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 | May 2, 2013 | Chamber | Government

Full MP3 Audio File

A motion from Representative Burr to accept the PCS before us. All in favor say "aye". Alright you're awake thank you. And we are having this presented to us by Representative Bell and Brisson. Gentleman you have the microphone. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, representatives of the committee this is a bill from Clinton city for the use of designed build method of construction for a small project they have there. You can see on here it's a small project that we have and we have the city manager here if you have any questions related to that and it's approved, agreed to by both of us and we would appreciate your support for it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members do you have any questions? Representatve Bell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A motion at the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir, Representative Holley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm not a proponent of design bill however this is for a small entity in a small county and this is when a design bill is appropriate so I'm in support of this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative, do we have any other questions for the bill sponsors, seeing none Representative Bell you are recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to move that the PCS 133 receive favorable support favorable to the original and referred to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, ladies and gentleman you have the motion before you all in favor please signify by saying "aye", those opposed say "no" . The "ayes" have it, thank you gentleman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Our next bill will be House bill 552 being presented by Representative McElraft. Pat is here to present the bill. You have the microphone. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have actually four bills so I'm trying to get them organized here. The house bill 552 actually takes a services district, like a water sewer district from a county and if you haven't if you've been charging all that time and you really haven't provided that service to them it allows that county to take them out of that service. There is a petition and public hearing and then it allows you to take them out it's not fair for them to have them in that service district all that time and then not been provided those services so this allows, it was actually my county that asked for this they have for about ten years, ok I'll shut up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins you are recognized to make a motion. Members do we have any questions. Seeing none you are recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I need to make a brief statement first, Representative McElraft I would never be so rude as to cut you off, I was actually raising my hand so that the committee chairman would see me and I was really enjoying your explanation but my motion is that we give a favorable report to house bill 552 there's referral. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Than that's it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All in favor please say "aye", opposed "no". Alright representative you are welcome to go on to house bill 300 which has a PCS that Representative Bell has suggested or a made a motion that we accept all in favor say "aye" ok we have the PCS before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much and I've certainly been here long enough to know that when you've got somebody that's going to make a motion then you keep your mouth shut. Anyway this one is just a teeny bit more complicated this is to clarify what's really already in the statutes but it just kind of clarifies, it's just clarifying language in the statutes we have a couple of lawsuits, this does not effect the lawsuits at all but we have property in the Nag's Head area that is sitting on the beach and that property is right now one judge said that the city who has been taxing that property all along does not have the jurisdiction to go out and actually condemn that property they said now the state has to do that it's on public trust beach so we need to clarify in the statute that we all along have allowed our cities not only to collect taxes from these people but if there's an issue that they are sitting on public trust beaches in a hazardous area that they are allowed to go and do what they have always done in the past and condemn these properties and get rid of them so that the state....

Not have that responsibility. We also have another issue where we have property owners that are trying to take their property all the way out to the water and try to prevent our fire, our police and our rescue squads from going down the beach and rescuing people during really crowded beach times. And taking fencing and keeping people off the beach. They want to say that they own all the way down to the property, all the way down to the water. We. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me Representative. Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No more explanation. OK. Anyway. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You've done a excellent job Representative. We have a motion before us. Do we have any questions for the bill sponsor first? Seeing none Representative Cleveland your motion please. Can we impose upon you to use your microphone sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? report due to committee substitute for house bill 300 unfavorable to the original and refer to judiciary state. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All in favor please say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye (group) [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I hope it's this easy on the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McIlwraith before you continue on your roadshow here we're going to pause a moment to recognize our pages who are here today. Pages if you will signify where you are by shouting, or waving your arm or something. Christian Campbell from Gladden County, sponsored by Representative Brisson. Where are you at? I'm sorry. OK. Is hard at work as a page. Andrew Abernathy from McDowell County. Where are you sir? Is that right. It said Abernathy here. OK thank you. And Lydia Think. There she is, I found one of em OK. She's sponsored by Representative Tillis, speaker Tillis. OK thank you. Members House bill 552 is not noted on our forms up here, but staff has called to our intention it does need a serial referral to finance. So those of you who join me in finance will have the pleasure of hearing that again. OK Representative you are free to present house bill 179, which Representative Presnell has submitted a motion for that to accept the PCS for. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye (group) [SPEAKER CHANGES] Go for it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Before I say anything does anybody have a motion? Actually this just, we have formed, three little towns have formed a joint agency for their fire police protection. And individually as towns they can receive this sales tax exemption and we would like to have them receive their sales tax exemption as this agency. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Cleveland I'll come back to you just a second. Members if you look through your packet and haven't found a PCS for House bill 179 that's because there is not one. So quit looking. OK do we have any questions for the bill sponsor on House bill 179? Representative Cleveland you're recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Favored report on the committee substitute for house bill 179. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK all in favor signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye (group) [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed no. Alright we have that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you again. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let's go one more time here, and that's House bill 553. And it does have a proposed committee substitute and I think that's the one Representative Presnell was referring to earlier in my error. Apologize for that. So all in favor accepting the PCS say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye (group) [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK and opposed no. And we are ready to go. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is an occupancy tax bill for Carter ?? County. It just raises us to the 6% which is allowable. It does split us out on. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Wilkins [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry. Representative Floyd. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair this is the ?? of the appropriate time please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you

Are there any questions for the Representative? We have one question, Representative Stone? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, if you could finish explaining. I want to understand what we're doing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We actually have little different split here. We have the 50/50 with the TDA and beach nourishment. Since the state and the federal government have gotten out of beach nourishment, we are putting the state's burden now on our town so we have to have a way to finance this. So we are asking for a few more dollars out of the occupancy tax to do that. We say, what are you going to advertise if you don't have the beaches to advertise? The Tourism Coalition's gone along with that. They have capped it at 30 million, we can't keep more than 30 million in there. We've all agreed with this. Our County's agreed with this, so everybody's on board. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are there any questions? Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I haven't had time to read this? Are you increasing the occupancy tax or just changing the distribution? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We're increasing it to our six percent, what everybody else has. We've only been five percent in the past. Everybody except for Onslow County. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do we have any other questions? Representative Faircloth. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chairman. For the sponsor, have your citizens had input into this situation? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, they are in agreement. The County Commissioners are all in agreement. We also have a Beach Commission, where we've been putting this money. Actually, our citizens love this because they feel like it's the tourists that are using the beach, and right now they're having to fund these beach nourishment projects and so they're asking the tourists to fund a little bit more, but because it's more of a user fee and so instead of the state and federal government giving up their portion of the funding. So now they're saying, "We're tired of funding. We've spent 35 million dollars we've taxed ourselves to do beach nourishment locally." So it's time for those who use the beach, a lot of our citizens don't even use the beach. So we're asking now, instead of using advertising money, let us go ahead and let the tourists pay a little bit more for the beach. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I guess the next obvious question is, have the tourists had any input in this situation? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The six percent is what I pay here in Durham, and I look across at a hospital. At least these tourists are looking at a beautifully nourished beach. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further questions? Representative Collins? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just one. I hate to say this, but I think I may be about to vote for the first tax increase I've voted for in the three years I've been here. If I understand this correctly, and I am one of your tourists occasionally, and I do know that I pay this six percent everywhere else I go in the state, this is a one percent increase on room occupancy only, not restaurants or anything that the local county people pay for. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And that would be the only reason I would vote for this. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do we have any other question? Representative, it looks like you've got a little legislative workout after all. Representative Floyd, you're recognized for motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move in favor for the PCS, unfavorable to the original. It doesn't have a referral, does it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To finance. We have a motion on the floor. All in favor please say aye. Opposed say no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] While I'm here, I'd like to interest you in a puppy mill bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Your luck has just run out. [laughter] The ayes have it. Thank you very much. Representative Jordan, House Bill 533. I'll let you take the microphone. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chairman. 533 is going through some work to get a good PCS and I'm working with some of the important stakeholders, Sheriff's Association, Police Chiefs, to get something that will help my county and not upset the apple core. So I'd like to displace that until next week if possible. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No objections, we'll displace that until next week. And you are ready to go onto 284. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chairman. House Bill 284, "Local Contracts, Local Bidder Preference." This is an idea you've all heard about before, taking another stab at it. And here's why. There's a car dealer in Watauga County who bid on a contract three fully loaded cars, to...

