A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | June 29, 2016 | Chamber | House Rules

Full MP3 Audio File

Good afternoon, the house committee on finance is now in session. [BLANK_AUDIO]. Thank you for coming out we'll be as quick as we can. We are served today by pages Hertha Derulo from Mecklenburg, Nola Sendoff from Cleveland Please stand and be recognized. All sally comings and Gib Moore, thank you for serving us today. Our Sergeant at Arms, our range seals, Marvin Lee, Jonas Cherry, Cherry [UNKNOWN]. Our staff as always, trainer Griffin, Greg [UNKNOWN], Bryan Slivka, Jonathan Tart is not with us today because we're hoping we don't need him. Representative Ross is recognized to send forth a committee report. >> Thank you Mr Chairman, sub committee met just briefly right prior to this meeting And Senate Bill 875 town Sunset Beach de-annexation is moved favorable to the full finance >> Thank you Mr Chairman. So we have a proposed house committee substitute to senate bill 875 town of Sunset Beach de-annexation, representative Is recognized to explain the bill. Representative Warren moves that the PCS be before us, all in favor say aye. >>Aye. >> Oppose no. Representative Wailer welcome to finance. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, this is a simple local bill that has been around little while Senator in Boston County, Senator Raven. >> I filed this bill on March the 11th, I'm still getting my homework done on the bill and basically, three property owners, have tried for years and spent millions of dollars to utilize their private property. And is a local bill, and they have asked Senator Rave and myself, to de-annex their properties from the town of Sunset Beach so they can develop their properties and they have a history if the rules change, every time they get ready to develop the properties they change the rules in different ways so that. Their perception is they don't want any development. I've asked that the bill be contained in rules committee for approximately 49 days or seven weeks, gives them a chance to talk to each other. I went to talk to every council member and the mayor in pairs so we didn't have a majority In pairs and found out the issues and also talked to the developers and we have had the council members vote for the one, to settle with one of the developers on some issues they had, and that Developer has asked to be removed from the bill that's why we have a PCS. So there's only two properties left, one is at the west end of Sunset beach island and one is on the main land. The west end Sunset beach has been in the family for years, he's tried to develop it. The Goa family who actually started Sunset beach So actually when the third generation of the family being their but in second generation of that property trying to be developed and in 2001 the officer, excuse me, the predecessor of the father of the current owner did indeed giving some part of this property. As a town if they were able to park in a parking lot in three years it will avert back, and then in 15 years they haven't accomplished that so the ownership is sought in question and maybe going to court, cuz the town has filed a suit on that piece of property. However, Whether there are towns that own property that are not in their jurisdiction. So, it wouldn't be unusual but it's the de-annexation of three tracks that make up the property. One of the tracks is in question and then the piece on the mainland is some senior [INAUDIBLE] which have been built and just gotten to the CEO, but it took months and months beyond what was normal to inspections and so forth [UNKNOWN] a lot of money and [UNKNOWN] too. They apparently can't work with the town to do phase two of these senior apartments so they're gonna stop development on the phase two if they can't be de-annexed at this point and like I just told them there today this is not the end of the story that if we de-annex a property and a court decides that town actually owns a piece of it and the road which the panel and some paper work exchange but not likely but it's possible then it can be re-annexed but for now apparently not much happened until

