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 | April 30, 2013 | Committee Room | House Finance

Full MP3 Audio File

If the policy you're a month later started our sister, sister sales of Mr. Brennan Mr. Clinton and our pages and a rather nasty Alex Abernathy Jessica command (SPEAKER CHANGES) and Christian Campbell thank you all for being here at this time members we will have the PCs for house bill 327 percent pay cut loose and other PCs to force recession other side of the cult of the security the fact that page B CNN's Dennis said the committee ERLCL 327 the PCs this is basically a clean out BL a RL and quickly go to the changes six MB LUEAFPC 5 R and CD to the North Carolina firefighters and rescue squad workers PCM A's L essentially references to making JRE Charles Avery PL 79 E. Ullman La king statutes and creates AP defamation section that non ms is to search for the seventies by ARSFB 777 MSN come from SMISLF nations IBM to five their trash IE Administration of the five third IJGC from governmental structure eliminates the current award for the North Carolina 55 SMS these 55 workers into five transfers CNN's Tracy and five and strength responsibilities to the board of trustees of the local government retirement system am a third are NMS are ERL is created NRG Sara from the army ATVR annual report to that level, the main five MHMS system board of trustees AMISTJGCSNSID 5 changes in technical corrections are the wording changes simply make things flying are more evenly MSN nine just as importantly SCL felony forfeitures that week SISC air from SMS into their tumor VNFIS in this case (SPEAKER CHANGES) workers two and are convicted of felony related to their service from the two spending NFPG 5 SMN La NFC questions ? They're everywhere for motion crop to further questions from the committee for their spot, they missed 79 move for a favorable live from PCs house bill 327 Federal two regional militia and muscle for any further discussion is no longer say out of all those wishing caretakers of our members move on now to the top of the counter house bill 200% of the overall it and then refresh my sources house bill 798 has been of remove from today's calendar is the bottom line is chairman and members of a committee, Representative Cass in the ninth floor cosponsoring a bipartisan bill which was cheered by an equally bipartisan bill in the senate and is supported by 100% of the Mecklenburg County commissioners of both parties so this is a really rare thing you're actually is cool operation to 23 different levels of government and both parties to do with the best situation corrected for the people of the season May Allah comes from us and we see is today all, the fact that from the especially what happened was on through several problems and staffing and execution the property revaluation Mecklenburg County in 2011 is severely out of compliance with state law and women's central fairness for the people and this legislation was designed to overcome constitutional problems that could result if you attempted to treat one class of taxpayers specially marked special by creating an opportunity for counties to redo their property tax revaluations there are several conditions that have to be met for this authorization become the enemy was basically allow them to hire outside staff to go back and reset to where they would then have a dumb things correctly in 2011 of its ??...