[Speaker Changes] County of Watauga missed the low bid by $1,000 to an out of state dealer. So he lost the contract. There was no way the county commissioners could do anything other than take that low bid. The state has an executive order from 2010 that said if a north Carolina company came within 5% or 10,000 of the lowest bid, the bid could be offered to them, if they would meet the low bid. So the taxpayers in my opinion are protected by this kind of policy, they get the low bid. And the state is helped because we get the state company. This bill would help the county because that locals dealer is a very large local business that employees people and pays lots of perpty taxes, and yet we just sent a bunch of business to an out of state dealer, without giving the local officials, the county commissioners the opportunity to discuss whether they wanted to give a local preference. So, this bill would permit local governments to give preferences to local bidders for constructions and ?? contracts if they so chose, so it is an option, and the tax payers are protected because the low bid still applies. I know that my two counties are in favor of it. The county commissioners, the chambers of commerce in my area are for it. I had brief discussions with the state associations, the county commissioners, the legal municipality, they say lots of their members are in favor of it. I know there will be opposition and there is opposition today, so at this point, I would be ready to answer questions. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Chair. [Speaker Changes] We see you Representative Floyd, and I’ll mark you down here. We have several who have indicated they want to speak. We will start with Representative Holley. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Chair. And I’ve spoken with Representative Jordan about this. There are some things that I think people don’t understand about Executive Order 50. EO50 that gives preferences to North Carolina vendors is not a very easy procedure and with it comes a lot of negatives. One of the main negatives to it is that as you do to us, we do to you. And what I mean by that is, if you are in a county that has an industry or if you are in the city or the state of north Carolina. Lets say our furniture industry takes advantage of EO50, and then they sell furniture to another state that also sells furniture, that state will then add 5%, up to $10,000 to that bid, and they’re not as competitive in that environment. Thats the pitfall of these. Plus once you start these, you have to do it. You can’t just say I’m gonna do it on this purchase, but the next purchase I’m not gonna do it on. You have to commit your entity to participating in the program. It is very time consuming for the purchasing people in the math and sometimes the $1000 that you might have saved in one instance, may have really technically cost you 2 or $3,000 in just paperwork and what have you to implement. I just think that the body needs to be aware of this, I spoke to Representative Jordan and he knew I was going to explain it a little bit today. Thank you. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Representative. Would you like to respond, Representative? [Speaker Changes] Yes, thank you Representative Holley. I do appreciate you coming to me and talking and with your background it is very important in this kind of issue. But again, I think this is an option if local governments want to take advantage of it, and it is only in specific situations. The low bid from a local business has to be within a tight range of what the actual low bid for what the entire project was. So they can only use it in specific instances which are specifically defined. No vagueness, there is no ambiguity here. Thank you. [Speaker Changes] Follow up. [Speaker Changes] Yeah, you are very correct there. And in your county that may not have a large industry, this may be safe. But if you are in a county that has a large industry or a large business that is selling property or goods or services, this is when it gets tied up. Just wanted to make sure that's known. [Speaker Changes] Representative Collins. [Speaker Changes] Having noted earlier this year that in my correspondence with one of our state departments, and I think it was DOT, but it may have been DOR, I had to send it to a mailing processing center in Pennsylvania somewhere, I’d like to make a motion on this at the appropriate time. [Speaker Changes] Representative Wilkins be recognized. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Chair. Representative Jordan is right on target with this. And I say that primarily because I have a bill called NC First that would make..

The state wide and rid of the need to issue executive orders. Now Representative Jordan difference that you and I have that I took construction totally out of NC first. And while we're on that topic I'm going to implore Chair Warren to help me remove that red tag from my bill so it might be heard when I'm going to exploit yours. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Stone is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Bishop Chair and also thank that our bill sponsor Representative Jordan that I talked to has a he has a good heart and he is trying to do the right thing. But I want to warn the members of this committee about what you are trying to do and where we're going here. The free market work, low bid works as much as you don't like it it works. I've seen it in other cases the City Councilman Mayor Proten, we tried this and essentially what you're doing is you're telling everyone in the state that I'm not going to waste my time to bid because someone local is gonna get it. And I know you have good intentions and everyone back home have good intentions and I once told one of my local guys is not my job to fix the bid til you get it. It's my job to make sure everyone has the opportunity to bid it. And we get it for the lowest price possible. This opens a big Pandora box and once you start this something else will come and it will escalate. But I actually seen this happen in one of my communities where we bid a project at 1.5 million dollars and I had another gentleman five counties away bid for 1.2. That gentleman called me up he was all upset cause he didn't get it. My question for him was how can someone else five counties away be cheaper than you? How can someone bring a crew to our town, paid hotel rooms, buys meals and still be $200,000 cheaper than you? So when you look at this as a small opportunity to help one guy, once you started you're will never close that box and prices will escalate 'cause one thing for sure nobody pays more than government to do any job in the state of North Carolina. You can assure you that I say that I ask you not to vote for this. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pittman [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's alright sir, Mr. Collins the former teammate of field four of Rocketman High School beat me to it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I just want to ask a question on line 22, where you have ?? of the county. I mean could it not be counters accounted? These things? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Was that a question for the bill sponsor? Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, it maybe be a question for the staff that was the language that was suggested to me so, to to make sure we knew which company we're talking about. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But if it's state county. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up Mr. Chairman, I'm I'm just trying to just look it from a technical stand point. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would you like staff to address that question Representative Floyd. Staff, do you want to address that question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe it is because the municipality has the authority for contracting for the goods. The county also has the authority so would give municipality and the county the authority, but it would the local better would be the company or individual that is within that specific boundary. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So what you're saying then county that that the person is ?? and then that country is contract that person must be in the county. And then if the city contract the person must be in the city, but it seems to me that if you're bidding and and its you're within the county both municipality ?? of the county increases of the state so I was just curious about it ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Floyd. Representative Adams, you have a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair, I was just curious what this does to minority builders bidders. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is not an issue in here there is we're not changing anything along those lines but that not. Either positive or negative on that issue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think you said earlier that there was maybe some folks here who were in opposition to it I'd like to hear the other side if there are people who are here Mr. Chair.

