Senate will come to order. Sergeant in arms will close the doors. Members will go to their seats. Members and guests of the gallery will please silence all electronic devices, Senator Berger that’s you too. Leading the Senate in prayer today is the Reverend Peter Milner, Senate Chaplain. All members and guests in the gallery please stand. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Come on Reverend, give us a good one and ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Almighty God, thank you for this place. Lord, you have been our dwelling place here and in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth. Forever you have formed us. From everlasting to everlasting, you are God. You return us dust, and ?? return of children of man. For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when its past. Or as a watch in the night. So as we pause right now and pray, we ask you to perform another miracle by opening up our eyes to see that you are good. And we ask you to puncture our hearts, quicken us to see how your endurance lasts through the night. Give us that type of endurance. In Christ’s name we pray. Amen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well done. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Berger is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Pursuant to Senator Bryant’s motion prevailing yesterday and with consent of minority leader, I move that the approval of yesterday’s journal be delayed, pending the inclusion of documents referenced in yesterday’s debate on House Bill 589 VIVA Election Reform. That the transcript of yesterday’s remarks on House Bill 589 VIVA Election reform be published as an appendix to the journal and that the appendix may be approved jointly by the Rules Chair and the Minority Leader. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection. So ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Leaves of absence are granted for Senators Clodfelter, Rabin, McLaurin and Pate. Do we have the nurse of the day? I don’t believe so. She’s over in a house where she’s more needed. Ratification of bills. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Enroll bills. Enrolling clerk reports the following bills to be ratified for presentation to the Governor. Senate Bill 103 an act to extend and amend the authorities counties and cities have to special assessments to address critical infrastructure needs. Senate Bill 402 an act to make base budget appropriation for current operations, state departments, institution, agencies and for other purposes. Senate Bill 683 an act to create a safe harbor for victims of human trafficking or for prostituted minors. Modify the membership of North Carolina Human Trafficking Commission and provide for parole consideration of certain inmates sentence under the Fair Sentencing Act. House Bill 135 an act to make adjustments to the ?? schedule for permits of sanitary landfills and transfer stations to reflect extension of the duration of these permits as directed by SL2012-187 as recommended by the Environmental Review Commission. House Bill 293 an act amending the Secure and Fair Enforcement Mortgage Licensing Act to reduce regulatory burdens, making clarifying and technical changes and modifying certain foreclosure proceedings. House Bill 321 an act to repeal the requirement that local government develop and maintain a solid waste management plan. House Bill 522 an act to protect the rights and privileges granted under the United States and North Carolina constitution in application of foreign law. House Bill 675 an act amending laws pertaining to the regulation of pharmacy technicians, pharmacy audits and prescriptions for Schedule 2 substances. ?? bills duly ratified ?? enrolled for Senate to their Office of Secretary of State. House Bill 491 an act directing the lead county sheriff to provide school resource officers to the lead county schools. House Bill 493 an act to authorize the town of Robinsville to levy an occupancy tax. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Reports of standing committee. Senator Berger, for what reason do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To appoint conferees. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Conferees for Senate Bill 321
Senator Davis, Chair. Senator Newton and Goolsby. And I’d like for that to be sent by special message to the House. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Senator. Yes, we are sending everything we do today by special messenger. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brunstetter, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] A motion before we start receiving committee reports, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to move that the rules be suspended to the end, that all bills reported in from committee today be placed on today’s calendar for second reading. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forward a rules committee report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forth your report. [PAUSE] Senator Brunstetter, vice chairman of the rules committee, sends forth his report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brunstetter, for the rules and operation of the Senate committee, submits the passage of House Bill 786, Committee Substitute number 2, reclaim North Carolina act. Favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any more reports? Okay. If we move to the calendar. [PAUSE] Let’s move to local bills. Starting third reading roll call. House Bill 1015. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1015, Bessemer City annexation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate? Let me get to the right page. [PAUSE] Any further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question before the Senate is the passage of House Bill 1015. All in favor will vote Aye. All opposed will vote No. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting. The clerk will record the vote. [PAUSE] Senator Barefoot, Aye. Me, Aye. Who are we missing? Anybody? Senator Rucho, did you vote? Okay, all right, 43 in favor, zero no. Passes its third reading and will be sent to, it will be enrolled. Second reading, House Bill 195. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 195, Cornelius extend use of design bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Torrance, recognized to explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President and members. This bill merely extends the use of the design build provision for the Town of Cornelius. I ask you to support it and pass it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any discussion or debate? Hearing none, Senator Bryant, did you, all right? Okay hearing none, the question before the Senate is House Bill 195 on its second reading. All those in favor will vote Aye. Any opposed will vote No. Five seconds would be allowed for the voting. The clerk will record the vote. [PAUSE] Got everybody. Bryant, Aye. Clark, Aye. Hartsell, Aye. Got everybody? 45 having voted in favorable and 0 in negative, the clerk will read, third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] North Carolina General Assembly enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate? Just one second, Sarah. [PAUSE] House Bill 195, all those in favor will say Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any opposed, no. House Bill 195 passes on its third reading and will be enrolled. Third reading roll call. House Bill 552. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 552, remove area from county service district. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate? Hearing none, question before the Senate is the passage of House Bill 552 on its third reading. Five seconds will be
Allowed for the voting and the clerk will record the vote. We're missing some. Apodaca aye, who are we missing? Senator ?? aye. Anybody else? Hartsell? Where is Hartsell? He's not here. Senator Davis? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Forty-three having voted in the favorable, zero in the negative, House Bill 552 passes on its third reading and will be sent to the House for concurrence. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brunstetter, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to that House Bill 589 be temporarily displaced. There's an amendment being prepared. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For concurrence, third reading roll call, Senate Bill 547. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 547. Energy Savings Contracting Amendments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hunt, explain your. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. You all, this is a good bill, and I appreciate your vote for concurrence. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 547. Third reading is before us for concurrence. Any further discussion or debate? Hearing none, all those in favor will have five seconds to vote. The clerk will record the vote. Senator Hunt asks you to vote aye. Apodaca aye. Senator Berger? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Looks like I made a mistake. I should have voted yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry I'm not beside you to help you. Senator Berger votes aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Who have we got? Senator Blue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Blue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I made a mistake, too. I should have voted no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Blue is recorded as no. Senator Davis is no. That's Don Davis. And Senator Woodard, no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thanks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And Senator McKissick. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hartsell, you okay? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's as it is, House 552, the prior vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let's get this one out of the way, then we'll deal with that. It looks like 36 having voted aye, nine having voted no, concurrence motion for Senate Bill 547 passes and will be sent to the House. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hartsell, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was stepping into the room with regard to House Bill 552 and would like to be recorded as voting aye on the concurrence vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a moment, Senator, if you would. That's House Bill 552 passes, 44 to zero. Senator Nesbitt, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] On Senate Bill 547, I'd like to change my vote to no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection. Change Senator Nesbitt's vote. That brings it to 35 for, ten against. And that 542, was that it? 547 will be enrolled and sent to the governor. Third reading. Let's move on. We'll take just a brief break. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brunstetter, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] A motion, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] State your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like that Senate Bill 315, Municipal Services, be displaced and placed on the supplemental calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection so ordered. That brings
to concurrence motion Senate Bill 18. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 18, Amend Locksmith License Act- Raise Fee Ceiling. Senator Bingham has the floor to explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Ladies and Gentleman of the Senate, there was minor changes, I would urge you to concur. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Senator Bingham urges everyone to concur. Before us is the concurrence motion on Senate Bill 18. All those in favor will vote aye, any opposed will vote no. The Senator asks you to vote aye. You will have five seconds to vote. The clerk will count the vote. Senate. Wade, aye. Apodaca, aye. Did we get everybody? Concurrence motion on Senate Bill 18 passes 44 in favor, 0 in the negative. It will be enrolled and sent to the governor. Next bill will be Senate Bill 236 for concurrence. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 236, Supreme Court Judge can Perform Marriage. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd appreciate your voting to not concur. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hunt asked that you do not concur with the concurrence motion on Senate Bill 236. All in favor will vote aye, opposed will vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting. The clerk will record the vote. Okie dokie. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Concurrence. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Berger, no. Gunn, no. Apodaca, no. 30. McKissick, no. Anyone else want to change a vote? Senator Tarte, no. Okie dokie. 32 voting in the negative, 12 voting in the affirmative. Motion to concur on Senate Bill 236 fails, the House will be notified. Offerees appointed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Barringer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, a motion please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, ma'am. State your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like my vote to be noted for House Bill 1015 as an aye. I'm shown as not having voted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you sure you voted, Senator? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objections. So ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And then, also, a second motion for 552 an aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, do we need to check your voting station? You vote aye on 552? Okay. Without objection, so ordered. New count. 1015 is 44 to 0. 552 is 45 to 0. Senate Bill 470 for concurrence. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 470, No Beer, Wine if Permit Revoked or Suspended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade has the floor to explain the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. I would ask that you concur, but there was an amendment added in the House, and Senator Gunn would like to discuss that amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Gunn, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Just very quickly, it cleared out some language to allow a private convention center downtown Greensboro to serve mixed drinks in addition to beer and wine. It was supported by the local ABC board and the city of Greensboro. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion? Okay. Before us Senate Bill 470, motion to concur. The Senators ask that you do concur. All those in favor will vote aye, any opposed will vote no. Five seconds will be recorded for the voting. The clerk will record the vote. Senate Bill 470 concurrence motion passes 44 in favor, 1 in the negative. It will be enrolled and sent to the governor. Senator Rucho, have we gotten your amendment yet?
Third reading...Nope one moment please. SPEAKER CHANGES: Mister president I can take care of that for you. SPEAKER CHANGES: Please. I was just thinking about that. Third reading conference report for adoption House...excuse me Senate bill four eighty. Senate bill four eighty. SPEAKER CHANGES: Senate bill four eighty UNC capital improvement projects. SPEAKER CHANGES: Senator Runstetor is recognized. SPEAKER CHANGES: Thank you members this is the self liquidating project bill for the UNC system. I ask for your support on that bill. I ask for your support on the third reading. SPEAKER CHANGES: Any further discussion or debate? Senator I ask that you support Senate bill four eighty. Senate bill four eighty third reading conference report motion to adopt. All those in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no the Cleric will record the vote. You have five seconds to vote. Daniel aye. Woodor aye. Ford aye. Senate bill four eighty third reading conference report motion to adopt passage forty four in a favor. Four in the negative bill will be adopted and House notified. Conference report--?? Yes sir Senator Nesbitt? SPEAKER CHANGES: Mister president when we get to the con...I believe we're at Senate bill one twenty seven? SPEAKER CHANGES: Yes sir. SPEAKER CHANGES: We're gonna need a brief recess since these are all conference reports that we're just getting our hands on and we want a little time to look them over. Now we're ready on the elections bill. If that's available but if not. SPEAKER CHANGES: Senator Rucho we're still not ready? SPEAKER CHANGES: We're not ready... SPEAKER CHANGES: Mister President? SPEAKER CHANGES: Senator Runstettor? SPEAKER CHANGES: I would suggest that we just displace that to the end of the calendar and keep moving through the calendar and then we'll see...?? SPEAKER CHANGES: All the ones after that.. SPEAKER CHANGES: We're gonna take mister president we're gonna have to take a recess as we get towards the end of this anyways so... SPEAKER CHANGES: Well I think Senator Nesbitt they need a little more time to go over the rest of this. SPEAKER CHANGES: Could we displace it to the supplemental calendar? SPEAKER CHANGES: I think he's talking about the rest of the calendar. SPEAKER CHANGES: The rest of the calendar you mean? SPEAKER CHANGES: We just need time to review. There's four bills that we haven't had a chance to look at. They're not bills they're conference reports. SPEAKER CHANGES: Mister President, question for Senator Nesbitt SPEAKER CHANGES: Senator Runstettor ?? Nesbitt you yield? SPEAKER CHANGES: Yes sir I'll yield. I would say twenty thirty minutes. If that were...we'll try it at whatever time you want to do it we just need to go over these four bills that's all we're doing. SPEAKER CHANGES: Mister president I'd like to request a recess till twelve ten. SPEAKER CHANGES: Senator Runstettor moves that we stand at recess till twelve ten. With stipulations of messages from the governor, messages from the House, reports of standing committees, conference reports and anything else I've forgotten see you at twelve fifteen. SPEAKER CHANGES: Thank you mister president. Democrats will Caucus. (laughter) SPEAKER CHANGES: Senator Nesbitt. Senator Nesbitt. Martin. ?? The Senate stands in recess till one o clock.
Speaker: Senate come back yo order,senator ?? is recognized, Speaker Changes: Thank you Mr president few calender motions please, Speaker Changes: State the motions, Speaker Changes: Senate bill 315 municipal services we had displace that supplement calender earlier late go ahead and we move it up the place up the end this calender without objection so ordered, Speaker Changes: Senate 127 the conference report on this calender to move to the supplement calender please without objection so ordered and earlier we displace a house bill 589 via election reforms senator ?? i think we are good for that now if you bring that up , Speaker Changes: Definitely without objection so ordered , Speaker Changes: Mr.President, Speaker Changes: Senator ?? Speaker Changes: For what purpose you ask, Speaker Changes: We leave at the rules ?? absence for July 10th and July 19th, Speaker Changes: Without objection so ordered senator Paine is back in the chamber and senator ?? are excused for the reminder of the session,OK let's o back to work let's get all with third reading of house bill 589 the clerk, Speaker Changes: House bill 589 ?? election report , Speaker Changes: Senator Richard explain the bill, Speaker Changes: Yes sir, Speaker Changes: Thank you Mr.president members of the senate we had a very ?? discussion yesterday talked about a lot of other subjects we do have Mr.President an amendment talking about some points of clarification and this moment i submit the amendment to you and senate for the discussion and it should be on the dashboard, Speaker Changes: Send forth your amend senator ?? place it on the dashboard i don't believe they have it senator Richard you have the great cope please of the amendment, Speaker Changes: Mr.President we just found a little glitch in the amendment and we made Need to displace this , Speaker Changes: ??, Speaker Changes: I did say Mr president and we would like to temporarily displace the bill and move on with reset of the calender, Speaker Changes: OK without objection so ordered, Speaker Changes: Conference will report on senate bill 553 the clerk will read , Speaker Changes: senate bill 553 ??, Speaker Changes: senator ?? is recognized to explain the motion, Speaker Changes: Thank you Mr.President this bill brings up ?? what we originally doing on the L N M V O grievances and changes and turns back the federal requirements it also adds up a lot of blue remission connection bill that bought support here in the senate and necessary for allocation's of funds we have given under D O J's segment and finally adds in some language dealing with manners win which the hospital pays the providers assess ?? Speaker Changes: Mr.President, Speaker Changes: Senator ?? for what purpose do you ask, Speaker Changes: To speak on the conference reports the senate has the floor ?? which apparently eleven o'clock last night the house member told is what was in the conference report which I'm objection to just under process,
But I, there, one part was fixed, and Senator Hise has worked before the conference committee, hard to work on that. There’s still one part that I do not agree with and that is that the burden of proof when you, when a person who is disabled or receiving benefits is removed, by an agency, that person has to show why they shouldn’t be. It should be the agency. And I think that is a very serious concern. I will vote for it because it does have some things in it that we worked on and that are needed, but first of all as I say I object to the process, and secondly of all I do have that serious really doubt that this is, this is going to be a burden on people who are disabled. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Senator Hise would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hise, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hise, you mention in your remarks, has provisions in here dealing with the provider assessment paid by hospitals. Could you elaborate a little bit further on that because I have large hospitals in my district as well as very small ones? So I’d be concerned to make certain that these are being addressed in a way the Hospitals Association is supportive of, so if you could elaborate further, sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will. Actually this request comes, this change comes at the request of the Hospital Association. There was agreements made for how the first 43 million that was already in statute was divided among the hospitals. The budget has changed that to a percentage of the overall. This provision goes back and says that the overall amount will still apply for that above 43 million but the original 43 million will be assessed on the basis of what was in previous law. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excellent. Thank you, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question before the body is the adoption of the conference report for Senate Bill 553 on its second reading. All those in favor will vote aye. Opposed will vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting. The clerk will record the vote. [PAUSE]Senator Stein, Aye. Senator Blue, Aye. Anybody else? Senator Curtis, Aye. Does that get it? 40 voting in the favorable, 2 in the negative. Conference report for Senate Bill 553 is adopted. The House will be notified. No, excuse me, it will remain on the calendar for third reading. Conference report for House Bill 74. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 74, regulatory reform act of 2013. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson’s recognized to explain the report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Members, there’s as you well know from last week, there’s a lot of stuff in this bill. There’s still a lot more stuff been added to this bill but only four provisions that the Senate has not seen or voted on before. But before I do that, I really want to thank our staff again, and our team for working on this, because this has been a difficult bill with a lot of moving pieces and they have just been fantastic to work with, and so I just want to give them a big thank you. But if you’ll look at section, I’ll go over the four sections that this body has not seen before. Section 5A and B is one that you have not seen before. Prohibits the late enforcement of local ordinances, a county has a 10-year statute of limitations to bring action against a violation that has been terminated from its grandfather clause dealing with zoning or unified development ordinances. In other words after ten years, it’s over with. They cannot bring any more suits or so forth action against it. Section number 6C gives any student enrolled in a constituent institution who is accused of a violation of the disciplinary or conduct rules of the institution, has the right to be represented by a licensed attorney or a non-attorney advocate who may fully participate during the disciplinary procedures. Section 11.1 deals with the professional employment organizations, PEO, this language requires an applicant for licensure to file with the Commissioner of Insurance a surety bond and an audited GAAP financial statement. And then lastly the item that you have not seen before is section number 6
Which does two things in regards to the Industrial Commission, first it makes the Deputy Commissioners subject to at will employment beginning and the second thing is beginning of July 1st 2015 we've asked to give a, this was a compromise and we have given them two years to implement this at will employment and Mr. President at this time I'll be happy to entertain any questions or attempt to answer them and I would appreciate your support on this concurrence. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hise, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Senator Jackson a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, in going through your description there, I served several years as a hall director and did a lot of student disciplinary cases in that time period. Do I read that correctly as you're saying this provision now would require that an attorney be allowed into an educational process? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, it's not required, but they have the right to have an attorney if they so choose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hise, follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. So the procedures, you have a student in for marking up and they're going to be required to write a 20 page paper, that hall director now or others would be required to have that student bring their attorney in, to allow this student in when their parents are not allowed in that process or others on the outside? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, would. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Hise, you continue to use the word required. That they could bring a licensed attorney is could, not required, could bring a licensed attorney or a non-attorney advocate which could mean a parent. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We also have discovered a problem in that same section, but relating to a different thing. If you will look at section 6a, subsection k on page 7, that allows fraternities and sororities, and we have an our town a problem in some ways with fraternities and sororities that are sort of fictional, and what happens in this situation is that anybody can if it's designated by the National Accrediting Agency, that's one thing, but a bunch of students can get together and say we're having a fraternity formed, the Bacchus Fraternity, the drinking fraternity, and they will then have, the town will not be able to zone, and actually we're working right now with Representative Insko in the House trying to find a vehicle for how we can fix that for the town of Chapel Hill, and one of the things I talked about process a minute ago, but this process I think has failed because we had no notice of this and it just popped up. So we're trying to fix it and I'm sorry that this popped up here without any input from a college town that is as severely impacted as Senator Hise said in his statement, and we're hoping that we can find someplace that we can tuck it in before the end of the day at 1 o'clock this morning. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brunstetter, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to move the rules be suspended so that staff can join Senator Jackson on the floor to deal with this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. Senator Bryant, I see your light on. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. I was wanting to ask Senator Jackson a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In the, my question is based, the jist of my question is some concern about and wanting information about the thinking of exempting Deputy Commissioners who hear worker's compensation cases from the personnel act and I was wondering how did any discussion come up of consideration of the fact that you have this hearing officer hearing a worker's injury claim and that officer has to worry about their job when the lawyer representing the worker could be any one of us, the company they work for could be a powerful political supporter of the governor or any one of us, that how can that worker get, and in some, to some extent maybe even the employer get a fair hearing in that kind of politicized environment when you don't know what factors may be pulling the strings of or
In the decision making of this hearing officer just hearing, you know, what you get, you know, whether you had an injury and how and what the facts are and what you're entitled to as a result. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Bryant, I would agree with you, but this was a compromise. The House wanted to do it immediately, and we were able to negotiate down to this 2 year implementation before it brings in their. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to speak. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, I just, having done that job for 4 or 5 years in the past, it's extremely political even without being exempted from the personnel act, and to have them have to decide all those cases and look over your shoulder in every case thinking about who you might upset and then who might then put pressure on the Administrator or the Chief Deputy Commissioner to dismiss you from your job, it makes it an impossible job to do in any way that would be fair to the parties, and so I just encourage, I'm happy that we have some time before it takes effect, but I surely encourage you to look at fighting harder to eliminate that provision. It is no way people can get a fair, our citizens of this state can get a fair hearing in that environment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby, for what purpose do you rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. I heard Senator Hise's concerns earlier stated to Senator Jackson, and I'm actually from a college town also, although I've never been a member of a fraternity much less a sorority. I went to a military school. I have represented a fraternity before on campus, and to say that the rights of the student are not protected is to very much downplay exactly how it works. I sat in a hearing with students whose fraternity was being looked at to be kicked off campus. They did not have right to counsel. There was a lawyer in the room representing the University. There was no one in the room representing the students and the fraternity and I was told I could not say anything. All I could do was advise the student, when he wanted to listen to me, who was arguing for the fraternity. I am very much in support of this law. I have worked with others who tried to put this together to see to it that it does not start putting lawyers into all of these things, it does not mandate legal counsel, it does not start turning these things into little private trial, but what it does do is it makes sure that our students when they have rights that need to be protected are protected by attorneys if they so desire or someone else to come in and to help advise them, and I would just encourage you to please, I've seen the worst and I think that this goes a long way to helping make sure that our students' rights are protected, fraternities and otherwise, and I would just ask you to consider this reasonable change that does not open this up to all sorts of litigiousness, but does give our students the ability to actually be represented by lawyers to where it would protect their rights. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hise, to what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President, members. I'm actually going to ask that you not support this conference report. Having served in the positions I have and working with student development and housing groups all over this state through their association, this is basically a process where you are saying to the hall directors at ?? member judicial on campus that have it that if you have a student coming in for a noise violation that you may be dealing with their attorney. This is an educational process. This is actually in most cases an alternative for students versus going to law enforcement and saying we're going to legally trespass you from campus, we're going to legally charge you with underage consumption of alcohol, something that the student would have a record for for the rest of their life, we allow it to be held in an educational manner. Our outcomes are that we hope that in all educational atmospheres, the students learn from it, they do not fine students, they do not take students' property for them, but they do make sure students are aware there are consequences to their actions and are not trained legal professionals that are looking to stand up as a judge in front of attorneys and argue motions. this is something where the outcomes are different, this is not a proof
[Speaker changes.] under reasonable doubt, these are merely preponderance of evidence for what is most likely to occurred and I think it is a huge mistake for our education system to start putting these type of legal and attorneys into that situation and I hope that we can get this worked out so that the rest of this bill can move forward and I believe we have time to do so I'd ask that you not...mmm... [Speaker changes.] Mister President...(???two speakers overlap, i think???) [Speaker changes.] Senator Robinson, for what purpose do you rise? [Speaker changes.] To ask Senator Jackson a question. [Speaker changes.] Senator Jackson, do you yield. [Speaker changes.] Yes, sir. [Speaker changes.] Senator Jackson, in that same section, does this apply to fraternities and sororities only or to students in general. That section is that specific to fraternities, sororities? [Speaker changes.] Well, this applies...uh...Senator Robinson to all students but it also...uh...exempts the honor courts...and we sorta heard some of Senator ???? concern from other folks and so what we done is put a...if you'll look on page seven, Section 6D, it says each constituent institution shall track the number and type of disciplinary proceedings impacted by this section. In other words, they're sposta keep up with what is happening...they're sposta report back to the General Assembly...uh....I believe it's May first, 2014, to let us know exactly how many cases they have had coming forward. [Speaker changes.] Speak on the bill. Thank you. [Speaker changes.] Senator has the floor. [Speaker changes.] I concur with Senator ????. Sometimes we don't really agree on alot but (laughter). Having been a part of the Board of Governors and looked at a lot of student issues, I do know that the students themselves help to develop the procedural handbooks. It's not something that University officials or college officials do by themselves. They are part of the whole process in terms of setting up their student councils, in terms of the review boards, the judicial hearings, etc. They do have a process by which those students can come before those boards and offer their cases and be heard by their peers. And this is a peer setting, which is the right place to hear that...before it moves any further...and there are appeal processes so I think bringing attorneys into that kind of setting, where the students themselves have been able to talk about the issues and then be heard by a jury of their peers, offers some kind of a concern for me, in terms of a process by which we've allowed them their own particular procedures so I think that particular piece does cause a problem. For years, we've been trying to...we've had student representatives on the Board of Governors. All the students come down and they're heard and I believe they are listened to by their trustee boards as well, where they are represented...and they feel that they are really involved in this. So I think this will take some of their authority away in terms of being able to set up procedures...ah to hear their peers. [Speaker changes.] Mister President? [Speaker changes.] Mmm hmmm...I believe I had Senator Bryant first and then we'll...Senator Bryant, do you have... [Speaker changes.] Mister President, a question for Senator Jackson... [Speaker changes.] Senator Jackson, do you yield? [Speaker changes.] Yes, sir. [Speaker changes.] This is in regards to the same section which I just looked at more closely myself and I noticed you have an exception for student honor courts that are fully staffed by students and I'm wondering if that would include an honor court that also had faculty involvement in it. ???? What does that mean and are all our honor courts fully staffed by students? I'm just not sure. [Speaker changes.] Senator Bryant, thank you for the question. I thought I'd never live long enough to say that but thank you, that is a good question. (Laughs.) Actually, this is for a student court ???? all students, it will apply. I think the point we're missing here folks in this is that this section allows parents to be in attendance. Currently, they cannot. They don't have to be an attorney. They can be parents as well. And it plainly says non-advocate is the...can be there as well, I mean non-attorney, 'scuse me...can be there to advocate for the student. So I would ask again that you concur with this conference report. [Speaker changes.] Follow up, Mister President? [Speaker changes.] Follow up... [Speaker changes.] I still wanna find out is if faculty are involved...and staff are involved along with students in this honor court setup, would they be included or not in this exception? Would that knock 'em out? [Speaker changes.] Mister President... [Speaker changes.] Senator Bryant, to my... COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHETHER THEY WERE SAY CORPS OR COURTS!?@# Please double check! THANX
Let’s start with this. This would only apply to an all student honor core. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Graham, do you have? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President. And, I agree with Sen. Hise as well. I work at Johnson C. Smith University Special Assistant to the President. My daughter is the attorney general for the student and government association at (??) State. And, it’s a good program in reference to teaching students life lessons without the legal system at times. I just agree with Sen. Hise and wanted to say that for the record. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brock, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It seems like there’s so much of a derailment of trying to base the entire Reg Reform bill of this session on an option that college students can have. That is interesting. I thought about this as when were going through the conference report. At Western Carolina we had an incident. By the time the board of trustees met the next day where I sat as student body president. An incident the night before had turned into a racial incident. Let me give you a background on the story. One of my friends who was biracial, hit another one of my friend who was Hispanic. The next person that got in who was another friend of mine, who was Asian. That wasn’t the story. The whole thing was over a girl. But, you’re looking at some having some type of meeting where you have some ramifications that will effect these students. Get them kicked out of a university. They don’t get to have legal council there on something. It’s not going to be over a traffic ticket or something like that. This would just allow the option of having a parent or an attorney in there if they need be. I just think it’s just an option. But, looking at the rest of the reform bill. This will help North Carolina in so many different ways. With our companies, our businesses. Those that are here now and those that want to move to North Carolina. We’re looking at Reg Reform. This continues our focus on bringing jobs in to North Carolina. Building existing companies here. It’s interesting when we had the committee that went around the state to talk to businesses. What can we do in North Carolina? I think we were, well some of us were surprised. Some of us knew about the excessive regulations and those that did not make any sense at all. And, it’s taken us, this is year number three we’re working on it. We’re not there yet. To make sure we put in simple common sense solutions to the issues in North Carolina. This is a Reg Reform bill of 2013. This is all about jobs and how we can get North Carolina moving again. I urge your adoption of the report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brown, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President. I think the key piece of this, and we can debate this and I think many of us have concerns about this. I think the key piece of this is the section, section 6-D. The reporting requirement that’s involved with this piece that I think we have that some problem with. I think the cause of the reporting piece, if there is a problem, and something we need to take care of. We’ll at least have a report on how this thing is played out in the next year or so and we can always come back and fix this piece. This reporting piece was added just at the end so we could judge this thing and see if we could create a problem that we really don’t want to create with this. If you look at the report as a whole I think we address many of the concerns that Senator Brock just touched on. It’s a heck of a piece of legislation as far as Reg Reform goes. I think we covered the piece that most are concerned with with Section 6-d. And, I would ask that we adopt that motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would agree that this conference report goes far beyond just the issue that has been discussed recently and that was raised by Senator Hise. As it relates to that particular issue, I would really probably concur with Senator Goolsby’s observation and Senator Brock. Students should have that opportunity to have an attorney. At the same time, there are beacons in this bill that are have more reaching implications that I think should give us pause in terms of reflection. Language here that basically says when it comes to cities and counties…
you cannot have environmental regulations that are more stringent that state regulations. There are places on our coast, there are places in our mountains that might need to have more stringent regulations within a one-size-fits-all type solution. There's language here relating to local ordinances dealing with billboards. That's something we could review. That's something we could be concerned about in terms of the reach that it may have. Certainly in a community like Durham where we've had regulations that go back basically two decades. There's a host of things here that we should be deeply concerned about in terms of the far-reaching scope of what this reform bill provides us with. One thing I'd like to ask Senator Jackson about... I was reviewing this bill, if you would yield for a question, sir. [Speaker Switches]: Senator Jackson, do you yield? [Speaker Switches]: Yes Sir. [Speaker Switches]: Senator McKissick, go ahead. [Speaker Switches]: Senator Jackson, when we last reviewed this bill there was language in there that would even prohibit liveable wage ordinaces enacted by cities or counties. I was going through it, you know it's a very lengthy bill, I didn't see that provision but I may have overlooked it. Is that still in the bill or has that been tweaked as we have moved forward? [Speaker Switches]: Senator McKissick, I believe it's still in there. [Speaker Switches]: It is still there? OK. [Speaker Switches]: Yes sir, now hold on a second. I'll find it for you. I'm still trying to figure out what acutal liveable wages is. I understand what you're saying. I still contend though that is very argumentative at best and debateable. But it's in the bill. [Speaker Switches]: It is still in the bill? [Speaker Switches]: Yes sir. [Speaker Switches]: Again, those type of provisions which some cities, some counties have adopted, basically say that when they issue public contracts, in fact other contracts other than contracts that are entered into by the city and the county that they want to pay liveable wages, they want to make sure that the person they hire.. that contract provides liveable wages for their employers. Of course the city, the county, might be paying and additional amount in consideration of that fact. I think there's a host of reasons that would give me concern and pause for not supporting the conference support but it wouldn't be based upon the issue raised by Senator Hise. [Speaker Switches]: Let the record show Senator Rabon from Brunswick is back in the chamber. Senator Gunn, for what purpose do you rise? [Speaker Switches]: To speak to the conference report. [Speaker Switches]: Senator has the floor. [Speaker Switches]: I agreee with Senator Brown that this is a good deal. A lot of hard work has gone into it. I don't know if it's a perfect bill. I'm not sure that in the past several decades we've ever had the perfect bill but there's a whole lot more good than bad and I would suggest you support it. [Speaker Switches]: Any further discussion or debate? Hear ye none. Question for the body this conference report on House Bill 74... all in favor will vote "aye," all opposed will vote "nay." Five seconds will be allowed for the voting and the clerk will record the vote. [pause] 47 have voted in the affirmative. Senator Barringer? No. 27 have then voted in the affirmative, 19 in the negative. Conference report for House Bill 74 passes, the House will be... no, it will remain on the calendar. [Speaker Switches]: Mr. President? [Speaker Switches]: Senator Brunstetter, for what purpose do you rise? [Speaker Switches]: To send forth a committee report out of order. [Speaker Switches]: Send forth your committee report. [Speaker Switches]: Senator Brunstetter for the rules operation of the Senate committee submits for passage, House Bill 92, Senate committee substitute number one. ?? Senate committee substitute bill number one but favor ?? Senate committee substitute number two titled "An Act to Make Technical Corrections to the General Statues and Session Laws as Recommended by the General Statues Commission and to Make Additional Technical and Other Changes to the General Statues and Sessions Laws." [Speaker Switches]: Calendar? [Speaker Switches]: Mr. President? [Speaker Switches]: Sen. Brunstetter, what purpose do you rise? [Speaker Switches]: I believe that Senator Rucho is ready to go on 589. [Speaker Switches]: Okeydoke. Let's bring back up House Bill 589. Senator Rucho. [Speaker Switches]: Mr. President. Thank you, members of the Senate. Sorry for the delay earlier. We had a discussion yesterday regarding all aspects of this bill. As mentioned earlier it will go a long way to providing some certainty, integrity, into the electoral process and therefore making our government more acceptable and
appreciated by our voters and our citizens. I'd like to just send forward, Mr. President, an amendment, and... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forth your amendment, Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It should be on the dashboard, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm seeing a "no" sign from the clerk. Let's get it up, if you'd hold your remarks for a moment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, Sen. Stein. You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Sen. Rucho would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Rucho, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Rucho has been generous to share this with me, and I was three quarters of the way through, and there's one piece I'd like to talk to him about. So could you withdraw your amendment for the moment so we can talk briefly? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. So ordered. Sen. Brunstetter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, I'd like to go ahead and temporarily displace 589, continue with the calendar? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Pate, welcome back. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. On House bill 74, which was just passed, I would like to change my vote from "no" to "aye". [SPEAKER CHANGES] "No" to "Aye", Sen. Pate, without objection so ordered. 28 in the affirmative, 18 in the negative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Davis, what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to, on Senate bill 470, I voted "aye" and I would like to be recorded as voting "no". [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. 43 in the affirmative, 2 in the negative. Okay, I think that brings us to the conference report on House bill 392, is that where we are? [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill 392, warrant status, drug screening, public assist. Sen. Davis to explain the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President, we've just made a few minor changes to address some concerns that members had, and I ask for your approval. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any discussion or debate on the conference report for 392? Sen. Davis, you okay back there? I see your mic's on. You good? Okay. Hearing none, the question before the body is the adoption of conference report for House bill 392. All in favor vote "aye", opposed vote "no", five seconds will be allowed for the voting and the clerk will record the vote. Sen. Rucho, "aye". [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Graham, "aye". Sen. Graham, "aye". Okay. Who was no? Everybody voted? Okay. 42 having voted in the affirmative, 4 in the negative, the conference report for House bill 392 passes, and the House will be notified. We'll stand at ease just a moment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Brunstetter? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think we'd moved Senate bill 315 to the end of this calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Very good, we did. Ready to go on it? Sen. McKissick, where are you? Ready? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, I'll have my hearing aids out by the time he gets there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Without objection, so ordered. Senate bill 315 for concurrence, second reading. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate bill 315, municipal services [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. McKissick to explain the concurrence. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. It's a pretty straightforward bill, it's ?? bill for Durham to build new police headquarters, we also had a separate bill for the county of Durham to build a waste water treatment facility, they got combined in this bill, there was also an issue that came up over Durham which many of you have heard about now, known as the 751 project which went before city council in terms of a vote as whether to extend water sewer services to the project. Council on a 3 4 vote voted no t to do so, there was an amendment made over in the House by Rep. Tim Moore to add provisions in this bill that would allow the city of Durham to do so. I work with Rep. Moore, we came up with terms and conditions, which I think are fair, reasonable, very straightforward. In the House it got a strong positive vote, 76-33, a bipartisan vote. To tell you a little bit about the project, it's 171 acres, mixed use project providing for residential development as well as commercial development
It's projected that during construction we'll produce about 3700 jobs. About a 166 Million dollar overall impact. After construction's over, projected to create about 2980 jobs, 154 million ongoing impact and about 452 million dollars to tax base. Developers agree to provide about 9 million dollars of infrastructure above and beyond that would be required for the project. Also agree to provide a fire station for the site, provide affordable housing as part of the development project, two school sites, a sheriff substation. In addition to committing to a host of committed elements. The committed elements include fully complying with the existing Jordan Lake rules even if those Jordan Lake rules might happen to be suspended or appealed at some point in the future. Having said that, the mayor of the city of Durham supports this particular bill, this codifies a bill that he had negotiated with the developer, it is structured in a way while being a statewide bill this probably only went one entity, that being a particular person an entity who came before the city of Durham with this request that would apply to that said we would request your support. So you see it's supported by the Chamber of Commerce, supported by a host of local organizations, supported by the mayor as I said, and was recommended by the city manager when it came forward. [Speaker Changes] Any further questions today? I heard Senator Kinnaird first. Senator Kinnaird has the floor! [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. President. I'm going to tell you quite a different story. This has been pending for six or more years. And it has gone through technical gyrations that got it to this point. The city did not want this particular development. Chatham County, which I represent, did not want this development. It is very close to the lake through a passageway that gets into the lake. The city tried and the county tried to stop this for six years and with developers going around one little corner and another little corner eventually we got to where we are. But I can tell you that this is going to further impair Jordan Lake. And they're talking about how they are going to comply with the Jordan Lake rules, the developer, but on the other hand if you put development in the watershed and along the lake, you are further impairing a already impaired lake, in fact I got the report from Diener and this lake is very close to the tipping point. Putting one more development there does not keep it from going over the tipping point, it pushes it. We know that Chatham County is very concerned, we also know that a great deal of Wake County ought to be very concerned because it serves three hundred thousand people in Wake County with their drinking water. And, there is no way, despite what people say, putting all sorts of things in the lake that you can clean up a lake that is going to be polluted this severely. So this wasn't a nice little straight path that everybody thought was just going along and would be this happy development creating all these jobs. To the contrary, this was a circuitous route with tricks along the way that ended us here. And now we can put lipstick on this pig all we want to. We can say that the Chamber of Commerce loves it but for all those Chamber of Commerce folks who don't love it there are all the people who are drinking the water, the environmentalists who know that we are facing an impaired body of water and this is just going to make it worse. So I am intending to vote against this concurrence. [Speaker Changes] Senator Blue, for what purpose do you rise? [Speaker changes] Senate rule 29 send forth an excused absence. [Speaker changes] Yes, send him forward please [Speaker changes} Senator Wood, what purpose do you rise? [Speaker changes] Speak to the bill [Speaker changes] Senator has the floor [Speaker changes] Thank you Mr. President. As the primary sponsor of this bill and on behalf of the remainder of the Durham delegation, I urge you to vote "No" on concurrence. I am glad Senator McKissick thinks this is a very simple straightforward bill cause as many of you know I served on the Durham city council for the seven previous years and this was an important issue for six of the seven years that I served on the City Council and it's far from simple and it's far from straightforward. This bill comes down to three things
The project, you've heard a little bit about the project. Some of you have met with the developer and his team of lobbyists and attorneys, you've heard from different community groups in favor and opposed to this. Let's be clear on one thing, this developer has other options with this property. This isn't and either or, there's a full range of options on this property. This development team has locked into one plan, and many of you have seen the pretty pictures of that plan, but this is not an either or proposition. They've suggested to you that there will be over 3,000 jobs with this project, but they can't tell us much about these jobs, so it's really the promise of jobs versus the illusion of jobs. They commissioned an economic analysis, cited in the Chamber of Commerce letter to you, but they really don't give you much detail in that. Are these new jobs or is this going to be a commercial development that's going to be out trolling for other jobs when leases are up throughout the Durham office market. Now there was another pair of labor economists who looked at this project and said the number was something about half of that. Now remember, when you've got other options for this, let's call them options b and c, you can look at this a little more closely than just accepting the developer's report. You can look at the other economists, labor economist's report who said it's not quite there. And again, will they be recruiting from other parts of town? Will they be recruiting other jobs, or are these new jobs? We'd love to think they are new jobs, but we don't get a straightforward answer on that. You also need to consider the business environment that this project, remember 13,000 housing units, 600,000 square feet of office and retail space, pretty intense project on 157 acres, so think about the business environment this project is moving into. Think about the offices that are opening, the third office building at the Durham Bulls Athletic Park in the Dpack. Two blocks north of that in Downtown Durham, we're getting ready to begin construction on a 28 story office building. I know those of you in Charlotte don't think that's very big, but for Durham, that's skyline changing. How many jobs are we going to try to put into that office building? Those of you in the Triangle area are very well aware that the Research Triangle Park recently released it's master plan and over the next 20 years will double the number of employees in Research Triangle Park just 7.5 miles from this site. Where are all these jobs going to go? I'd love to say that we could fill them all, but with this project being 8, 10, 12 years out, they're entering a very, very competitive environment. So how will this project attract 3,000 jobs, new or current, and how are they competing, trying to track these jobs down to the rural area on the Chatham County line? If you were moving your business to the area or relocating some of your workers, would you rather be downtown or at a prominent address on Research Triangle Park or down the Chatham County Line? It's going to be very, very competitive. Now you may say, well, you know, I didn't know about these other projects. I didn't know about the competition. Well, of course you didn't. You don't live nearby. You didn't, you're being asked to evaluate this developer's claims based on information that you're getting. So why are we debating this? Really, folks, isn't that what we have city councils for? Shouldn't they be the ones kicking the tires on this project and asking these questions? Aren't they the ones who have this knowledge that we don't have sitting in this building? The developers have asserted that the project will have no or minimal impact on Jordan Lake because, as they have suggested, the mile is a site, the site is a mile away from the lake. There was a map circulating that I think it confused some of you all about this. You should walk the property sometime and see the marshy area. I've done it about 6 or 7 times. You can take canoes right up in these areas when it's wet within 100 or a couple hundred feet of the site of this property. And if you look
Carefully you will see on the map it was passed out within about 250 feet some of these intermitten streams and some of these ?? Now the developer has, to his credit, agreed to comply with the Jordan Lake rules. Whatever version comes out of here. Over the next couple of years. Well, in order to do that, he's gonna have to either mitigate on site or use, somewhere in the neighborhood of 30,000 nitrogen credits in the nitrogen bank. Well, right now the nitrogen bank has 25,000 credits in it. Those of you concerned with upstream development, in this watershed and those of you who support the Jordan Lake rules are be very careful, about this project. Because your developers upstream will be forced to either add to the bank or litigate on site. That's going to be a fiscal challenge for those folks. There are other concerns that have been raised as well. About this site, providing services, as representative Howard has said when this bill was moving through the house, this is an upside down project. It's going to cost the city of Durham money to support this project. When it comes online, now they have worked on that with annexation and moving that out, but you're going to have a challenge providing fire and ?? service there. Developers have provided a site, but it's a site that won't perk. And where is the 3 million dollars to build the fire station there? Fire and ?? response times in this quarter if you've been down there in the South Point Mall, have been degraded to 8 minutes, the standard response time in this area should be about 8. School capacity has already stretched in South Durham County. The elementary school where 1300 housing units where young people are going to be going to school, soutwest elementary already 1/2 of their students are in trailers. Where are the classrooms, where are the buildings going to be? For these students? It's going to cost, money. And if you think of the track records of the developers, this is a very important point, that past performance predicts the future, results, the last residential project, they built a mile and a half away from there was challenged. The president of the Homeowner's Association spoke with me a few weeks ago again in my district, both as a city council member and now as a senator, these developers left their homeowners in their residential project just about a mile and a half from this site, $280,000 in debt, and two ponds that the homeowner's association is going to have to mitigate on their own at a cost of $50-60,000. Again, the last day of our session, we're here debating the merits of a local project. Why are we doing that? It's a darn good question. This is what we rely on City council and county commisioners to do. Which gets me to the principal position of this bill. The role of local governments in making decisions about the land use in their jurisdictions. I share with you, just a few of the dozens and dozens of questions that have emerged abuot this project over 6 years. Which group of the elected officials is in the best position to ask these questions to understand the research that needs to go into it and have the questions answered. Is it us? Is it the 120 collegues across the lobby? Or is it the 7 people city council that was elected by the residents of Durham? Now I look around this chamber and I see former majors and former city council members former county commisioners. Put yourself in your former elected role for a minute, I know for some of you that's going to be a few years back. But if you can do that for a while. What if instead of Durham, this city had your town or county, in the language. How would you feel about this then? What would your position be? Imagine the scenario and this is going to scare the life out of some of you. With those of us on the back row in a few years move to the front row.
So Senator Nesbitt asked me to sit in chair number two and be the rules chair, and I get a call from an old college friend of mine who's a lawyer and he said can you help my developer buddy out? Well, let me see if I can. Is it in your town? No. Is it in my town? Nope. It's 150 miles on the other corner of the state. That's how this bill got here. That's how this bill got here. Some of you remember it from last year, from my freshman colleagues, the Senate discussed this bill about a year ago on this very last day of the short session. How would you feel if this was your community and you were that local elected official? What if your mayor called you and said that rules chairman has got essentially gone to our head and says that he's going to run this bill if we don't vote in favor of it? How you would feel? You've heard the mayor supports it. The mayor was given little choice as he was a year ago. Now there've been two votes on this, Senator McKissick is correct. A 4-3 vote against this annexation in early June, a 7-0 vote on this annexation a year and a half ago. It was only after the vote 18 months ago when this bill emerged here in the General Assembly. And then what about the principle of a local vote? I had a conversation with one of my colleagues here last week about this. Here's another principle for you to consider. This colleague said what do the local voters want on this bill? And the proponents have told you that the Board of County Commissioners voted for this project. That's right, they did, but that was the previous board. Since that vote, since this project, there have been 3 elections. Two city council elections in 09 and 11 and a county commissioner's election in 12, and in all 3 cases the majority of elected officials, city council or county commissioners who were opposed to this, who were skeptical about it, either voted, they were either elected or re-elected. You've been contacted by the leaders of two prominent political action groups, one in favor, one against, and, but the voters, 3 elections, and in all 3 elections elected, the majorities were either elected or re-elected. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, the precedent. Before you cast your vote in a few minutes on this, please consider the precedent a yes vote will be setting. We're going to be opening up a Pandora's box. If you want to become the Planning Commission, the Zoning Committee, the Board of Adjustment for the whole state of North Carolina, vote for this, because every disgruntled developer who has a tough time with the city council or county commissioners is going to come right here and ask for relief. Is going to call his college buddy who'e going to make them run a bill, and we'll be sitting here debating the merits of development projects on and on and on. We can just hang a sign right out here on Jones Street, Planning Department, because that's what we're going to become. The Planning Commission for 100 counties and 500 municipalities if you vote for this and we start this precedent. Project, principle, precedent. When you consider all three, I'm sure you will join with me, my former colleagues on the Durham City Council and the remainder of the Durham Delegation to vote no on concurrence. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a second time on the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I think we heard a very lengthy oratory statement relating to Senator Woodard's observations about this bill, many of the facts which I would not agree with. For one thing, let's talk about Jordan Lake rules first. This particular developer has committed in all of the documents that are related to this particular project to fully comply with the existing Jordan Lake rules notwithstanding what may happen to these rules in the future. The only way that can change is if he goes back to city council or county commissioners, so that is a factual inaccuracy.
The accounting commissioners voted in favor of this project. And they did it in a substantial and significant way. So I mean the county commissioners have favored it. It did come up once before city council at that point in time it was after the county commissioners have approved the project but there were certain neighborhood groups that wanted to challenge that in court. And while the developer requested that the project be annexed the city council said in that point in time litigation is pending so we don't want to consider it. So they voted it down came back up recently it was a three four vote. The mayor as I say supports the bill as it is he basically negotiated the terms with the developer. We have attempted to codify it and to strengthen it. Representative Moore I saw him in the chamber a few minutes ago worked diligently to try to address each and every concern. If you talk about jobs, jobs, jobs. This is a program that will provide jobs and provide support for the local economy. There was a letter that circulated to each of your members here each of the members from the Durham Chamber of Commerce and I'll read just a quick paragraph from it. And this is from Missus Tracey Steinbacker president and CEO says ' According to an economic impact analysis completed by the economic research associates, the construction phase for seven fifty one project has the potential to create ten thousand seven hundred fifty two cumulative jobs and labor income of one hundred and sixty six point nine million dollars. Ongoing operations with the project has the potential to create twenty nine hundred and eighty permanent jobs with an annual payroll of a hundred and fifty four point two million quite differently the project has the potential to reduce current unemployment significantly in our community and it goes on to recite other factors if we want...I think most persons in many districts would be envious to have this type of project being considered to be constructed within their boundaries. I simply ask for your support as I say ?? manicure supports it our mayor had support it I support this. It is what Representative Moore and I have worked out and agreed upon and I believe will be beneficial to our community. SPEAKER CHANGES: Mister President. ?? SPEAKER CHANGES: Senator Tillman your lights been on. For what purpose do you rise? SPEAKER CHANGES: I rise to speak on the motion. SPEAKER CHANGES: Senator has the floor. SPEAKER CHANGES: Senator Mckissic normally you talk me out of something when you keep talking but I'm gon' ask the Lord to forgive me. I'm voting with you twice this week. (laughs) And the reason I say that we would all probably kill to have a project like this. Now I know you have your local squabbles over whether you want it or don't want it and whose for it and whose against it. Seems like it to me it's a good economic development project. It seems like it to me that's a Republican idea and if you want to buy into it you're welcome. But I'm gon' support the bill I think it's jobs to economic development. SPEAKER CHANGES: Now I ask the rest of you to vote for it. SPEAKER CHANGES: Mister President. Senator Wood we'll let you go. For what purpose do you rise? SPEAKER CHANGES: To speak a second time. SPEAKER CHANGES: Briefly. Carry on. SPEAKER CHANGES: The second time. I see Senator Runstettor threatin' me with a..-- SPEAKER CHANGES: Mister President. ?? SPEAKER CHANGES: Try circa. (laughs) ?? SPEAKER CHANGES: Yes sir Senator Nesbitt. I remind the president that you need to keep the proper decor. SPEAKER CHANGES: Thank you Senator. (laughs) SPEAKER CHANGES: Mister president you may carry on sir. SPEAKER CHANGES: Again Senator Mckissic has countered some of the things I said and I do think they need to be addressed. Number one remember the Chamber of Commerce letter written by the vice president of the Chamber who was the developers attorney at the time the letter was drafted. The economic development report has been challenged by another pair of labor economists. Pick your expert here. But the numbers...they're plenty of folks including the city council believe the city council are overstated. The city managers support for this. This is the vote the city manager provided the Durham city council last year. His recommendation...there is a slight recommendation in here. In order to find it Senator Mckissic will have to get a pair of tweezers and pluck it out of this book. And there is a conditional if you read the recommendation it's if if if if if and these go on and that's what's in this book of the things that would need to be in place before you can recommend it. Given the weight of the city managers research the weight of his report it was a seven to zero vote which included the mayor. The mayor was against it before he was forced into negotiating with Representative Moore. So there's the city manager's recommendation conditional to...
tune of about three inches. There are plenty of other options for this project. Nobody is turning their backs on jobs. Nobody is turning their back on a good project. What they're turning their back on is this project. Don't forget, ladies and gentlemen, this project. There's a whole range of other options that this developer has available to him, has had available to him. He's wed to this one. And, ladies and gentlemen, do we want to sit here and continue to debate this? You may feel certain ways about projects, but I would remind you: Principle and precident. Don't forget those two things when you cast your vote. If you go against the principle of city and county governments, determining what their land use is, this has become a dangerous day. And, if you want to become the planning commission for the state, that's what we're heading for if we allow these developers to come, bring their projectsin the door every time they get an unfavorable vote. I ask you again to vote no on concurrence. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Suchack, for what purpose do you rise? And then, Senator Meridith. [SPEAKER CHANGES] See if Senator Olrand will yield to a quick question. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Olrand, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] This should be good. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Oh, thank you. In all your years since reconstruction, have you ever seen a freshman member get an ?? three times? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I never have. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Meridith. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. President. I had a question if Senator McKissick would yield. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator McKissick, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you. Senator McKissick, I remember very vividly, as a freshman, that you were very much against this bill when it came to the floor. Would you mind explaining to me what has changed your mind? They actually came to my office and spoke specifically to me about this bill and I'd just like to know what changed your mind from last year. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Well, I can easily address that. Last year, we had a completely different bill. The bill last year was a bill that looked at basically the geographic areas that surrounding cities. The urban growth boundaries. Many cities in North Carolina have urban growth boundaries outside their city limits. What that bill last year would've done, would've basically said that all cities in North Carolina that have properties outside of their urban growth boundaries would've been required to extend water and sewage to those particular properties, notwithstanding whether they had water to sewer capacity or not. This particular bill is extraordinarily narrowly drawn. It only applies for a 60 day window of time after its passage. And it only applies to those particular appplicants who may, in fact, apply to a city who have had a prior request for annexation and a water and sewer service agreement denied. Once it is submitted, within that 60 day period, they would be bound to all the provisions within that water and sewer extension agreement. That is, in fact, the agreement that was negotiated between the city of Durham, the mayor, and the developer in this particular case. And, in each and every committed element that was a part of any other approval they received, in this case the approval that was granted by the county commissioners. It is very narrowly drawn, it is targeted, it is specific. Is water and sewer capacity available? This is not a global bill that has far-reaching implications for many municipalities and towns within North Carolina, it is narrow and specifically drawn based upon the circumstances, facts, ?? in this particular present case, so the potential for overreach does not exist. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, I'd like to ask Senator Woodard a question if I may. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Woodard, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Senator. I did have one question about the other options. Did they ever come before the city counsel and were voted on, or were they not ever? [SPEAKER CHANGE] No, they've never been presented. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Alright, thank you. Thank you, Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Any further discussion or debate? Rather, Senator Raven. Saw him first, there talking. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGE] For what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. President. I will try not to be as long winded as Senator McKissick. And, like Senator Tillman, I have searched high and low to find times that I can agree with Senator McKissick, and this is one time that I do. This project will create, or, I have read and looked into, it will create around 3,000 jobs and bring about $450,000,000 to the tax base. Now, it's hard for me to believe, when we look at something that's going to come in, doesn't want incentives, wants to come into this state and do something and create that number of jobs, put that much money in the tax base, $9 million into the infrastructure, donate a spot for the school, donate a fire station, and do these other things
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that normally, our colleagues ask us to do, its very difficult for me to be against it. And as Senator Tillman said, this sounds more like a Republican Bill than a Democrat Bill and I encourage you to concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tucker what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask Senator Woodard a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Woodard, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, I just need some clarity. You mention the three P's and one of those was precepent. You also mention in your comments there is a twenty eight story building going up in the inner city, or within the downtown of Durham which is going to create a competitive atmosphere for office space. Are you suggesting, through their vote, on the city council which you were a member, that because there is a competitive arena in the market place that this developer should not build office space? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir. I certainly wasn't suggesting that. I think you need to, we, as a city council and if you all are going to be deciding projects like this, you need to see if, can these three thousand jobs be sourced. Where are those three thousand alleged jobs coming from. Remember, another pair of economist looked at this and said they weren't three thousand jobs and that's the reason why. One of the reasons why. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Davis, what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Senator McKissick a question please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, if I was on the town council of Durham, I would vote for this project based on the information that I have. However the real problem that I have is the, the Senate being asked to override local government. I'm willing to do that only when there is a compelling reason to do so. Could you tell me what that compelling reason is in this case? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure, in fact there was going to be a vote of the city council which occurred. There was a three four vote. It was three four in opposition when it should of been three four in favor. The individual who decided specifically to vote against whether in favor said he basically wanted the State to tell him what to do. We want to fulfill his wish . To tell them what to do. He asked for that. So we now have that opportunity. And its beholden upon us, if we believe its in the best interest of state of North Carolina to provide these jobs and opportunities when it comes to construction. When it comes to tax based to have a positive spillover impact and perhaps that's a reason that we could do so because they wanted to be told what to do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Mr. President if I could speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President. I, I'm troubled by some of the comments from Senator Woodard. It appears I got the same impression that Senator Tucker did that the town council according to my understanding what he said was getting involved in the competitive environment. Whether or not this was a, going to supply the jobs or going to be in competition with another developer and the opportunity to choose sides there, kind of troubles me. Also he mentioned that this particular developer was, had left previous development with about a quarter of a million dollars worth of liability with some, with some ponz. It appears to me that this bill is not a remedy for that. The legal system is the proper remedy for that particular problem. But the overriding concern for me in spite of the jobs and stuff that the, that will be supposedly be, be created in this is overriding the vote of the town council. And it appears to me the remedy for that is for the people that vote these people into office. And as a long time county commissioner , I would resent greatly having the legislature come in and tell me what to do when the people that put me into that office expect me to use my judgment. So for that reason, I just can't accept this. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I, I have a basic point and it is really the same point of Senator Davis.My fellow members of the State Senate, and note that I addressed you all as the fellow members of the State Senate. I didn't call you all the fellow members of the Durham city council. With all due respect, Senator Woodard and Mckissick, non of us have served there for the simple reason that the citizens, the people of Durham have never elected us to be their city council. We are not the city council of Durham. The, I remember last session, ya'll came in, all fired up about annexation reform. Concept...
Annexation reform was. My goodness, you can’t have people in a city, through their elected representatives, encroach on people outside that jurisdiction, without those people having the right to vote, to express their will as to whether they want that. And you all correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall there being an exception to that right to have a referendum because it’s economic development. Because it’s going to create a lot of jobs. As I recall, there’s a lot of principled arguments made that we cannot overcome the will of local people. Whether or not you think this project is a good idea, we are not the Durham City Council. The people of Durham elect who their representatives are. We should not take their position. I ask you to ask yourself what are your principles? And then vote those principles. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnear to what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wanted to remind two things in addition to these points that have made. And the first one is that it was a circuitous route. It started about whether they were going to issue water or sewer to a development they didn’t want. And the mayor may say today that he’s in favor of this, because he’s had his arm twisted to prevent something worse from happening. I think even anybody who has heard this circuitous route from the very beginning will realize this is not what anybody in Durham wants. It’s what the developer wants, who came to a House member who lives 150 miles away, who only did this because his buddy that he went to law school was the lawyer for the developer. This is not a straightforward, this is a wonderful development with a lot of jobs. And there’s another thing that you’ve got to keep in mind and that is this is going to further impair the Jordan Lake, which serves 300,000 people with their drinking water. And any further development down in Chatham County is going to be further disadvantaged because of this. Because of the drinking water situation. And what we have here is not a willing city council or a willing mayor but a mayor who’s had his arm twisted behind his back because the developer works through circuitous, I won’t put another word with it but let’s just say dubious route, to get what he wanted. And I’m thinking of those people in Chatham County that I represent, who are trying desperately to protect their water, so that they can develop. So that Wake County, which is now working its way into Chatham County, can still have clean water. And we are really jeopardizing all of the development that comes later, for one developer who’s twisted the arms of the mayor and gotten our body here to do his will. I urge you to vote not to concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question before the Senate is concurrence in the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 315. All in favor will vote aye. All opposed will vote no. There’ll be five seconds allowed for voting. The clerk will record the vote. [PAUSE] 35 voting in favor, 10 in the negative, Senate concurs in the Committee House Substitute for Senate Bill 315. It will remain on the calendar. That brings up Senator Rucho. Get ready. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Pate, what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To announce conferees. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Berger appoints for Senate Bill 236 Judge can perform marriage to the following conferees: Senator Apodaca, chair. Senator Newton and Senator Brunstetter. And for House Bill 417, modify internal audits, Senator Brock, chair. Senator Tillman, Senator Sucheck
Senator Jim Davis and Senator Tucker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. ??, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] A brief report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, the ?? committee has met and decided that we have way too long to go today to give this award up that easily. So, Sen.Woodard, I think that we're going to hang onto it for right now. I did feel like we the ?? county delegation meeting had broken out there for a minute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, can we stand at ease for the next few minutes? I think we’re still waiting on an amendment, a tweak to the amendment for Sen. ?? 589. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We'll stand at ease with the stipulations . . . [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President -- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Who have we got? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Ford -- [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to change my vote to Yes on that last vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Ford would like to change his vote to Yes on what? [PAUSE] [SPEAKER CHANGES] 36 in favor, nine in the negative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Who else do I have? Sen. Nesbitt ?? -- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, I was just going to suggest that if it's going to be more than around 15 minutes, why don't we take enough time so that we can go somewhere and come back? Mr. President, I'm about had it back here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, why don't we have mercy on the Minority Leader and recess till 3:00. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If we have to, so ordered. We recess with stipulations stated earlier -- reporting messages from the House, conference reports, bills, anything else -- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President -- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Brown, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Republicans will caucus immediately upon recess. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President – [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, Sen. Nesbitt -- [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Democrats will caucus upon recess. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President -- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Who else? Sen. ?? -- Sen. ??, for what purpose? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To add another conferee, sir, to the team that just announced on Senate Bill 236. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Senator has the floor. Hold it down a bit. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hunt is also appointed to that committee on Senate Bill 236. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Senate now stands in recess. [END]