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 28, 2016 | Chamber | House Transportation

Full MP3 Audio File

[BLANK_AUDIO] Okay, ladies and gentlemen take your seats. We'll start the Transportation committee meeting. We've given the Judiciary Committee long enough to get here, maybe they'll wander in as we proceed. [BLANK_AUDIO] Let me introduce some of our [BLANK_AUDIO] staff and some of our visitors today. We have House pagers with us today, if you'll stand when I call your name. Jane Mary Bryant, from Mecklenburg County, Sponsored Representative Brain, Candice Berg from Wake County, sponsored by Representative Holley. We have Sidney Olson from Wake County, sponsored by Representative Fisher. We have Quam Tiddy from Cleveland County, sponsored by Speaker Moore. Thank you for being in here, thank you for your services. We have our ever-faithful house pages, Yong Bae Jim Moran, Loeffler Gaddison, Ricks Forster and Joel Olsteen. Thank you for your service. The person aide today ladies and gentlemen is to review and advise on a bill that is already in conference. It's House Bill 59 DOT legislative propose changes and the main reason for the main debate is there is a major edition to the bill. >> Good afternoon, welcome back, we're back [CROSS TALK] [CROSSTALK] Thank you Chairman Saine and members of finance committee I appreciate you all allow me to be here with you today. I'm gonna cover if it's okay with the chairman just to two provisions that deal with finance in senate bill 770 in the North Carolina. 2016. Is that okay with- >> Senator, that's the way we like it in finance. Keep it short and sweet. >> I can do that. Section number ten extends the sunset for construction of certain renewable fuel facilities and Miss Chairman there is a member here from the community to speak on this at the appropriate time. But members, basically what this does is there was a project in Sampson County. It has been underway for five years. They've had some minor setbacks and they're asking for this one project only to be extended from 2017 to 2020. And I'll be happy to answer any questions as I quickly can on this particular issue, or we can hear We can hear from the folks on the audience. >> [CROSSTALK] >> Certainly I had a question from the chair if you can indulge me. I know that you heard this bill was heard in agriculture this morning. What was the late outcome then? >> It passed. I'm not sure about the vote count. >> You don't know? So it will be announced? Very good, sir. I know that people have some folks, fellow communities that wish to speak. I have on my list, John Swope, Martin Conlan and Randy Gordon. Whoever wants to go first make their way to the microphone, state your name and who you represent and who you're with, you'll be recognized. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, sir. >> Are we gonna hear about the bill as members and then have the opportunity to talk about it? >> We've got all the time in the world We are in [INAUDIBLE AUDIO]. >>We are. >>Thank you. Sir if you would state your name and who you are with. >>Yes sir my name is John Spoke I'm the director of a Samson county economic development commission our offices in Clinton in North Carolina. I appreciate a few minutes of your time, so I can give you and over view of the points. why we recommend this extension. I really have these three points to make, the first this read again. A great deal has been accomplished by a Samson county the city of Clinton and the company Kemtext for the development of this project including the generation or the awarding of 4.7 plus million dollars infrastructure grants at the federal and state level to support water and sewer improvements also improvements in the highway and the rail construction improvements. The work by NCDOT will make there's been improvements on the road has been harshly completed we're only waiting for the project underway and then resurfacing of the road at the appropriate time to keep them from damaging work that has been done. The waste water and infrastructure engineering has been done. The preliminary engineering on the rail infrastructure has been done. All insight analysis by the county and by the company has been completed. So a number of things has put us into position including Samson approving significant incentives to support this companies development in Samson County.

My second point and I wound go into details on this cuz you have the information in front of you, This is a true economic development project. The Jobs would be created they payroll at $48,000 average annual salary, the investment, all these things are significant for any county, but for Stanton County a real agricultural county and the impact will go beyond just the county lines. We'll have employees coming in from adjoining counties that will benefit from this project. Then the third point I'll make and I'll complete after this is that when Kemtex is up and running they actually is actually the name of the project will be Carolina [UNKNOWN] Biofields but when they're up and running, their raw material primarily energy grasses won't come in from another state, won't come in from another country. They'll come from right around that area 20 miles plus or minus from the plant and that means when they spend 10 to 12 million dollars a year on local purchases for feed stock that stays in our area, that benefits our local farmers, that benefits business people in the area. Instead of the company writing a check consenting it to another state or another country. There are my points and welcome any questions that you may have now or later about the county, the city's involvement in this projects since 2011. Thank you. >> Thank you sir. Next I have, go ahead and put your mic, state your name and who you are with. >> Okay. God afternoon, my name is Mark Collin, I represent Biochemtex, Kemtex and it's affiliates and the Carolina side bio-fields project in Clinton. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Briefly thank you very much for the invitation to speak is the microphone on? Very good. My understanding that it would be helpful to spend a little time talking about the delays in our project of development. We are ready to go to financial closure in the fourth quarter of this year with an 18 month gold project to follow. Total project investment is roughly $200 million all said and done. And then the delays are largely about new technology and new supply chain. And the death of our chairman and president which caused a little bit of restructure. At the end of the day I'd like to talk a little bit about our progress. We have 650,000 tons of core feed stock biomass under contract for delivery to the facility from the regional farms and forestry operations that John Swope/g mentioned. We have more than 9500 acres of sandy soils committed to grow these new crops. And the time it takes to transition into new crops was a little more complicated than we had initially anticipated. And we have more than 800 acres of these new crops already planted in preparation for the project. Extension is important, the equity Equity in the project has additional stakeholders besides our parent company, MNG. This extension is important cuz it does impact to the return on equity. So we're ready to go,, we're preparing to make these decision and we'd very much appreciate Appreciate your careful consideration and support. >> Last to have Randy Gore state director of North Carolina rural development. >> Let me say good afternoon to all of you and thanks for having me down here. I'm the state director for rural development, been so since October 2009. We have been able to secure the funds $99 million to guarantee this loan. All of you know office skill and on September 30th then we head along into contain a resolution for the first three months of the next quarter, and then all of us know that we'll be in a transition period thereafter one way or another, so time is off the essence, if we're gonna do this we know that we're dealing with. October 1 and suddenly after November, I'm not so sure. Thanks for having me. >> Thank you sir. That is all the guest speakers I had. Back to you senator, comments you wanna make further on the bill. >> Well thank you Mr. Chairman and I'd like to thank the speakers for coming out today to speak, They actually have 9500 plus hectares in their contravand as in under contract currently in eastern North Carolina and they have more than 800 hectors is already been planted and you've heard what is been say as far as the tonnes that has been required. To day they have 50000 tonnes of wheat and corn. Already under agreement, so I would ask that you give this one project a favorable report Mr. chairman at the time and I will be happy to answer the question. >> Thank you. Gentlemen has yield for a question I have representative Hager and then representative Adams. Anyone else wishing to speak. >> Representative Hager you are recognized Thank you Mr. Chairman now, let me make sure I understand this right. So far we've spend if I look at the numbers here on the sheath that started out, entailed Samson county economic development commission.

It looks like we spend or gonna spend about $5 millions in state and federal. [CROSS=TALK] Mr. chairman, representative Hager that is, you're getting the same information I am. >> Okay, thank you, and local incentive is about 3.3 which totals about eight million so far. The question I have and it might be for staff, do we have and I'm looking at the, trying to find my sheet now, looking at the fiscal note. It doesn't have any Have any numbers there. Can you kinda enlighten me what the tax credit will cost? >> You have the staff please. >> You're adviced for adoption of county report. Let's start. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Representative Hager, the tax credit is 25% of the invested amount and it's taken in seven installments. Based on test phoning, I think the sale's about 200 million, so just learned that. But you do that 25%, that's $50 million cost spread over a seven-year period would be about $7 million a year, starting in 1920 fiscal year. Fiscal year. >> 2020. >> Thank you for that. >> Yes sir. >> [LAUGH] >> [LAUGH] Thank you. Follow up? >> You're recognized for a follow up. >> Thank you. So you're saying that this project could cost an additional $50 million? >> Well, that would be the credit they would be entitled to. The It's because what you're doing is extending the time period for them to be able to place and then service and that's what triggers the tax credit. Under the existing law, that time period has passed and so if you extend a time period for them to place and then service, and they qualify for the credit, they'll have a potential $50 million tax credit that they can use They can use over a seven-year period beginning in 2021. >> In looking at that- >> Follow up? >> I'm sorry Mr. Chairman. Looking at that same sheet, it says that they'll have 65 direct employees. So if I'm wrong and I can do the math which I think I can, how comes $892,370 per employee, if you add the $50 million on that. My question I guess is, is this a good use of taxpayer money, to spend almost $900,000 per employee? >> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to that. >> You're recognized senator. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Now, Representative Ager, I understand what you're saying, but I think if you were to divide this over 25 or 30 years, that cost would come down considerably and these are just direct jobs. This is not counting the indirect jobs that will be created by the farmers growing these crops [BLANK_AUDIO]. >> Representative Adams. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, I have questions about section 11 of the bill. Is it appropriate to ask those questions now? >> You have been recognized, sir, for your questions. >> Question for staff, under section 11, under definitions speaks to servant feed means any commercial feed is determined by GS106-284.33 is there specifically just cone or is that any product that would be directed towards servants. >>Thank you Mr. Sanders, staff of here can I ask you a question Mr. Sanders? Representative Adam it's not just cone actually I believe the definition excludes things that are only cone, I'm going to pull up the definition right now of commercial feed in that section [BLANK_AUDIO] Commercial feed is defined as all materials except whole and mixes such as cone including physically altered entire unmixed seeds were not adulterated which are distributed for use or speed or for mixing feed provided that the bowl by regulation may except various things including hay straw, silver etc >>So do I understand what I would exclude perhaps we call deer cone. >>I believe that's right if it's just the whole unmixed seed. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Senator you are recognized >> Thank you representative Adams that's my understanding has been the whole time deer cone as we call it would be excluded from this. This, in my opinion, is just sort of processed feed that is purchased. >> Follow up? >> Follow up. >> Would this also exclude any mineral blocks under definition it would include mineral blocks? Or mineral feed. >> Mr. Sanders. Thank you Mr. Chairman I believe that's correct. All materials except for corn. There's no exclusion for mineral blocks. So I don't believe they'd be excluded. >>So, correcting the statement that this would not be an additional

cost for the dear corn products that >>Mr. Sanders.>>That's right, if it's just corn there would not be the assessment tagged onto that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions on the bill. Representative Hager. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, just a quick question maybe for the folks in the construction side but I'm looking at the other sheet titled Kim takes Sailoids/g project in Samson county. This shows an in date of 2018 for CCBLC facility becomes operational and the CCBLC job commitment complete, it may be staff that needs to handle this but we are Extending the tax credit two more years past that. Is their senator Jackson by be your answers has a reason for extended tax credit out two years past completion. >> And I will Mr. chairman attend to that but the staff not can add or Mr. Collins not gonna add as well but it was the intentions that they did now exactly how long what construct delays, the stuff it would take to get this process plan going that the anticipation is that it would be finished by the fourth quarter in 2018 but in case it dint, we wont have to go this again. >> Just Mr. Chairman just a comment. >> You recognize representative Hager. >> Thank you. And their is very few things that representative Luke and I agree on a lot of cases, but taking care of our tax pair dollars is one of them. And looking after our hard working forks that work every day to make their mortgage and to pay their bills and I have a poor county, we are struggling with jobs, we haven't seen the jobs That have come to Melkenburg county and to hear in Wake county and to know we are giving some money almost $60 millions for a project that should have already been completed. For project by the end date will take six or seven years to complete it is baffling to say the least. So guess I don't understand where we are going if we are getting point we are paying almost 900,000 for folks to come in here per job and you are taking away from folks in my county that need the money they are struggling to pay their mortgage. Then I have a problem I do and I think needs some further study and Mr. Chairman I would recommend and. certainly would like to make a motion that this bill get refereed to our public utility since it is an energy piece to it [BLANK_AUDIO]. Senator Hager I'm just trying to make sure that we can do that from a committee because my understanding is that we cannot that would give to the rules Mr.chairman. But you maybe care to enlighten me? >> In that case Mr. Chairman I do have a minute I like simple. >> Thank you sir. >> Bring it up anyone else on the bill? Representative Boer? >> Quick question for Senator Jackson. >> Senator Jackson I looked and saw that you projected to have an impact of 48,000 jobs, $40,000 per the 65 jobs, direct jobs. What's the medium income for Stetson County wage now? Right now? And if you were successful how much economic impact would that bring to a county like Sampson? >> Mr. Chairman and Representative Moore, don't hold me to this I'm sure John Swope/g can answer this question much better now. But I believe our average job income is around 30,000 $30,000 give or take. >> Mr. Spoke you in the back, would you like to add anything to that? And again prior process if you'd state your name and who your with. >> I'm John Spoke with Sampson County economic development commission the senator is correct, our average wage in Sampson's county per the NC department of Commerce will be in the $30,000 range. So this is significantly approximately 50% higher than our average wage in the county. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> All right. Representative Adams. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Couple more questions on section 11. If this is not going to apply to part we call deer corn what about blended feeds that are sold in retail stores with those re-taxed? >> Mr.Chairman and Representative Adams to my understanding that would be the intentions of this and it would be $0.10 cent per bag. >> Follow up. >> Your recognized for follow up Follow. >> Okay so that pact will be applied after retail point of sale. >> Mr. Chairman and Representative Allen, to my understanding I would actually have been applied at the manufacturing process is the way this is done with the House Council,

it is applied at the manufacturing process, which of course it is past on. And I'm not gonna stand up here and tell that is not. That's where the tax is actually applied. >> Allen. >> Follow up. >> Do we know how many tonnes of this product are produced or sold in North Carolina presently? >> Mr. Chairman and Representative Adams, I do not have that information. I would not imagine it to be a tremendous amount of tonnage of deer feed that is being manufactured in this state. >> Follow up. >> Follow up. >> This says the association that's mentioned in the bill, how many members are there of that association presently? Now look at their website, it appears that there's about 14 members. Is that correct? >> Mr. Chairman and Representative Adams, to my understanding is they're somewhere closer to 35 to 40 members in this association. >> Collin? >> Follow up. >> So this 35 or 40 member association would be the benefactors of a ten cents per bag tax on blended deer feed products and that would be collected presumably from people who are outside from the deer farming industry. Is that correct? >> Mr. Chairman and Representative Adams to my understanding partly if what you're saying is correct, to my knowledge there's no rules put in place that anyone could not join this association. And the many from this association and foundation would be used for researches the intentions. >> Follow up. >> Did you say follow up? >> Yes please and - >> I wanna make sure it's correct. >> And what research organisation have you conversed with or been in contact with that would be the benefactor of this money? >> Mr.Chairman and Representative Adams I have personally not spoken to any research or company or firm but it is my understanding that they would be working with some of the research folks, I would assume and which we know what assume means, that it was my assumption that this would be done through the university system. >> Follow up. And who would - >> Now wait for a second. >> [LAUGH] >> Thank you. So if a person acquires a large amount of this product and they wish to be reimbursed for the tax. Who would they apply to? >> Mr. Chairman and Representative Adams. They would reply to the foundation to get their money back and it is a fully refundable program. And so if anyone does not wanna participate, they can certainly apply and get their money back. And the resource that I have see also shows that the average across North Carolina the average people three to four bags of this product a year so your talking about 30 to 40 cents. >> Follow up? >> Why not? >> And so can you mention foundation but I believe you are refereeing to the association who are 35 members? >> Mr. Chairman and Representative Adams, it is yes sir correct but I'm sort of putting the two together. But they are separate as I understand it. >> One will ask to follow. >> I will hold you to that. Last follow up. >> Do we have fiscal note on how much money this would generate> >> Mr. Chairman and representative Tunner their was one prepared I believe. >> Their is a fiscal note. >. But I think it's so minor. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Chairman Braley and then we'll take up the amendment from Representative Hager. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator, there're a couple of questions I've got about this and first of all the project that y'all mentioned in Sampson County how long has that project been underway? >> Mr. Chairman and Chairman Bradley the project actually got I guess you could say officially kicked off in 2011 as far as the announcement and I think that construction has been sort of delayed in the process between different things but I would say construction as far as pad work and it would be minor work got started two years later, and I think I'm close to be inaccurate on that. >> As a follow up sir. >> I'm getting here. >> You given us a sheet about the infrastructure costs. Are these projected or have these already been expended? >> Mr. Chairman and Chairman Bradley to my knowledge These have not been totally extended yet. I know some monies have been spent as far as what I would call it free construction phase of the facility and I know that the town of Clinton has done some work as far as PAT lines to this facility. DOT has done some work. They have not finished their project as it was because they are

waiting for all the heavy equipment that will be necessary for this type of plan. You know, to get out so that they can finish the road when it's all done. >> Follow up? >> Follow up. Do you have a sense of how much of it has been expended or we just don't know? >> Chairman Saine and Chairman Brawley, I do not know. Mr. Collins might know of John Swope, Economic Development and I certainly would refer to them on that. >> One of you gentlemen please purchase the microphone and state who you're with. >> I am John Swope, Sampson County Economic Development Commission. The DOT has expended some funds probably a half of the cost is my estimate and the total cost of improvement of $300,003. The city of Clinton has awarded a contract for some of the beginning work for improvements to the water system. I don't know the dollar amount of this contract. That work's to begin the second week of July. Other than that, the other funds, to my knowledge have not been expended. >> There was one other thing. We talked about a tax credit and the potential tax credit of $50 million. I think it was based on a $200 million investment but as the tax credit completely related the actual private funds expended. Are there government grants that are included in that number and is that subject to the federal new market tax credit program? >> Mr. Chairman and Chairman Brawley you're getting above my pay grade here now but I'm gonna give you my farmer's definition. USDA has guaranteed I think it was $99 million for this and I'm not exactly sure what private bank is gonna be writing the note, but to my understanding all investors that're involved plus the USDA guaranteed a loan and the bank are all in place. >> Thank you. Representative Hager moves the amendment here at my desk. I'll read it to you fairly simple, moves to amend the bill on page eight line 33 through 50 which changes the title by removing those lines, submitted by Representative Hager. Representative Hager, you're recognized to speak to the amendment. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. I'd like to say, this is a project that may need to go forward. It's just the fact that the amount of money we have invested in this. And now we just learned another $99 million tax payer loan is going into this. That we need to reconsider. And i will tell the Committee here that i will work with Sen. Jackson and try to get this in public utilities. Have a good hearing on this piece here, because i think it gums up what is otherwise a pretty good bill. Work with Sen. Jackson and i think we can work out the details of it and figure it out. Get the details and get it to the two caucuses. And move it foward Would in and possibly regulate them. >> Representative Hager. >> If I can correct my statement of the amendment, it moves to amend the bill on page 8, line 33 through 50, but also page 9, lines one through 4. How about that? Removing those lines. [BLANK_AUDIO] Mr. Chairman. >> Senator you're recognized. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Representative Hager I know you and I have been friends will be friends at the end of this day [LAUGH]. I just want you to know that this project members has been through both houses and has been passed one time before. There's been a lot of unrelated Related circumstances that has caused this project to be delayed. And I feel like we owe it to not only Kemtex/g but we owe it to the citizens of Sampson County to approve this. It has been fully vetted by the U.S.D.A. It has been fully vetted by this local General Assembly. And I would ask that you defeat this amendment. The amendment's before you. Anybody else wanna come and speak on the amendment? Representative Szoka. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for Representative Hager and then follow up statement. >> I do. >> Thank you, sir. >> Representative Hager, thank you for your thoughtfulness in offering this amendment. One thing that you said in your Question kinda struck me and I just wanna make sure I'm understanding the logic correctly. Said that you stayed in Rutherford County, a county that the people are poor and this was taking taxes from your folks and giving it somewhere else. I guess my question for you is if this project were being put in Rutherford County with all the construction money and the jobs to it, would you still be opposed to this bill? >> I would be. >> Thank you. >> Recognized. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. I recommend this amendment be defeated. I think the language is very carefully crafted. I think that this The businesses want certainty whether it's this

business or any other business. They've expended quite a bit of their own capital on this and yes the state has contributed too. This was determined years ago that this would be a good project for our state and at this late date to pull the rug out from under them I don't think is appropriate. I would ask you to defeat the ammendment [INAUDIBLE] >> Yeah, I would like to speak in support of the amendment. The certainty for businesses is there, whether you say you're gonna give them $ 50 million or you aren't gonna give them $50 million. So there is nothing uncertain about the results of this amendment. It's also, we are not going to Making an exception to give them a tax break which no longer exists. I would like to see us keep consistent with the very finally crafted and very laborious process who went through of getting some compromise on the sun setting of all these renewable tax credits. And I would like to see us picking up a part Taken it out thread by thread which we're starting to do if we do this so I would certainely ask that you support the amendment. >> Representative Gener anyone wish to speak on the amendment? Okay representative Gitter you're recognized. >> Thank you Mr.Chairman I have a question and I'm not sure who to oppose it to Firmly not Hager. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> I'm sure you will sir either way [LAUGH] >> I think there is so much legitimacy on both sides of the argument apologize if I'm pulling a Gitter here but [LAUGH] It's a complicated place to be inside my head so I understand that we as a body made a commitment on whether a noble line was gonna be I understand that this is an isolated incident that Probably deserve some special consideration for luck of a better term my question once again and probably more directed to staff is does this set precedent that could be used against us because I don't necessarily see that it does And I think that's a silient point that I like to your staff much [INAUDIBLE] apparently help me out with. >> If you could interpret, representative Gitter's question? >> And if you could interpret that tell me what I ask would be great. >> representative Representative Jeter, I don't wanna fill out this maybe wading into policy opinion. I certainly don't want to get into that. What it does is just credit previously you had to place it into service by the end of 2013 to get it. This allows you to place it into service by the end of 2019 to get it. So they extend the time period for it. Regarding whether or not it sets the precedent for future taxpayers to get in, I really don't have a response to that. >> Follow up? >> [INAUDIBLE] Follow up? >> Maybe I'll try to get away from policy and more into, I mean politics and more into policy here. I mean, sorry. You know what I meant. Probably not. So what we're saying is this project was in the Harper if you will, and then through some level of issues, the death of someone and some other issues, it's now outside of what we set to cut off. Is there any way retrospectively to look and see how many other projects Like this might exist? Because we're really not extending this and perpetuity, we're just extending it under the certain criteria for these outliers. Do we know of any other outliers that could come in here and ask for the same thing? >> Miss [UNKNOWN] I'm aware of any other projects that meet the criteria I'd list it here. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> If I could try to comment. >> You're recognized. >> So I can clarify for myself, less for you all. I have real concerns about Us going back on any agreement that we've made in a bicameral body that is hard to get an agreement on what color the sun is some days. Pardon the pun. That being said, this case seems to be one of those This places where it's exception to the rule. And by all account should had been grandfathered in. And through some incidences grandfathered out and you know for that reason I'm not sure that I can support the hager amendment though I still love him deeply. >> [LAUGH] Well barring any brohugs,

Representative Warren and Representative Brawley. >> Thank you. In an effort to quickly get our minds off of Representative Jeter's last comment, bill sponsor tell me what would be the impact on the company and the project if If the tax exemption or tax credit isn't extended. >> Mr.Chairman and Representative [UNKNOWN] It is my understanding if you're not able to acquire this tax credit extension as we're asking for, and as Representative [UNKNOWN] in his pleasant way describe the circumstances that has happened to cause Cause this to be an exception this facility will not be built. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Representative Stan. >> I think the constitutional provision calls for uniform classifications for taxation. Representative Braley. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Um, for a moment I thought Representative [UNKNOWN] was gonna ask his questions in a way that I wouldn't have to ask mine but my hopes were dashed. >> many have survived this committee sir. >> Yes they have. >> [LAUGH]. >> What I I think one of the things Representative [UNKNOWN] alluded to was the potential existence of other projects that might be subject to the same provisions that are in Senate Bills 770. And so to what level of certainty Do we have that this is the only project? >> Senator. >> We've not heard of any other project that meets this criteria. The criteria specifically are that they have the file of certification with the Department of Commerce prior to September of 2013 and that they had to Begin construction on the project the end of 2013. >> Mr. Chairman? >> Yes sir, Senator. >> Senator Braley to my knowledge I have not heard of any other projects as well and they did do what they were supposed to do to extend this and in my opinion they've done what they were asked they were just needing us to grant them this last request. To debate the amendment. >> You're recognized, sir. >> Yogi Bearer had a great phrase one time. He says, it's like deja vu all over again. My freshmen year, we had a bill that came through Finance that was going to allow a company to get some incentives, what you call a Order please. >> Yes sir. [SOUND] Kinda keep it down. >> That would allow a company that had not done any of the things they were supposed to do to get the incentives. And it got a negative report and the move to reconsider was then laid upon the table and I was told that it was so dead that they'd even buried the Shovel and the map to where they'd buried the shovel. But later on it came back in a very good bill that another representative and brought forward that led to Ashley Furniture. I actually took a few shoots at your Body Senator about that being added on and sent back in the last week of the session and how we kinda had to hold our nose and vote for it. And I thought that was the first time I'd really enjoyed the pain of holding this office cuz sometimes the answers just aren't really easy. Not too long ago I ran a bill that came over from Senator Rucho called the Safe Harbor bill and- >> Could you ask them please? >> And there is a lot of charter and it is still hard for Senator Harbour to hear. >> I'm easily distracted, you know. That particular bill which came out of the Senate was sponsored by Senator Rucho was to all some projects that were underway be completed.If I were concerned that there were a lot of other projects that would show up, I would support Representative Hager's bill because the intent was to shut this down. Like the blue line money for Charlotte which I would have never voted for once a project started, let's finish it. Let's keep that promise and that promise only. So I'm gonna oppose the amendment and support the underlying bill specifically because for whatever reason that's one one project started under the rules. Let's finish it, then let's put this program behind us and not have it anymore. Thank you Mr.Chair. >> Thank you. I got Representative [UNKNOWN] and got Representative Hagor I believe wants to make a remark. Reminding that we have this room until just before 1 o'clock, if we cannot finish the debate of this bill or any other bill we will ask for a opportunity to either delay session or we'll come back to Finance the [UNKNOWN] and finish the debate.

Either way, Representative Blust. >> I have a question as to when the Sunset was originally put in place. I keep hearing members say something to the effect that we're with this amendment changing the rules. Was it not clear from the beginning that what the date of the sunset was? >> Staff, if you know the answer to when it was initially put into place. >> I don't remember when the sunset was originally put in place. We can look that up. The sunset was established at the end of 2013 it was there for a while Well I believe if you want those specific times when sunset was established we would have to look and see. >> That's fine with me. Representative Hager. >> Thank you. I guess I'm a little confused too as to what Miss Tart says that it was originally 13 and this bill moves it to 17 to 20 since it's been extended once already. >> Mr. Chairman. I can answer that. >> Senator you're recognized. >>Thank you Representative Hagor and Chairman Saine. Yes, this has been extended one time because of the short time it was originally. They got in as the sun said was setting, so to speak. >> So thank you. So we've extended one time from 13 to 17 for years and the project wasn't complete. Now we have extended for another three years and do we have any indication that the project will be completed then? >> Mr. Chairman and Representative Hagor that is, I will tell you this as I have told these folks. I have tried to work they started this project and they needn't ask me again to come before you all to get another extension. So I believe this project will be finished in this time. But there has been some really serious circumstances that has withheld this project and I do ask for you indulgence. >> Mr. Chairman, I question to our rules Chairman here, that if we could move this to public utilities, I certainly with withdraw my amendment and talk about the specific piece in public utilities. And I've been awaiting an answer from him, now I'm putting him on the spot. So if you have another discussion, can we move on to other discussion? >> Well, we're gonna move out of this room shortly because the Senate Finance Committee is coming in so either way we're going to extend the debate. So we do have time in our committee to continue. I will give the rules chairman to find out when that will be an appropriate time that we can work into our calendar and we'll decide, he can make whatever recommendation he wants to but We do have to get out of this room. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this amendment and if you do then I'm gonna suggest that the committee go into recess and you hold your questions till we come back and we'll come back on this amendment when we define and set that time. >> Seeing that we stand in recess. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you members [SOUND] [BLANK_AUDIO]