the Bill was filed seven weeks ago and then they started talking to the developers finally. And I talked to them and got them talking to each other and again they voted for the one to settle with one of the developers and it was that developer also then asked to be removed that's why we have a PCS it contains two developments four trucks making up two developments and not the third one which was originally in the Bill. So that is the Bill there's local opposition in people who don't want development in the town and again it is a local bill and it's not 100% non controversial but that's the whole story in a nutshell. >> Thank you representative Ager was that for motion [CROSSTALK] In it's proper time. ->> All right. I got you representative Louise. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Mr. chairman just to inquire the staff is there any concern about the effective date or are we okay with that Chair. >> Yes Mr. Rodney. >> Okay are there any list analysis. >> I think this effective date works. We've done this effective dates before. The actual date for the whether tax property was the listing date in January and so this bill does not change that. So in my opinion even if we made the effective date sometime in July it doesn't change when taxes are due. And the general house has historically gone slightly retroactive on this bills and at the interception. >> Thank you follow up I understand that Chess McDowell wanted to speak on this issue. Could you please come to the microphone and identify yourself and who you representative. >> Yes sir. Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you the committee I'm Chess McDowell and I represent the town of Sunset Beach. Unfortunately the mayor and members of the cit council could not be here and so i'm here on their behalf I would like to point out that the mayor is opposed to this bill and the entire city council is opposed to this bill, in addition they have a petition signed by over 4400 individuals who are opposed to this bill and the town only has about 4000 full time residents so there's a good deal of opposition in the area to this bill and I believe that the introduction of this bill was to get the parties talking and that's exactly what has happened. We started with three different property owners, we're down to two because there was a deal struck with the other two. And the town of Sunset Beach requests that we vote this bill down and give us the interim to fix this problems and come back in Come back in January if a deal can not be reached. >> Representative Hager did you have a question for Mr. McDowell? >> I have just a comment sir. >> Okay do you have a question, Representative Collins is recognized to ask a question >> Yes I would like to just ask the gentleman, what is the basis of the opposition that so many signatures would be on the petition? >> I can't speak to the reason that everyone is signing the petition but I can say that the folks on there feel like this is a matter that should be solved in Sunset Beach. And now that the bill has been introduced and folks are talking and progress is being made they'd like to finish the process. >> Follow up. >> Just one follow up, how wide is the If we've only got 4,000 people in Sunset beach and we have 4400 signatures is this statewide petition or county wide petition? >> No, no let me clarify its 4,000 permanent residents, 4,400 so you have seasonal residents as well who signed the petition. The petition is local Sunset beach not state wide or national but I guess it kinda is is since some folks who may live in Raleigh or live else where but also have property in Sunset Beach. Follow up of representative Hamilton. >> Thank you Mr. chairman just question for [UNKNOWN] I have a lot of material here that the folks of Sunset Beach have sent me, and let me be clear I don't represent Sunset beach in my district it is in representative Ilers district. But there are several questions here that have caused me to have problems with intervening with the local issue at this point. There seems to be discussion over whether or not Fima or they can acquire flood insurance. There's questions about whether or not they can get water and sewer to the property using the federal funds that are used in Brunswick county to build water and sewer lines. And also something about a bridge along a portion off the property that would connect main street to the main land by way of of a coast guard bridge I guess you may not know the specifics and all that I guess the point I'm trying make is this seems awfully complicated right now for us to make a snap decision that impacts

local government. Do you have answers to all of those? >> All I can say is that there are a lot of questions that have come up particularly with the geographical locations. Since one of the properties is now out of the bill it doesn't impact, but you have to go over the bridge into Sunset Beach and go all the way through Subset Beach to get to the property that's no longer gonna be Sunset Beach. So there's a lot of questions, lot of confusion I would echo your point that there is a lot of questions. >> One follow up. >> Follow up. >> Two questions to you then one is how will emergency services be handled to that site? Will they have to be in local agreement between the county and the town of Sunset Beach to get emergency services to those site?. >> Yes. That's monitor [INAUDIBLE]. >> Second follow up. >> Second follow up thank you Mr,Chairman The ownership. Where are we on the lawsuit. >> The lawsuit is currently in process and the question of ownership is hopefully gonna be answered at some point soon. But there is a question who owns one of this properties as being deannexed. >> Follow up. Representative Iler >> Yes sir. I was gonna answer the first issue you have. What is the first issue. [CROSSTALK] >> I think two questions were how did 4400 people sign a petition with 4000 and the other [CROSSTALK] >> What I was told, I've not seen this petition, I have no way to validate who signed it. However I was told that they were being told that if they didn't the petition they'd be high rises on both sides of the aisle. And that's impossible on the highest limits that we have. Is that false pretenses possibly that's the perception, that's what I was told. And as far as the bridge, I'm understanding was a bridge to actually allow one of the people to get from the end of the street at the west end of the aisle to the property that actually is a low area in between. They had to have a bridge and that was blocked by the town and is been split up roadblocks split up for years of various projects try to improve the property and develop the property. There is a lot to talk about tax taxes you would let people development then tax is not gonna up on their property any so. That's kinda false rumor there. So tax is about 200 dollars on the West end of the Island and it will be hundreds probably 100,000 or whatever the several million dollars for the property. However the same individual wants to develop a nature conservancy in a parking area now I'm being told they don't want a bunch of school kids over there coming to see the nature part of it so. There are so many stories around about why they don't want development is just hard to call out what's correct but again it's been an on going situation which had not yet started until the bill is filed as far as resolution. So I think passing this will further enhance the motivation to resolve the other issues and go ahead and get it done. And we can come back and correct any small pieces of property or reannexation that needs to be done in the future. >> Representative Adams >> Thank you Mr. chairman. Can you tell us about the petition. Say it. >> Excuse me and whom is that directed sir. >>. Chess I guess. >>Okay. Would you say again who you are. ->> Yes sir. >> Yes. >> Chess Mcdonald Representative Sunset Beach. I don't know what the petition said I understand there were multiple petitions being heard, but that's the official position of Sunset Beach 4400 folks who've signed the petition. >> Thank you. >> Representative Stam .>> A factual question. We've done. >> A sum of who? >> [CROSSTALK] Representative Iler. >> Okay, thank you. >> Yeah, in 13 we did a bunch of de-annexations against the will/g of towns because the property had been involuntary annexed. I remember Jeff Collins said so. And then we've done a lot of de-annexations where both the town and the property owner agree. So my question. This particular property was it involuntarily annexed, or was it in town limits from the get go or voluntarily annexed if you know. >> Representative Iler. >> I don't have the dates on this but I believe that Sunset Beach was originally owned on the Isle on Sunset beach and then expanded onto the mainland later. Don't have the dates on that but these properties before the East End which has now been resolved,

was acquired that was in the town. However the West End was property that was there and was filmed in it actually filled in over the years and was owned by one of the original owners of Sunset Beach decades ago and has been passed down. So that may not have been an original town because original towns only probably 40, 50 years old, but again the one on the mainland is probably been in for several decades also. So not involuntarily recently at least and they involuntarily decades ago. >> Follow up. >> What I'm hearing is it was not involuntarily annexed . >> Representative Connie.>> Thank you Mr.Chairman this is a question to representative Iler. You mentioned about this bridge I don't know who wants that will be build from the island to the mainland, no? >> The bridge is across what used to be an inlet was filled in all sand basically it's just a low area that you'd have to bridge to get probably has something to do with the wetland aspects to get over that and not disturb anything underneath. It's like a little street. It's a street bridge not a high rise bridge to the main land. >> Follow up? >> It's on the island. >> Follow up.>> Who pays for this bridge to be built? >> That would totally be the private property owner, if he's allowed to do it. at some point. >> All right. Representative Steinberg. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. And Representative Iler you know that I'm very, very fond of you and I love that suit. I'll see if I can get one of those, it's great. And the Shoes, and the tie. Nice shirt too. >> [LAUGH] >> Mr. Chairman, should we let them step outside for the to be alone [LAUGH] >> Okay, I'm just as guilty as all are. Will the committee please come to order. Representative Steinberg's recognized for a question. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. As much as I proclaimed all of that, what makes this extremely difficult for me to support is that regardless of who signed the petition, there's 4400 of them down there. You've got the Town Council who says no, you've got the Mayor who says no, and then this gentleman. Who's had the podium back here has said that the efforts of this Bill today have been to bring parties together to try and bring this to some sort of resolution. Even if it were to sneak, and I think it would be sneaking out of this committee if it does, I think it would have a very difficult time passing master/g on the house floor. So I am reluctantly because of you, going to have to vote no on this. >> [LAUGH] [LAUGH] >> Representative Ross. >> Thank you, Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just a quick question and this would be to Representative of Iler. You had mentioned a couple of times that once this is de-annexed. and property owner develops the property then it can be re-annexed. My question is are this property owners gonna voluntarily agree to bring back re-annexed back to Sunset Beach? >> I can answer for them on that, I don't know. >> Follow up. >> It seems to me that after apparently everything they've gone through in trying to develop these properties. They're still not gonna reluctantly jump back in to Sunset Beach once they get developed. >> Master that again, ->> Representative Iler ->> I should have said. If the courts decide that the town owns a piece of this, then I obviously the town would say. Re-annex my piece of it, but if the private owner owns the whole thing which is likely. It will probably not be asked to be re-annexed. But the town could asked to be re-annexed if it turns out a piece of it is theirs >> Representative Hager, you had sought recognition >> Yes sir thank you very much unfortunately. [LAUGH] >> I started listening to this and I know the senator that represents this area, the representative that represents this area are both in favor of this bill. Rarely does that happen. And I look back and I see this bill was introduced on May 12th of this year Of course, and we're just now getting to the point where the town wants to talk, that tells me a lot right there also. And Mr. McDowell said that this Bill was introduced to start talking. I don't agree with that,