Representative Ramsey, we have marked down that there is someone to speak on that. I was going to let the committee members have an opportunity to ask questions first. I will come back to follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. So, you're saying that if you bid low, and you're from North Carolina, and someone from out of state bids, then you're going to match those two together, is that what you're saying? so that it goes to a North Carolina company? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Respond. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well that, I think that's part of executive order 50 discussion that's in your summary. My bill specifically says that if it's a local company, and that local company, if they are not the low bidder, but they are within 5% or $10,000 of that low bid from a non-local company, they're given the opportunity to match the low bid and get the contract. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Burt, follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm just trying to understand. So we actually would not be accepting bids from out of town contractors then? Sounds like if you got a North Carolina bidder, and I'm not necessarily, opposed, to that, but I'm just trying to understand. If I'm a North Carolina company, I bid low, but not quite as low as the person from the other place, and you're going to match these 2 so that North Carolina will guarantee to get it? Is that right? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, if the North Carolina, if the local… Let's take Watauga County, because I'm not talking about all North Carolina overall like the executive order. Watauga County bid for 3 fully-loaded police cars. They get bids from a South Carolina car dealer, and a Watauga car dealer. The low bidder is the South Carolina bidder. They bid $100,000. The Watauga car dealer bid $101,000. 'Cause you don't know what the bids going to be until they are all open. Because that is between the range of I have in the statute, the Watauga county commission, if it so chooses, can say to the local Watauga business, can you match the $100,000 bid, and give our tax payers the exact same bid that we would have gotten through this low bid process from another state's dealer? If the local bidder can, then the county can accept that bid, at the low bid amount. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What would the chance be that the local bidder would not try to come under that? I mean, I would think they would do it every time in order to get the project, but… [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's a- [SPEAKER CHANGES] This would be a public bill, is that correct? Or would it apply to my city too? That why I'm raising the issue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, but these are closed bids until they are opened up and everybody sees what the amounts are. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brody. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chairman. May I ask the bill sponsor a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan? If I'm a contractor in Union county, and I bid on a project in Mecklenburg County, and I'm the lowest bidder, but the Mecklenburg County guy then gets a chance to match that bid, do I then get a chance to bid a little bit lower? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please answer that, that's a good question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If your bid is within, if the Mecklenburg county bid was within 5% or $10,000, they would get the opportunity to match your low bid and get the contract, but that is where my bill stops. There's no additional phase after that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So you're basically saying that I have to decide what my lowest bid is, and then submitted to the public in Mecklenburg County, and they can decide if they're going to do it? Doesn't that sound like having me go through a lot of work, just so we can find some particular price and then Mecklenburg county can then pick at it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please respond. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well now, there's no predetermined price, it's just whatever the bids are. If no one is close within 5% or $10,00 of you, then you would get this bid without this bill applying. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I make a comment please on this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] With all due respect, and I know what you're getting at is, I really got to oppose this bill. Being in that position, it's not a real enjoyable position to be in. Because what you are doing is putting in a lot of work and effort, and then just having somebody come along and say: hey that's pretty good, I can calculate that. I don’t have to go through any work, pretty much so, and I can be assured of getting the bill. If you had in there that if something that somebody bids, and then this

...could become an open bidding process. That would be...to me, it would be great because then what you’re driving at is the real low price, but at this point, with all due respect, I’d have to vote against it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a question for Representative Brody. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brody? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would you take a question please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you have any idea how many hours you put into one of those bid processes when you’re putting all your numbers together to bid on a regular job? [SPEAKER CHANGES] When you’re bidding on government things it takes a lot because there’s a lot of regulation. It has to go...private, apparently this doesn’t deal with private contract, but public ones there’s a lot of work that goes into some of these. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So you would say sometimes half a day or more and also would that prevent you from bidding a government contract if you knew that potentially you would spend hours of a day putting a contract together knowing that someone else had an opportunity to take it from you if you were low bid? Would that prevent you from presenting your bid? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’d be true, and not only that, you’d have to go out and get bids for certain materials and things that may require days worth of waiting and trying to plan everything. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just briefly, all bidders would be putting in that same amount of work. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair is going to recognize Representative Faircloth and will note, for the committee, that there are five other people who have...want to beat this horse, and we do have some people, I understand, who might want to speak to the bill. I’m going to let...the Chair is going to let Representative Faircloth make his remarks, we will then ask for comments from the public and open it back up for committee members. I do want to remind you we have a pretty full schedule. Representative Faircloth. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly have compassion for the sponsor, I put a bill like this in last year and I still have stripes on my back from the lashing I took. One of them was from exactly the example you gave. A local automobile dealer who was going to bid on two cars for the local government gets an advantage under your bill. The local government dealer who wants to bid on 20 other cars in other cities is disadvantaged by the bill and that’s the noise I heard when I put this bill in is this is a disadvantage more than an advantage to business. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, did we have someone from the League of Municipalities who wanted to speak? No? Yes. Okay. Should always sit closer to the mic when you’re going to do that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, I’m Paul Meyer with the League of Municipalities. At our advocacy goals conference this year where almost 150 cities came to help advise us on the things they’d like to see the legislature do that would be helpful to cities from the 200 goals that were submitted, this ended up in the final 25. This was a high priority for cities across the state because it is exactly what Representative Jordan said which is it’s an option for cities. It’s something they thought would be helpful to their local businesses and we’d ask for your support on the bill, thanks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. Do we have anybody else who wanted to speak on the bill? Representative Goodman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, if I could just make a point or two. The maximum here is $10,000 so 20 cars would not be applicable in this case because it would be much larger than that if I’m correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that correct, Representative? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Goodman, $10,000 is the differential. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right, but 20 cars…$10,000 is 5% of $200,000 so if a bid for 20 cars would be $400,000, this wouldn’t apply. Am I correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, it depends on what the difference in the bids are. If somebody bids $400,000 for… [SPEAKER CHANGES] So that’s the issue. It’s $10,000 difference in the bids. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thanks for clearing that up. If I could though, the thing about a local bidder, all of these bids, local government contracts can be anywhere from $500 to $50,000 and the local dealer is the guy, if say, for instance, the school system, it’s the guy giving money to the PTA, he’s donating to local golf tournaments and then gets underbid by somebody out of town...

Bond between makes a lot less likely want to make the next time he goes something like that and not a local dealer also is more likely to do a good job, county or on the agenda as workplace down and efficient block C Benelux identity is less inclined comeback in the cleanup whether they were misses reputation M and the central considerations song of peace could buy all of the bank of Poland local gal supplies local taxes needed to so many workplaces to do a lot of just one single sport. But senator cliff you to follow picture share classes at the comedy, one to clarify the 20 call our situation well as talking about is the local dealer the bidding and 20 other communities or a single call or you can do this and they oppose 20 possible flails between the dates and localities who was not very good making sure(SPEAKER CHANGES) that if the guys we have a Representative McNeil than Collins said certain Wilkens who are still on the list its people, at that point to them after they were we aren't even a spill most gives me that this bill doesn't assure referral to finance switching gears up with their two percent of the deal Mr. Speaker of the firm of comments they sure are some columns away from stand idly of women here in the lives of the bill McCollum action by the county's newest book covers and may even contacted four out of this gives them the option of whether the state in the some of my question is does one Tom Akiyama, the system decision was a case by case nine of its decision which conference on the state status or larger Collins talk about, and that your way out is having its SEC becomes out if there's a little better than meets the criteria at that point on when the season with needing a growing list of the U.S. policy in Virginia college with their father of cake and basically what about college talk about with the statewide he'll fit the plan if you buying you buy IBM, (SPEAKER CHANGES) you just can't step in the fable and if the fifth, two LP to local vendor can expedite two a macro to pay attention to this guy at the confessed that the new policy ML Mitchell if you think you'd like a few if any of counties want to buy and two AEF Keith L, that the two men process they have to be confessed that a with what they do what they're doing is not static pick in two large ones you'd like to do and which way should not as my defector your local vendors because they may not know whether 95 become a candidate fish, not theirs and take years and will represent such a question of bill sponsored and this is a little something about congressional and state of U.S. aid of the next night in Cobb county and 8:11 PM against the company did on in the lake county and all the supply within the state producers of the sure if I understand your question if you're betting on a will to be a wake county and or imported steel Raley where they are seeing a manufactured as if there's another contract to supply debut with one out 5 seconds of the defendants, or chemical used in stock Spiegel man Mr. When you set this up the situation a in 19 90 are you going with the Libyan whole project and leather goods when you put this situation on the notice respect the rule out the SPN two will hear the insecurity in Canada geese are so you can drop your be is like a son be a process that can be extracted itself they're and as a situation of the company, with its advice to South Carolina and they had a 7%, state departments and did not doubt the North Carolina manufacture any calls the citizens of the state of South Carolina eight great deal of money because there is a producer's was trying to eliminate the competition and they succeed until someone you eliminate the competition from being processed you calls a great deal of problems and you call for people money and I was just a little of the had to win on the low price when you ??......

Goalie and ending you get the B.A. in the field of the city and state occasionally receive this is Monday, August 19, '82 statements about how this process works as well you have a stop the process this edition day, said the company close attention to the group and broke the line and say about the Time &Energy that the goal of the game two all construction bids home again that is for reuse them and don't collect money and she first bill if only wish to eventually usual to allow wealth construction null and she first moved to bet that the conferring with the exception of sleaze alone like you to play with actually a bunch tools support groups and George mail they could settle conflicts and that's a good question for the speaker, I did go down in that spoke fondly to buyers would you mind taking questions are giving them a short you dedicated a town cities throughout the state might do so for the hander from a city of the scariest moments 25 minutes and was going for one of the meet their fight this was the 25 from the primary issue for the lead to pursue guarantee out. Such a #a file and if you sell the team again defied the season could you tell me cringe?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) I am aware that if a machine? Agrees for which their coffers said apple even more legs and perform a slower and bridge the chair is some open for a motion as a four to the public debate a motion?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) the cubist and consistent with the proceeds from the comedian and 5/8 voted to five with a motion to four, from Representative Floyd hall of Famer Sam those same and that's interesting of a city without the charge admission baking on the occasion was the wonderful color should use of tissue Indians all of a career in the EL war going on with the shipper that were provided to pass the bill out of committee to finance a bill to produce all favor leisure and please ignore them to urge I think you'll find love with no please raise your hand like this could add to those 72 percent during the mission?? (SPEAKER CHANGES ) to the next process of a representative for the spill 551 we do have a hand out there that those sort of our fuel do that this is the path of the year , one of them, but this is somehow still 551 to 70 PCs to have represented our makes a suggestion promotion and we'll accept the PCs sold favor say I think we have NT four standards and Davis confessed just a minute to lead and complete killing of NDS album??.....

Representative Davis, before you begin presenting your bill, do you know if we have anybody who wants to speak to the bill outside the committee? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen in the audience, is there anybody that intends to speak on this bill? Seeing none, we will release it for presentation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, this bill comes before you sponsored by Representative Hamilton and myself upon the specific request of the city of Wilmington. To put it very simply, what this bill would do would be to repeal the city of Wilmington’s Fireman’s Benefit Fund. All the funds that are presently in the Wilmington Fireman’s Benefit Fund would be transferred from the city of Wilmington Benefit Fund to the local Fireman Relief Fund, and then those funds would be distributed pursuant to the general statutes. By doing this, this would give the board of trustees over that fund more flexibility over time to use more funds for active duty firefighters, also to built the fund solvency, and also still provide funding to retirees. I have Mr. Stanley Moore from Fiscal Research who’s here, who was very patient in helping me to draft the PCS. I also have Tyler Newman, who is the Special Assistant to the City Manager for Legislative Affairs for the City of Wilmington here if ya’ll have any questions. I will tell you that there was concern from certain individuals about the language, and thank goodness, right before I walked in here I received word that the last of those people’s concerns were resolved after reading the latest PCS, and everybody is on board to my knowledge. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Do we have any questions from the committee? Representative Moore? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s hard to get your attention over here in timeout. Very, very, very quick question for either Mr. Moore or Representative Davis. It says that to provide an assessment, “a reasonable amount of support”. What would be considered a reasonable amount of support for a surviving spouse of a firefighter? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, excellent question, and if I may, I want to apologize to the committee. I read the report from the old PCS, not the one that was redone and submitted last night that I was informed this morning that everybody’s on board with, so if you would please disregard everything I said, and Mr. Chairman, if you’d allow me, I’ll read the ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You go ahead and catch up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I do apologize, and I think that may answer your question. What it does is what I talked about, plus when it deals with the money, it says the balance of the local Fireman’s Relief Fund is presently capped at 15 thousand dollars, and the bill will allow that amount to increase by 15 thousand dollars every year until the balance of the local Fireman’s Relief Fund reaches 105 thousand dollars. In doing this, the retirement benefits of the retirees of the city will be reduced beginning in 2014. The bill also grandfathers all surviving spouses and beneficiaries as of June the 30th 2013, but does not allow future surviving spouses and beneficiaries to receive any benefits from the death of a retired fireman on or about June the 30th 2013. If anyone does have anymore specific questions, I would ask Mr. Moore ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Moore, did you have a follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Now when you say 15 thousand, is that 15 thousand in that pot per firefighter or across the whole fund? That’s what I’m trying to understand. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Moore, would you respond please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, Stanley Moore, Fiscal Research Division. This pension fund in Wilmington is like a lot of the funds across the state. It’s funded by transferring monies from the local Fireman’s Relief Funds, of which most cities and fire departments have one, so in

83 and 88 this bill was introduced and changed, which allows them to transfer all the monies that flow through the Department of Revenue, that insurance companies pay that goes to the Department of Insurance, it goes out to that local relief fund. That local relief fund transfers all the monies in that fund in excess of 15,000. Then this is used to pay the retired firemen and the surviving spouses a benefit, and from that low pension fund. As I understand it now, they get about $80,000 and there's about 100 retirees, so they only get like $800 a year. The, because the, all the funds in excess of 15,000 is transferred, there's no funds except that 15,000 that can be used for the active firemen in the event of a disability or a death or scholarships for the kids, whatever. So the city of Wilmington wants to increase that pot of cash up to somewhere around $100,000, and this is the only way we could figure out to do it, was to transfer 15,000 a year and maybe in six years you will have that 100,000. But it will reduce the benefits for the retired firemen and surviving spouses beginning in '14 and then it should level out. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Represent... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Experience. Representative Collins, you're recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think Mr. Moore just answered the question I was gonna ask. I'd highlighted the very lines that the bill sponsor read. I couldn't figure out how a benefit was going down if we were increasing the pot by seven times. But it looks to me we're talking about two different groups of people, a current group and a retired group. But that does raise one question for the bill sponsor, and that would be what kind of blow back are you getting from the retirees about this particular bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not so much any concern by the retirees as by members of the firemen. And I spent no less than two days with a member who was concerned in my office, along with Mr. Moore and Mr. Newman going over. I mean this is not the first version as you see it was changed as late as last night. And as I stated before I came in, the chairman of the board, the Fireman's Board, said that he read the newest PCS and was on board with it and it was okay. But other than that sir, there was, I'm not aware of any other opposition. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members with any other questions? Representative McNeill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is for a motion at an appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is the appropriate time, sir. The chair will note... [SPEAKER CHANGES] I make a motion that the committee give a favorable report to House Bill 551, with a serial?? report, excuse me, referral to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. So we have a motion for a favorable report to the PCS, unfavorable to the original, with a referral to finance. All in favor, please say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed say no. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. The ayes have it. And representative Whitmire, you are up for House Bill 558. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you committee members. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Sergeant of Arms, do we have the pass-out for 558? Was it already done? There is none? Okay. Did you have a pass-out? That's it? Okay. I had a note here there was a pass-out, so. Representative Whitmire, did you have a speaker for this bill either? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have subject matter expertise in the room, but I don't plan on calling on him unless we need him for a question. That's the Executive Director of the Saltwater for North Carolina, Mr. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I see you have Representative Ramsey with you, so there probably wont be a need for anymore undue influence. You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Thank you all for hearing 558. I will be as brief as possible to honor brevity. What we have as far as state organizations, state entities, we have saltwater?? districts. We have 96 of them for 100 counties. We do have the extreme northeast corner of North Carolina that has five counties rolled into one. And the purpose of this bill is to basically allow sales tax refunds for the districts. The good news is this, out of 96, 84 of them already enjoy this sales tax exemption. And it's a little convoluted, they're a state entity, but they generally will purchase under the domain of their county and it works that way. We have 12 count...

Ones who enrolled into one region. Who were unable to do that for various regions. And this bill basically seeks to standardize so that the states not taxing the state with a sales tax exemption and put them all to where they're the same. I can take questions but to be brief I'll stop here.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins you're recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion when you're ready for it mr chairman [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do we have any questions from the committee? Seeing none representative Cullins you're recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to make a motion that we give a favorable report to house bill 558 with a referral to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All in favor will signify by saying aye, opposed say no. Thank you the aye's have it. Representative Bumgardner you're recognized to present the PCS for house bill 562 on a motion by representative Dell all in favor say aye. You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mr chairman. This is a simple friendly little bill that updates the town charter of Cramerton. The town I represent in Gaston County they asked for this. And I would appreciate your support. I know of no oppositions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Elmore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion at the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. I see no hands raised does the chair recognize representative Elmer for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Favorable motion for favorable to support the PSC unfavorable to the original with the referral to, looks like finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct, thank you sir. All in favor please say aye. Opposed say no. The aye's have it thank you representative Bumgardner.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you committee thank you chair.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hardisfor is here for the PSC for house bill 687. PSC is put before us on a motion by representative Cullins. All in favor say aye. Representative Harterfor you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mr chairman and members of the committee. This bill came to me as an idea from a constituent. Theres a non profit called Family promise located in Gilford county. What they do is they provide temporary homeless shelters.And typically these shelters are set up in non profits and mostly in churches. And what this is about is these non profits are exempt from fire safety features such as irrigation systems which are fairly expensive. But the way the law is currently written is that these non profits are only exempt is if the occupants are under the age of 18 or excuse me, if the occupants are 18 years of age or older. And so the problem with that is, when homeless people show up looking for a somewhere to stay, if they have children with them and its a parent of legal guardian and the children are under the age of 18, then they cant let them stay there. And so my constituent contacted me and said I would like to have this law changed. So that when homeless people show up at these temporary shelters, and again the shelters are temporary these are not permanent homes, we would like to be able to admit the children as well. And so I thought that was reasonable. I don't know of any oppositions to the bill. And I'd be glad to stand for questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you sir. Representative Pitman.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of motion at the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Setzer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That was the point I was gonna make. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. Representative Brodie. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We will get to you representative Adams, representative Brodie has the floor right now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a quick question any of your research, did you ever figure out why the building code prohibits people from under 18 from occupying. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe it was because of a safety concern. Safety for the children. But I would yield the staff, does staff have any information on that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff can you help out on that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe that that is correct. The department of insurance felt comfortable with the bill as with the PCS because it does add that the requirements for the smoke detections in the sleeping areas. So that's an increase safety measure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you staff, representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mr chair. I was gonna ask pretty much that same question about building codes and .. so you say the department of insurance and the fire Marshall says its ok. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes I forgot to mention that the department of insurance is ok with this bill. ?? They wanted to add as a provision that temporary homeless shelters must install smoking detectors near the ..

The areas they share a meal that the process goes quickly by the Max for maybe a year that these people under 18 at the end, the company Bonneville or can someone just come in there and said the other side of prisoners they must be the pair to legal guardian defensive backs of a minor shows up alone or with someone is on the party of the administrators to contact the goaltending services that are questions to nine representatives of the wreck this promotion binds chairman of the final four as the two PCs or unethical 687 until losing are full of uncertainty which makes your folder please stay out of a pose no doesn't pay to surf that is in the same are we here represented Cleveland house bill 700 as a PCs revision of grain brown makes a motion except the PCs will take the stand and urgent plea that so yours they do not have the based on this scale a key changes the lives of calls from the Golan Heights and oversight committee on Indian Land with ensure that still holds some new bill selling Power System is too small, (SPEAKER CHANGES) in this section is one sure way to run 259 and 1112 they removed because the changes to the middle sections where they were made and another bill the wheel of the state's chief information officer the authority to require performance on the mighty project contracts be from interstate CIO the required state agencies admissions policy projects in excess of five million dollars from the private counsel or subject matter experts with a program like in a little of that experience that would clarify and the state CIO employees of the office of information Technology Services and office is the same keys, a self-improvement of columns, like to make a motion department of state representative Fahey said that as many questions for the presenter to the motion the populace with questions from people who play the study of the opposition this bill written?? ( SPEAKER CHANGES) 21$ to attend college professor motion by them if we do all they will call to oppose the substitute healthful some modern unplayable to the original bills are for a new era for all favor please stay on opposing them they feared simply the latest chairman of the committee disclosed as anybody over the senate and also has a PCs to that that represents ensure that the fourth's alter said that they can get the sense that some are set for 11 taken as Chairman Les Gelb and that no means is a simple meal which is why likely to be original language and changed to a proposed the committee said to two were would be a killer seeds study the opening pages will be one in my district. They develop and integrate relatively small development was built with a specific and 102 pager to the more senior receipts and the members of society group Harris is on the glance, while the spokeswoman said the made in the DS, 500, the best of circumstances and will miss ?? (SPEAKER CHANGES ) could be coming to them as nine and beyond developer pretty much stayed out of the lambs to something that's very serious gaining issues in science community that correctly in packs a properly singer says that many believe the conversation with family went and did everything it's often were last two years we brought in seedier of the ways and even some of the investigative work by law enforcement become a CD sweet talker C without the county we talk to the country to have all the Italia, had was to bring it to the awareness of this body and in doing so, the directly impacted ??....

That the home builders group, knowing that they also, because of the downturn, were severely affected by this. I didn't want to impose any ill or harm on the community of developers. In other words, we shouldn't punish all for the sins of a very few. And so, that being said, they've agreed with me that there is not a whole lot of this issue going on, but it does happen, and we need to find a way to rectify that when someone does commit that sin, that there's somehow some way that the people that are the recipients of that have retaliation, and that they can get what they were promised taken care of. And so that's, as you look down, some of the key points, the bullet points, that's what the study bill will be looking into. And hopefully we can come out with some very effective language. Thank you Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Torbett. Representative Fisher. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Representative Stone. You are recognised. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. I'd also like to thank Representative Torbett for bringing this bill before us, because just last week I had the very same scenario in my district, and I look forward to helping you any way I can. And Mr. Chair at the propper time I would like to supply a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright sir. Representative Pittman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was going to do the motion, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. Thank you. Representative Fisher. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to bring the member's attention to I think what is a typographical error on item number seven. I think that should be responsibility instead of responsibly. Little technical correction possibly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I'm sure the staff is paying attention to that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just wanted to show the chairman that I was awake. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Wilkins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A question for Representative Torbett, and that would be that the study that you envision would take in all areas of the state, not just certain locales. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely one hundred and ten percent, Representative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, are there any other questions? Chair recognises Representative Stone for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion for Favor Report House Bill 779. The PCS favors the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All in favor please say aye. Opposed say no. The ayes have it. Thank you Representative Torbett. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Our next bill is House Bill 671, the Mills River de-annexation. I understand it's going to be presented by Representative Ramsey. And this has a PCS which we will accept on Representative Collins' reccomendation or motion. All in favor say aye. We have that before us. Representative Ramsey. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm here on behalf of Representative McGrady. I'm a poor excuse and substitute for him. This is located in Henderson County. This bill will de-annex twelve homesites from the town of Mills River that were erroneously in the town when the town incorporated in 2003. There were some attempts to try to work through this and provide fire protection services. That has been determined to be laborious. And so the town supports this. The county supports this. There's a ninety day period to allow the town to take over the planning jurisdiction for these twelve homesites. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Cleveland, you're recognised. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, do we have any questions for Representative Ramsey on this bill? Seeing none, Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Favor report for the proposed committee substitute for House Bill 671 unfavorable to the original, and there's no report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All in favor please say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, this bill would need to go to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. Well then we'll just modify that to a refferral to finance. All in favor please say aye. Those opposed say no. And we are on our way to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Our next bill will be House Bill 133. It does have a refferral to finance. It's going to be presented by Representative Bell. We did that at the beginning. Representative Fisher, I guess the Chair's not staying awake. We're going to House Bill 857, which has a PCS, and you're going to present that? You want the PCS. I'm sorry. Yes. I'm sorry. I'm looking for Representative Arp.

As if there is a good 219 percent and London’s motion for two to the PCs folder say I am writing your energy represent more idea of making the minimum be out. This is any of unfortunately this is not a simple meal is extremely complicated deal of money goes possible for the basically what this bill does is allow additional contract demands with a cure may call by infrastructure of additional one of the methods that can be used by the job contacting the government is like a safer for Bona fide most of them sponsors a virgin Moffett Brian the invader , this is a consensus bill , we worked with over 39 different agencies of these are all the people they came together the U.S. will ,(SPEAKER CHANGES) just when the AMA we want to see if they represent that even some board of length of the PC is so strong is a list of others to take the cake for attention to use ensure a way of the column said into them continue too well say if this is a of a consensus bill, is a very delicately balanced compromise deal, we work with people from leaving his colleagues no prosecution of county commissioners no one cheaper bombers Carolina State to see the of subcontractors the Carolinas by general contractors of the association North Carolina ?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) the chemical sufficient via Carolina Sacramental firefighters used to form an army economic development the architects and engineers USC general administration department administration states park in office, state troopers on the Elmo dolls call to the appeal was sent to the end, we did was to work through the com a bill to address each different concerns of some four what this bill does is that you allow the use all be done deal you too can pay the bills this will not develop a number of for implementing this Sunday open and public, partnerships when I refer to http three by five bill in the three call from corn chips into bills on relaford implementing these of contract demands statewide they got maintains a public trust by doing so in the open and transparent and ethical way you to get rid of a problem all deals that they could be , how to make sure that the reinvest all possible feedback are some of these things , and of the bill is displayed Alps, Ian, and a couple of different ways are basically under 143 , one 28th we had previously on bond, tracking methods the sands of three more , he has to sign deals he has designed Bilbray seen contracts which is set as a country where you to 45% by this may be an arrest, and then allows public, partnerships with Susan which is a the public and private the contract together in leveraging out what, seconded by doing about the contract on -goal lead line by line to only two are just the chairman's would open a store that that will tell you it's a very delicately balanced the negotiation owners insist that your vision or bridges and reviewing us your question of formation of the party, which turned a few provisions seven years saw a Christian era, had five HP spokeswoman complement of four until fire an employee for wood currently, the question of when I look upon the public, cornish it's a small issue we clarify the taxpayer the nominal from this money ??.....

Who will complete a square foot in the hope that said Stephen to attention that's a possibility for this bill 1000 came to the committee without a referral we will ensure referral appropriations what that's what this bill does is under the auspices of the public from the corn chips on the deal allows of the keys to work together for instance, to be made on the school as bringing to that end, the firm will help building on the week by the property on and that may be omitted from the what is billed those of not being used on her into the Internet by a neck and back and take it from all those bonds. Those like we live in their oversight by the local governments to help the city and review of crew of $3.00 a week only 104 01 11. Nature of your could be on the ball is not for a war on the bulk of the most deadly one of the gamble or phone from on high.(SPEAKER CHANGES) A key role of the four of its fingers and worked as a college education two, I want to command the presented by the consists of four different when I first saw NARINF pact is signed DL this point because I felt like you that we could not have as they make, policy approximately can you help get you and miss Texas and this does that work comes to find the college, believe that the C back to one line that make you think of that, I have the community go, for all I can find into the gives me a chance to do we get into that, I thank you for working with people to lie to get five thank you for this event of a commission Chairman Alice listening two of the Jayhawks comments about the funniest and did where the kernel one million ghosts and money from the state treasurer's office will be one ?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) Bill Majors go to the anybody from this is week in which a kind of like a charm and employers so for the committee this is our minds as Palma, I get the state treasurer of concerning this deal we have are no concerns about the odds on bill provisions that is purely a term impact on the threes battle of day or the Caribbean with a Ross only method of financing these projects , and we do have concerns matador we believe is forced local governments can I get the bill also placed on jobs package after 159 for many years and had eight of those vibrations from two local government commission we believe are on a crusade dollars a year, but with acquiring the state of Florida for ability committee has expressed concerns that the individual of ability to state agencies to go out and not. Obligations on the tax dollars are in addition there is currently legislation being considered by Lucinda 129 that limits the Loudoun nonvoting gets you can have the concert stage again will be authorized and these arrangements that state agencies women are into god is one that gets on some we are we're asking are recommending, and it's lost state government goes back and study deal betray the term of five controls are needed to be a place on his voice to differ by glaciers and this is a group called Sunday, as far as the bible agents and state agencies. (SPEAKER CHANGES) Two refunds on deal with envelopes. If it's only at four study five come up with a opera freeway to control the ability of state agencies to commit state college in the spring and we have spoken with speak about the Switzerland reshaped by the U.S. retailers hearing us and we all enjoy working with the oldest man to serve the different question for a question for the state -called several questions of bill Foster is it even after the end of this law that is??.........

creates another method for the state or state agencies to go into further debt without any further referendum. I'd like to know whether that's accurate or not. [speaker changes] Yeah. What we've tried to do is address those concerns. We started off addressing the contracting methods not the public financing piece of it although it does touch on that. What we've tried to do, because I share - absolutely share those concerns. This is not my intention to create off book debt. No Enron deals or anything like that that we don't have. The thing that we're trying to do is under section K. What we've done is captured capital leases as well as operating leases if they are extended out for long period of times and all of that. We've made those subject to approval of the LGC as it relates to the local governments. As it relates to the various state agencies and say UNC government, school, something like that. This is not a camel under the nose. I don't even know what that means, but's not that. What we're trying to do is, we've put in here that all other capital leases will capture the local by going to the LGC. We feel like we've got that piece. All the other capital leases and operating leases entered into which would be agencies, are subject to the approval of the treasurer and so that there is some review. I think by very definition, any operating lease is approved through the appropriation process and it would be captured there. The concern is that if you enter into the contract prior to the appropriations, what we're trying to do is still address that in the mechanism that we have without creating another level of bureaucracy was make it subject to the approval of the treasurer. So, what I would humbly ask is that this is an attempt to deal with the contracting piece. The financing side needs to be addressed separately and in 159 and I am in total agreement with a debt affordability piece but I didn't want to bring that into the contracting side and so, we've tried to address that and I'm very sensitive to that but-- [speaker changes] Representative Arp [speaker changes] I think that the staff would like to weigh in on the answer for Representative Collins. [speaker changes] This is my hero here ?? [speaker changes] Well, let's let her talk [speaker changes] Representative Arp, does it state correctly that the public private partnership piece of this bill which begins, I believe on page 6, does actually allow for the potential for non-voted debt to be issued by the state or a county or a city or any other unit of local government. However, if you go to page 11, lines 43-49, that is language Representative Arp, was referencing, with respect, to the treasurers office would review any capital or operating leases issued or entered into by any agency that's not subject to the LGC. The LGC would actually review and approve any capital or operating leases where they have jurisdiction. [speaker changes] Just brief follow up. What I'm hearing then is that's a possibility but for a local ?? the LGC has veto power and for other projects, the state treasurer has veto power. Is that correct? [speaker changes] Staff? [speaker changes] Correct. [speaker changes] Representative Cleveland. [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'd like to direct this to Mr. ??, the Treasurer's office. [speaker changes] sure. Sir, if you wouldn't mind. There we go. [speaker changes] With the approval of the treasurer for this debt, you still feel that is not sufficient to control HNC's as far as their contracting and spending for construction is? [speaker changes] Well, sir, we are - we do appreciate the attempt to address it with that inclusion. We certainly do appreciate that but we're not sure that in every case, it's appropriate for the state treasurer to be the one to consider this. In some cases, it may be appropriate for it to go before council of state. In other cases, potentially committees or the general assembly itself. The state treasurer is chairman of the ?? advisory committee, however, and again that will be preferable to no controls. However, there could well be agreements of this nature entered into that will have no impact on the state's debt capacity. We'd like to have some type of bill , study bill to distinguish out what type of agreements need some type of approval and who would be the most appropriate body--

To do have a full load it simply say all be automatically come under state treasurer of the game we've got saying never do this with saying let's look at let's let's do it by the way (SPEAKER CHANGES) we're short men like contract to be approved by the white people that Gramm engines chairman question for the bill's sponsor , but they have no concerns about flying simply stand and when Mr. Holliman was talking about a study deal that's in the works right mail or with a look at L, various agencies fund ms from the party and the general assembly as a rule serious problem is that we are the buck stops about fully we are the ones that that they have to deal with the budget and a friend and some of these leases and financing agreements stretching the decades and national concern fast as we did these projects um NESLIF N's by what I just have to come, I would do that but my understanding from research Wiesel from stamp was that the treasurer candidate and back again Sam Atwood this column says like accepted to read you a or may not be the treasury too many other entities MM disk and peace, peace, to swim with a lighter sentence is that the whole, leases and operating leases year to 200 this section shall be subject to the approval of treasure hold how much stronger hi honey absolutely sheer women receive star one and one from DOS balance delicately the politicians accidents will we likes of bill will be relied upon partnership more to go 2911 is all this is not an account to recall when he won just two as a contract of the study deal because it makes references to 159 back to the witness said early eighties the rest of the wide way on walls or on in quick they called please come from the history of presenting them in the deal to take back Lawrence Steele the design deal out of bed and ms investors that the system is the news media before a Home Network for its members a chance to buy this is a good preparation for years to me that he represented Floyd this chair: (SPEAKER CHANGES) you can thank you represent Cleveland -Chairman of common by I have I was all for this simply get into the discussion in my town of both the amount of all for it because we had problems in the state would get in a world without any or all continue this problem on one hole to me to have a problem agencies creating debt and we saw no blood after the fact still, even with a treasured" having via our penalty gas station are really go to states can slip through the cracks in context it's on and worst of 59, released a distinction of the very extremely very close call can and then I just don't worry more about this column's was just a compromise on the disability effectively blocks in the first this year expires July 1, 2009 things are really like the fact that would have to be renewed I was wondering if the bill's sponsor would go agree to a one year delay of October 1, '24 thing that would give the stomach of study committee together study me all sleeves and come back with Webber legislation we feel like it's necessary to fix the law financing arm and we have forgotten its the gators: from like the idea of receiving an absolute sheer your of the storms in the thing on regarding how to get this is not its meeting what life is trusted use we have one else is on the legislation calling one of the dolls your ones for what this is fun to use her behalf of all and end up in uniform method surrounding our state, contract awards from you have any and all the ethical and three are wise ??..............

This, we put a sunset clause in there specifically for, so that you could see how this is going, and it automatically implodes if it's not going well. What I will do is, I will pull the bill today, and try to work out the language, and... [SPEAKER CHANGES] That would be fine, Representative Arben, the Chair thinks you're making a good decision, and we'll go ahead and displace the bill and move on to Representative Waddell and House bill 526, the De-annexation -- or, excuse me, Voluntary Annexation. It's 526, it's the last bill on your agenda there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Committee, I feel like Representative Rodney Moore there, put in time out. Also feel sometimes like a red-headed step-child. This bill is a local bill, and it's a request from Chadbourn, which I'm a resident of, to do a Voluntary... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] A question of the bill's sponsor, please. Do you know of any opposition to this bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At the appropriate time, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Floyd. Representative Collins? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was going to say that, but I'd just like to go on record publicly as saying that I am enthralled to be able to offer my support and vote for a voluntary annexation, which is exactly the way we should be doing these things. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I'll give what... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd, you're recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Move for a favorable report, Mr. Chair. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Refer to finance? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have a motion on the floor for a favorable report for House bill 526 with a referral to finance. All in favor, say aye, opposed say no, thank you. And now we're going to move to House bill 527, High Point MPO, Representative Dockham will present his bill. And there is a PCS that Representative Brody suggests that we, or makes a motion that we accept the PCS. All in favor say aye, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, there is a state-wide bill moving through the General Assembly, but my folks back home asked me to introduce this House bill 527. The PCS would just eliminate the need for members of the High Point urban area MPO to comply with the state government Ethics Act, and we appreciate your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Pippen? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ... for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I see, we'll note that, sir. Representative Floyd, you're recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. You may present the amendment, if you're ready. Members, do you have the copy of the amendment before you? All right. Representative Floyd, would you like to explain your amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, it's very simple to add the Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization to this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dockham, do you want to address the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have no opposition to the amendment if Representative Floyd would like to do that. That'd be fine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Burr, you look confused. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Didn't we just vote a week or two ago to expand the State Ethics Act to even more folks, and now we're gonna come back and pull out... [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe we expanded that to counties and other state entities, yes, I believe we did. Question, Representative Cleveland? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have the same concern that Representative Burr has. We're opening the door. My understanding is at this point, that these forms are being filled out, and they're being sent in to the state ethics folks, and they're basically laying there. My concern is Representative Dockham has his metropolitan area out, Representative Floyd put his on there, when it goes to the floor, where the ?? goes to the floor from here, more folks are going to want to do it, and we're opening a door to something we possibly don't want to do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, what we'll do is, let's talk to the amendment first, and then we'll come back to the bill. The motion before us -- or the, excuse me, the amendment before us from Representative Floyd, you've all seen that, all in favor signify by saying aye, those opposed say no, the amendment fails. Now we're back on the bill, Representative Collins, you're recognized.

[Speaker changes.]...and now we don't recognize you anymore.(Laughter.) Ok...do we have any other questions or comments on the bill? Representative Floyd? [Speaker changes.] Mister Chair? [Speaker changes.] Yes, sir. [Speaker changes.] In the ethnic committee, mentioned that these bills are gonna be sent forward to their forums???????. At present, my understanding is they don't have the staff...and they just. As Representative Cleveland mentioned, it's just goin' to be layin' there ...so by adding them to this process, the forms still would not be viewed because they been talkin...and this...one of the presenters mentioned that there are so many that they doubt very seriously that they may not get to. [Speaker changes.] Any other...Representative Wilkins, how are you? You're recognized. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, sir. Mister Chair, I think we just got the cart in front of the horse by voting on Representative Floyd's amendment before we really had a chance to ask a coupla' questions of Representative Dockham. With that being said, I would like to hear what the genesis of his bill is. [Speaker changes.] Well, we shall ask him. Representative Dockham, would you like to respond? [Speaker changes.] Yes, sir...I will briefly and then I'd like to ask Eric Churchill?????? to expand but ...I was asked to introduce this bill by my folks back home, actually specifically the Mayor of Denton. That way, the town clerks...people that work in the office would not be subject to the same ethics training and laws that we are here at the General Assembly. Unless we exempt them...your folks would have to do that and my folks would too. As I said, there's a statewide bill coming through the General Assembly, working its way. They asked me to do this just in case that bill did not make it through the General Assembly and, Mister Chairman, if Ms. Churchill could expand on that I'd appreciate it very much. [Speaker changes.] We will ask her. Would you like to expand on that? [Speaker changes.] I will try, in the thirty second version of this. Back in 2012, the General Assembly, as part of the budget, brought all members of metropolitan planning organizations and rural transportation planning organizations on the State Government Ethics Act. There's a large group of people...the State Ethics Commission was asked to interpret the provision to determine exactly who it applied to because each rural transportation planning organization and each metropolitan planning organization has two separate groups of individuals serving on it. One group is staff of the local government and one group is elected officials of the local government. The State Ethics Commission determined that the provision and the budget apply to both the staff of the local government and to the elected officials of the local government that were serving on the MPO's and RPO's. With that, everybody that was covered had to comply with the State Government Ethics Act as if they were a public servant, which means they had to file a statement of economic interest. The State Ethics Commission has to review that statement of economic interest and provide them with information as to where their potential conflicts of interest are. They have to attend ethics training that is slightly different than yours here at the General Assembly but probably takes just as much time if not more. They also have conflict of interest provisions in use of their position...provisions that they have to comply with. The bill would simply remove the high point metropolitan planning organization from that ??????? [Speaker changes.] Representative Fisher? [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Chairman. I'm...I'm sort of hesitant to support this and I guess, I know that it's a lot of work, I know that it takes us a lot of time to...you know...fill out forms and do our annual statements of economic interest but what I'm wondering is do each of these MPO's...RPO's have their own set of ethics standards that they follow? And I guess that's a question for either staff or the bill's sponsor. [Speaker changes.] Staff, would you like to respond to that? [Speaker changes.] I'll attempt. The MPO's and the RPO's members, as local public officials, are subject to a set of criminal statutes that apply to them in terms of contracting and using or disclosing public information and bribery. They definitely are subject to that. Each of the counties and cities that would be appointing members to an MPO or an RPO are required to have their own code of ethics, each of these individuals would be subject to that code of ethics. As the budget provision came into effect, each of these individuals is now, in addition, subject to....

provisions of the State Government Ethics Act as a public servant. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Pittman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I hate that Carl Ford's gone because he could have addressed this better than I can, but what she was just saying, I believe, is important in this issue. And I think that there may, we may be seeing a lot of this come back saying we already have standards and we shouldn't be subject to this state ethics too. I think you're going to see a lot of that, so to me this is kind of getting the ball rolling, so I still want to make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, do we have any other questions for the bill's sponsor or for staff? Representative Stone, I'm sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. From my understanding, we have a bill coming through that's gonna address this statewide, and I'm just wondering if the bill sponsor would be in holding off to see what the bill's going to do statewide so we don't have a mad rush of all this coming. I respect your decision either way, but I'm just. If we're going to do it statewide, I'd like to know more of what's going to be in the bill, so we don't have to come back and do all this work again. Just something to consider. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone, my folks back home asked me to introduce this bill in case the statewide bill did not make it through the house. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, do we have any other questions? Representative Elmore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll speak quickly. I agree with the concerns that you have dealing with the ethics regulation. A lot of times it is very frustrating with what we're doing in that realm. But at the same time, it looks to me like this is picking winners and losers on this issue. Some don't have to. These don't have to, according to what your regs are. You gotta have a consistent policy. If we're going that way, everybody's got to be under the umbrella, or we look at the umbrella, getting rid of it. That's my concern with the issue with the bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Elmore. Representative Pittman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Chairman. I move favorable report on the PCS for House Bill 527 unfavorable to the original. I don't see a referral here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't see one either. All in favor of a favorable report to the PCS unfavorable to the original signify by saying aye. All those opposed say no. The nos have it. Representative Dockham, thank you. Ladies and gentlemen please remain seated. I think Representative Brody can get us in and out of here in record time with House Bill 421. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is a de-annexation bill from the town of Marshville. It's supported by a resolution from the town. It [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Members, do we have any questions for the bill's sponsor? Seeing none, Representative Cleveland, you are recognized for motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A favorable report on House Bill 421 and referral to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All in favor say aye. Thank you. We are adjourned.