has the potential to apply to 75 counties in North Carolina, but it only applies to one, that's Mecklinburg. We have a fiscal analysis memorandum which shows all zeroes on the impact on the state. And what would happen is with properly staffed revaluation done in accordance with the machinery act, would correct property revaluations. Those that have been over assessed would receive refunds for the excess paid with interest at 5% per annum. Those that had been undervalued and will have additional tax liability would be billed for that, it would go back to 2011 but since they did not do that, they will not be charged interest but essentially would get a interest free loan. It would also allow them to reset the values. But just some of the problems that Mecklinburg county discovered, they had 8 professional staff to revalue the largest county in the state, it turned out Pender county also had a professional staff, but Pender county was doing a 4 year evaluation, Mecklinburg was doing an 8 year. Their base table of value had turned out to be flawed in that they had not actually viewed any of the properties in the county for 17 years. So, normally you would do a windshield check with the property card on every property, and this hadn't been done, so the obvious ridiculous revaluations were not caught. There were problems with the way appeals were noticed, with the way appeals were handled and processed, and quite candidly if everybody that was trying to appeal to Raleigh had to come to Raleigh to get their valuations straightened, we would fill up the property review commission for the next 5 years with appeals from Mecklinburg county only. This is I think our third dip in committee, and at this point it goes to the floor. There's no known opposition, at least known to us. We'd be willing to accept any question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Starnes. Rep. Starnes, you asked to speak? Excuse me, Rep. Stone. Pardon me Rep. Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good morning. I'm always glad to help. It happens early in the morning. I'd at the proper time like to make a motion favorable please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Rep. Jones? Rep. Stone, it's the proper time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good morning Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion favorable for House bill 200. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion from the committee? If not, all in favor say "aye"? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed? Motion carried. Thank you Rep. Brawley. Rep. Cotham. At this time, we will have House bill 484, permitting of wind energy facilities. We have a PCS, Rep. Holley moves to have the PCS before us for discussion. All in favor say "aye"? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed? Motion carried. Rep. Bell, please present your bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you members of the committee. I've looked around the room and many of you had seen this bill at least once or twice, House bill 484, on permitting wind energy facilities would establish a permitting process for the citing and operation of wind energy facilities in the state of North Carolina. This problem became clear in 2012 when out of state developers sought FAA approval to build a large scale wind energy facility called the Pantego project in Beaufort County. Which included 5500 foot wind turbines located directly in Seymour Johnson Air Force Base's low level primary training route, essentially the dairy county bombing range. I have a quick map I'll show you, if you look the yellow is a low level flying route, the blue would be proposed wind farm encroachment, and as of right now the state does not have an effective permitting process which would protect our military bases, our low level flying routes from these facilities. House bill 484 provides a preliminary scoping and permitting process for deener, deener's Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources would work with North Carolina Military bases to determine where the wind energy development would conflict with military training routes and operations, and then permit the development of wind energy facilities that would not adversely impact our military training operations. Just so you know, the military is roughly about a $26 billion economic impact here in the state of North Carolina, and we have defense related contracts in 80 of our 100 counties. So it's a major issue representing the second largest economic impact in our state only next to agriculture. On the legislation before you, in the PCS as a result from all parties, it develops a permitting process to protect our military and environmental concerns as comfort to the

Energy investors and assures that the state has the final say so in the decision process. Also in front of you, you will see two hand outs. On one, is from the Governor's Military Affairs Director, John Nicholson, on behalf of the North Carolina Commander's Council in support of this bill. The other, you will see a number of elected officials, county commissioners, city councils, chamber of commerce, and businesses that are in favor of establishing a permitting process to protect the interests especially in Eastern North Carolina. This bill has passed the environmental committee and public utility with favorable reports. We are in finance today because of the one time permitting fee of 3,500 dollars, which at this time, no parties involved have expressed any concern to me and we ask a favorable report. Thank you Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Chairman: Thank you. Representative Hager. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Hager: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is the third time I've heard the bill and I think we know it very well, so I move for a favorable in the PCS and an unfavorable to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Chairman: Third's a charm. Any further questions from the committee? Representative Tine. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Tine: I want to thank the bill sponsor for all the work in making some changes to make sure this is a predictable process for the companies that are looking to put projects into Eastern North Carolina. And both of the projects that you've talked about are in my district, so I just want to make sure that the Department of Defense has a sighting clearing house that seeks to make sure that these projects are not going to be a problem with their flight patterns. And my question is, that's part of the process, what are the additional pieces when you go through the state? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Actually, the Department cannot say yea or nay to a permitting process, to the process at all. What we've found out during this process, and for those of you who don't know, this has actually been a year long process. What we've found is that the Department of Defense can only say yes or no if there is a risk to homeland security. So just having a wind farm in the area, for example, Seymour Johnson, just having a wind farm in the area may not be a risk to homeland security but it could be detrimental to the training routes of Seymour Johnson, which may cause us to lose Seymour Johnson. What we've established as a permitting process with Deaner which would actually go through a step by step process which would ensure that all the military concerns are put out, all the environmental concerns are put out, so that way everybody can coexist together without interfering and without us losing our basis and counties not losing the wind industry in their area. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Chairman: Thank you. Representative Stone. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Stone: Good morning. Thank you. For the bill sponsor I have a question on the 3,500 dollar fees. Could you elaborate a little more of what the fees all incur? Is that a detailed study, or just a standard fee for department? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Chairman: Representative Bell. [inaudible] Would the representative from Dinger please approach the mic. State your name for the record. The bill sponsor states that you can explain the detail of that question about the purpose of the fee. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Brad Ives, I am the Assistant Secretary for National Resources. With response to your question Mr. Representative, the fee covers our cost of notifications to the military. We have a public hearing requirement, so the costs associated with a public hearing, and also staff time. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Follow up, how does that correlate with the local fees if you had a local municipality or government that had fees as well? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: It would be like any other construction process. If there are local fees, those fees would be separate, but not every county would have construction fees other than permitting or related fees. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you. Any further questions from the committee? If not, you've heard the motion for Representative Hager, all in favor say aye. All opposed. Motion carried. Thank you, Representative Bell. Committee members we will now hear the PCS for House Bill 708. Representative Moffitt, Representative Warren moves to have the PCS forced for discussion purposes. All in favor, say aye. Motion carried. Representative Moffitt. [inaudible] [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, members. Before I do discuss this particular bill with you, I have a technical amendment that I need to bring forward. Essentially on line 36, section 5 states that this act is effective when the bill becomes law. This is actually a resolution, so we're changing the word act.

To resolution. Do the members require copies? Okay, good. Well, thank you. With that Mr. Chair I would ask that the members support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further questions? Representative Collins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Move we accept the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You heard the motion from Representative Collins to adopt the amendment for house bill resolution 708, any further questions? If not all in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed? Motion carries, thank you. Representative Moffett. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A question on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Members as you probably noticed the past couple of years I've taken an interest in water and sewer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Passing interest. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But this particular bill is related to public enterprises and the way public enterprises are managed by our cities and our counties. One of the things that I was trying to get to with the filing of the original bill was treating the public enterprises as truly a separate entity financially from the cities and counties that oversee them and protect the integrity of the rate payer dollars that flow into these enterprises so that those enterprise dollars can go toward supporting the infrastructure whether its repair and maintenance. A lot of times the extension of these systems are already factored into the rate when those things are necessary, but one of the things that I've discovered is that a number of public enterprises are funding their CIPs buy floating revenue bonds, are at the same time diverting rate payer dollars from the public enterprise into the city or county to subsidize the operating costs in the cities and counties. And I feel that that - I question the appropriateness of that. So in filing the first bill 708 the sponsors and I wanted to get a sense of what the feedback would be from the public enterprise entities that are managed by cities and counties. And some interesting stories came forward. There's a public enterprise in the state that currently diverts $9 million dollars a year away from the enterprise to the city that oversees it. Well the problem that you have with this type of subsidy is the fact that these enterprises are multi-jurisdictional. They serve people outside of these cities and outside of these counties so what you basically have is rate payers through the cost of their water or their sewer or in some cases electricity are subsidizing the operations of a municipality or a county that is charged with oversight responsibilities for this public enterprise.So other stories have been brought to the surface based on the original filing and we've decided that we need to turn this particular bill into an LRC study and that's what the PCS does and I'll be prepared to answer any questions Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, at the appropriate time Mr. Chair I'd like to make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Hager. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair, to the bill's sponsor. Representative Moffett would this include the eastern municipalities distribution systems also? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It would. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Representative Moffett just I think you said you it but I apologize for not catching it. The reason to turn it into a study as opposed to running it as a bill at this point is? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To keep it alive. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Ross. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I might need to follow up with a question. That's an interesting answer from representative Ross and I'd be interested in your opinion sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you representative Luebke, quite honestly i want to be thoughtful in everything that I craft in this body while I have the honor or serving here, and the information that I have gained since the original bill filing really demonstrates that this is a much more broader, more in depth issue that's going to take some time to investigate and decide what's the best path forward. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Well, I thought the original bill was a good deal and my guess is after a years worth of study you will hear of people who are for it and against it and it will probably come back in about the same form that it is, but we'll - but my question was, under the statutes or the way this is written, what would be the penalty for a...?

Municipality if they did convert to money. I mean it’s sort of silent on that. These towns, they make their own budgets, and they can shift the money around. I think in the study you ought to consider that there should be some penalty, if there is a way to penalize a self-regulating entity. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ll make a note of that. Thank you Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, first of all, to answer Representative Starnes’ question. There’s a wonderful bill passed judiciary ?? taxpayer standing bill, and we could expand it to rate payers. My question. In your opinion, should a city or county that operates an enterprise fund be able to reimburse itself for prior investments made, like thirty years earlier, or are these costs to be reimbursed only current costs? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I guess it really depends on what’s involved in the original costs. Were taxpayer dollars involved or was it strictly funded by enterprise funds? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh I don’t know. Take Apex for example, I think we started our electric system in the 1920s. I don’t think Apex does any transfers. I don’t think. But suppose somebody wanted to do it, does your bill contemplate that they could go back and have an actual true up at some point, or is it not? Just be thinking about that when you have your study, I think that’s a significant question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. Thank you Representative Starns. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further questions from the committee? Representative Stone. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, good morning and I tell ya just briefly I think this is a great bill and I look forward to helping you any way I can. I give you a favorable report for House Bill 708. Roll. PCS roll into ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Stone. Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Comment on the bill. I would like to thank Representative Moffitt for bringing it to a committee substitute. First reading the bill sounded good, but as you dig into the details of it, it covers a lot of things in our areas, back in our districts, that you aren’t going to hear a lot about when you get back home. That’s going to be an interesting study. Thank you for taking it to the study committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Brawley. Any further questions or comments from the committee? If not, you’ve heard the motion from Representative Stone, all in favor say aye, all opposed, motion carried. Thank you Representative Moffitt. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair, Representative Ross, and members of the committee [SPEAKER CHANGES] At this time we will hear the PCS for House Bill 234. Representative Mills. At this time, Representative Davis moves to have the proposed committee substitute for House Bill 234 before us for discussion. All in favor say aye, all opposed, motion carried. Representative Mills. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. The bill that you have before you today, for those who were in the previous committees on this bill, the reason why we have a PCS before us is that, while we were thinking it, we were actually doing a technical correction to a past piece of legislation last session, we actually realized there needs to be some further cleaning to the actual session law so therefore, we did some further cleaning, and this is why you have the PCS before you. And what it’s aiming to do is clarify the Pender County ABC laws, and as you see there, from lines 13 to lines 16, that we actually have to do some modifications. And just to give you a little bit of history, is that my Pender sister, Representative Carolyn Justice, last session, modified these ABC laws in order to close down a required store that was losing money, year after year, and decade after decade, and upon doing that, there were some issues, and staff can speak to this if you won’t have any questions, between different session laws, in regard to the distribution of profits to law enforcement. We’re actually, from the understanding of the ABC Board in Pender County, we’re actually going back to what it used to say, before last session’s bill. If there’s any further questions, I’ll be happy to answer that through the direction of the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Questions, comments from the committee. Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, I had a question for staff, Mr. ?? I guess my question is, how typical is this to distribute…

The funds to law enforcement i just don't know what the dermal agreement is for example, or the wake or. Mr sanders do you deal with this. Were trying to find the staff person that deals with this. Thank you sir. I'm sorry, I'm not sure how many other counties have distribution on the required 5 percent. This has been in effect since 1973. Quick follow up, follow up. Would this necessarily go to the sheriffs office. Because its a county action. Its going to go somewhere else I believe this does go to the sheriffs office. ABC boards can have there own law enforcement, or they can contract out i believe in pander county it goes to the sheriffs office. Representative stores. Ant further questions or comments from the committee. Representative colleens i would like to make a motion at the appropriate time move for a committee report for a substitute to bill 234 in favor to the original members of the committee you heard the motion all in favor say i all opposed motion carried thank you all for your patients its been a pleasure this meeting is now adjourned.