I introduce Bills to get laws passed not to start talking not conversation obviously. The Senator and the Rep that represent this area introduced this Bill to get a local bill passed that they both agree on. So I would employ you to vote this bill out. I trust Representative Iler, and I trust Representative Raben to know what is best for their county and their area, not me. Now if you run the bill over in Rasper/g County I will have a problem with that. But you are no. I'm running this bill [INAUDIBLE] you know what is best for your constituency. I don't know what us best for your constituency. I'm voting yes on this bill Representative Iler, and hope you get it passed. >> Representative Lewis. >> And I do think you look good. [LAUGH] >> Thank you Mr Chairman. I just wanted to go on record for also saying that Representative Steinberg is a handsome man and has a chest [UNKNOWN] and just with all due respect, I acknowledge that the town council was not in favor of this. I would love to see the petition is now that hard to lift a clipboard of the shop, and go and have folks go write their names on it. I think everybody understands this bill and I think it would be in the best interest of the folks of Sunset beach for us to pass this bill, and the best interest of the senate through the members of this committee to assemble and vote on this bill. >> Representative Jordan. >> Thank you Mr Chairman. I'm not gonna follow up any of the previous line of questioning regarding personal appearance but. >> Thank you. >> What I do have a question about is, What type of project that the land owner would like to do if the town is refusing? Are they being unreasonable? Give us a little more idea of what kind of development they are talking about. >> Well We're not talking about the one that is been settled on but that was, to me that was the most difficult one. Cuz the gentleman wants a swimming pools on the front row of the [INAUDIBLE], and not allowed that before. But during the conversation, given other things they were requiring they said, okay, we will let you do that and they passed an ordinance to let him do that. Which was nice concession in exchange, he had to tell us to take him off the bill. [LAUGH] And so in this other things I'm sure we're negotiating in their too. The east end of the island, is been in the family for now, a third generation and it was almost an original piece of the Island actually it was a separate island for a while and it filled in the end it moved decades ago. And then now it's sounds like the rest of the [INAUDIBLE] and most of the island and by the way that is the only naturally occurring island on the mainland. They've got about three 400 feet of sand in front of houses which wasn't there 25 years ago. Anyway, all that being said, that project is gonna be [INAUDIBLE] Nature Conservancy. Build this bridge, build a parking lot and maybe some houses over there. But, this is part of the complication. The town required the property owner to ask for permitting for 21 house I think it was although the intention was not to do that but they wouldn't let him is only permitted for housing and we're not letting him do a permit for Nature conservancy. So there's a lot of confusion about what is the legacy to his dad [INAUDIBLE] and the granddad, the founders of those Sunset Beach, to put a park our there. But he's been held up to do anything, including getting the bridge to the park [LAUGH] Building a little street bridge to the property, it's very complicated, I mean got file this stick on all the issues and the conditional deed, which is there's supposed to build something >> >> In 2001 to 2004, they still hadn't done it, so the deed goes back to the owners. So it's very complicated >> Follow up >> One more thing, the one on the main land, is senior apartments, I think it's 80 apartments. And phase two probably wouldn't be built if it's staying in town but [INAUDIBLE] >> Okay. Representative Hastings >> Representative Iler this is a friendly question is probably gonna require a second question. Did someone allude to a lawsuit regarding title. >> Follow up. >> Follow up >> Is that law suit and this is just out of curiosity is not gonna determine whether I'll support you or not because I support you, does that involve title insurance or is that just a suit that someone filed and as a civil matter? >> Now the town is contesting that condition lead and saying we

own that which is about a third of the entire track is one of the three tracks that's listed and This house says we own it and [INAUDIBLE] probably on our heads this is the that says they don't so the town has just agreed along with selling with one of them they just agreed to go to court and sue the other one for ownership which actually I think that [INAUDIBLE] them to do that to establish his ownership Well again if it runs out that [UNKNOWN] owns a piece of it it can be re annexed. >> Representative Stam. >> Going back 15 years I have a principle of not voting to re annex wishes over property oath and this is the first time I've heard Heard that the town actually claims it. I'll tell you the long story about that some day but when you have more time. >> Representative Hamilton, further discussion further debate, representative Bradford. >> Thank you Mr.Chairman is there anybody here to speak on behalf of these two Parcels that are owned by private owners. Anyone here to speak? >> [NOISE] >> Understood. Follow up. >> Follow up. Yeah. >> Is there anyone besides Representative [UNKNOWN] that is here to speak about the private parcels? >> There was a meeting in one of the house committees I wasn't a senate committee that was in [INAUDIBLE] There were town representatives and representatives of the developers at those meetings. They were noticed a lot more than this meeting was noticed so they're over three hours away. >> Last follow up. >> Just is it possible representative Iowa Question to perhaps revisit this in a long session considering the lack of clarity. I think perhaps even you could agree that this has put you in a tough spot too. You have four thousand people to have signed something that you don't know we don't know, they don't know. I think that could bode well for you to know what that is at some point as the representative so Is it possible to perhaps revisit the long session because I'd like to learn more because I wanna get this right. >> Representative Bradford is that a hypothetical question or are you asking the man to displace the bill? >> I'm asking if he'd be willing to displace the bill. >> Well the short answer is no and the long answer - >> Just an answer Further discussion. Further debate. Hearing none. Representative Hagar is recognised for a motion. >> Thank you Mr Chairman. I would like to give a favourable motion to propose house bill substitute for the local bill of senate bill 875. >> Unfavourable to the original bill, Representative Hagar favorable report to propose house committee substitute to senate bill 875, unfavorable to the original bill so to many as favor the motion say aye.>> Division. >> Opposed no.>> No. >> Division. >> Yeah I'm wanna ask for a show of hands. Now to show your hands those in favor raise your hands please. [BLANK_AUDIO] [LAUGH] >> we got 10 >>okay so many as opposed. [BLANK_AUDIO] motion fails.