >> [LAUGH] Thank you Representative Horn well just one more comment. One comment. >> That will be in order. >> Anybody else? >> I understand Representative Horn doesn't wanna read Senator Tucker's mind or try to do so, but it seems to me based on the information that we in the local government committee received and what's been affirmed today this is a bill that will help one developer as being done at the request of the developer and I just think that's wrong and I can't support the bill, thank you. >> May I respond? >> You're recognized sir. >> I appreciate your commentary on that and you're analysis don't think I would say is what is in the best interest of actually the entire area? Noting that how that area has developed, is developing, noting that you have a parcel here, medium sized parcel Parcel here, medium size parcel you got this whole piece in the middle from a practical standpoint. It would seem that you'd want to have them all in a single jurisdiction, so that you could have some commonality of use. That's just practical. So that's what That's why I would encourage you to re-consider your position. >> How many people members of the committee do we have that are would like to make a motion? >> I'll make it. >> Representative Moore, you are recognized. >> In light of Conrad Horns' >> [LAUGH] >> presentation, I move that we give Senate Bill 774 a favorable report. You've all heard the motion. Those in favor vote by saying aye. >> Aye >> Those opposed vote by saying no. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it the bill has received a favorable report from the finance committee. Yes sir. At this point Senate Bill 852 and Representative Michelle Presnell. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman Mr Chairman this is very easy this is a piece of property in the town of Bakersfield that requested being de-annexed the land owner is okay with it, the town of Bakersfield okay with it >> Mr Chairman. >> And there is no water and no sewer. >> Mr. Chairman >> If the gentle lady would yield for what purpose does Representative Stam says both the property owner and the city agree to it I move for a favorable report. I think that is in order and it has been seconded by Rep. Moore. You've all heard the motion in the second those in favor vote by saying aye. >> Aye>> Those oppose no. In the opinion of the Chair, the bill received a favorable report. Any other concerns, from the committee or the staff? Without objection, this meeting is adjourned. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO]