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 | March 14, 2013 | Committee Room | Government

Full MP3 Audio File

The league that they stole the word as cool spectators and members two of quieter cell phones are Electronic Devices ?? are welcome you all during the sites they ?? this morning step is represented by a Miss Erika Churchill downs. Sherri be honored and Kelly quick are certain parts of their young back nine originally car were Ellen Barrymore our web page is could you stand please and women back all Serbian lady and the backbone on my left if you just on Set back your name and to Europe are sponsoring representative for us human and there's client is all of our representatives that was a Alexander burden from the bears trying sponsored by Representative Ben and church for Franklin County sponsored by Representative Robert Raley and selling Tennessee from the Pierce County sponsored by representative and thank you for being here today and without her first bill on the agenda Davis some house bill 193 represents a listener you Baker said he is chairman of the committee (SPEAKER CHANGES) and 10 other sponsors among the sponsors is a member of your containers in a religion in prison in her own words in Brawley represented i.e., we're all proud member delegation and we came together a bipartisan manner to bring this helps the idol of the background check and verify the Carolina panthers I came to the Charlotte area pocket around 1996 by the national tree and they did not seek a lot of public money are the only public resources again where Michael and the stadium 60 Anderson County you infrastructure tycoon prevents the state and county name for stars ( like a national trend and income and sang to the community had were bringing the spring sat we want you to spend hundreds of millions of public dollars on it was all privately funded accounting change to be at 9:00 AM a wonderful economic impact of the community with what they promise to convert Quintero poring over $636,000,000 in annual economic impact to the Charlotte region in the state of North Carolina over 361,000,000 of that is correct and I know, these economic impact study at some point scale you're calling from the pain and well. They left the game are being on everything and economic impact that their direct economic impact is over $360,000,000 annually so, Don change money from the NFL's team play but Mr. Richardson 1976 years all he's now are transplants are not there and he's looking at what happened when he's no longer here according to the rules of the he is required for is required to transfer ownership of the with 932 years and is the same regardless of what we would like to years after his death with a 76 are on the car trains plant a tree. Well transfer ownership of the trains out right now the pain that are very attractive target two armies, greeted like to have an LP to the community , that's because there is no public and Pakistan has not had their holding the Tree the Carolina's area because they can get a lot of public impact sell what the city gate was winning realize that this was happening, and Parnell said was initiated whenever some other troubling dignitaries from umpire California became the county work actively courting RT any gain realized that this wonderful and between humans and 17 conversations with the panthers and decided that the way they wanted to price this would help racially probably stamping their initial approach was a mistake, but they came to us with a years and increased sales tax on preparing food and beverage and they wanted contacted I pay for improvements to the CEO and then they had a number of other things one listening to sports is available facilities and possible smothering prevents nine Encarta reason he did ask as they recognize that the panthers have a substantial economic impact they also recognize bank of England……..

Under the stadium. And that if the panthers leave they still own the land but they don't own the stadium. And they're going to have some sort of investment at some point because that stadium will then either be in an absentee landlord, and they're having to deal with the issue of an absentee landlord, or they'll need to acquire the stadium so they can tear it down and put something else there. And you know, we can agree or disagree whether that was the best idea when it happened, but there's a dollar a year, ninety-nine a year lease on that land, and if the team moves and you've got an empty stadium sitting on your property in your center city, it's going to be an economic drain. Aside from the fact that you've lost the impact of the team there. So they thought that by doing the renovations they'd be able to help create a tether. Part of that too and some of you may have gotten emails about this issue of giving money to the Panthers for a privately owned stadium verses keeping the money in the Charlotte Convention Center which is a publicly owned. The improvements that the city would then pay for will be owned by the city. So if the city decides to pay for the new escalators it's not that they're giving the Panthers this money and letting the Panthers do with it as they wish. They would be actually paying for the installation of those escalators and the city would then own the escalators. A plus to that is the city gains not only the tether, but they also gain an economic interest in the stadium that currently they have no ownership interest in at all. And so it does provide a benefit to the stadium that kind of counters the argument that you may have heard from some on emails that you're giving this money to millionaires, and you know, it's all privately owned. It does create an opportunity for the city to get some kind of ownership in there. So given that, what we looked at was said, realistically, in this economy, this is not the year to do a sale, an increase in taxes. Frankly, Charlotte is currently the beneficiary of more occupancy tax and prepared food tax than any other, all the specialty taxes, than any other municipality in the state. And so, we didn't feel like it was appropriate to increase the tax at this point in time, particularly, too, with tax reform out there. With tax reform we didn't really have any sense of what other ancillary taxes would be would be impacted and this just wasn't the time to do that. So we put our heads together and tried to come up with a solution that would allow the city to invest in the stadium, to get that sort of ownership interest, provide a tether, and to make the team less attractive for people who want to move it out of the Carolinas, and we came up with this option. The city has several existing taxes that go into a convention center. The convention center, depending on how you ask, and some of you might disagree with me, is close to being paid off. Now it's about the same age as the stadium and it's going to need improvements itself. But there is some additional funds that they have there that could be use to finance the improvements, not all of them, but some of the improvements that the Panthers are asking for. So all this bill does, it doesn't increase a tax, it doesn't give money directly to millionaires, all it does it give the city permission, if they so choose, to pay for renovations to a stadium, that they would then own the renovations. And if for some reason they decide, or if the Panthers leave before they do it, that they decide they'd rather use that excess money for amateur sports, we gave them permission to also use it for amateur sports. The reason for that was because the hospitality and tourism industry would also like to see the city start participating in amateur sports and they also wanted an increase in tax, so we thought we'd go to the city and say you have these revenue sources, you know better than we do, what your priorities should be, to spend the money that you already have, so therefore we're going to broaden the uses that you can use the tax money that you are already collecting and you can use it for these things. And that was sort of our solution, some people love it, some people hate it, but we thought it was way better than increasing taxes or doing nothing and really increasing the odds that the Panthers would leave. So that's my explanation, I didn't know if you all wanted to add anything. Mr. Pearum, open for questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chair opens up the conversation for questions. Representative Fisher. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is a question for the bill sponsor. You're broadening permissions for the city, but you're broadening permissions for them to use money that is tax payer money, correct? How do the city residents, or the taxpayers, or the people who have provided this public money weigh in on this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's a good question. Of all of the special revenues that the city has, we looked at the ones that were not voter approved. Because if the voters had approved.

certain use in a certain way we were not going to touch it. There were these three that were not voter approved that were already designated for hospitality tourism types of issues. So we felt like they were logically consistent and mission consistent with the current use that they already have. The City Council that stands for reelection this coming fall is in support. It's not their preference but they have not asked us to rescind it, so in that sense they're support of it. I will say personally you all can speak otherwise, I've not gotten one contact from a constituent that did not, no I take it back, I got one yesterday. But up until then I had not gotten one contact from a constituent that did not think this was an excellent idea. So while there are a number who would prefer more I have not had any contact from anyone who said to provide less. I don't, if y'all want to comment on what you're hearing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK thank you. Representive Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chairman first of all Representative Samuelson I've gotten lots and lots of emails now to be sure they're all the same they're from one group. But anyway I've gotten lots, 15, so they're opposed to it, to what you're trying to do with the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll comment on that. They sent them apparently to committee members. I finally got one of them forwarded to me and that's the one I got yesterday. Apparently they were forwarded to committee members. In some cases they seem to think there was state money involved, which it's not. And their other issue was the idea of taking money from the publicly owned convention center to the privately owned stadium which is why I wanted to make sure people understood that the city will still own those improvements in the stadium. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well that was really just in response to what you said of Representative Fisher. I have a number of concerns about the bill. And I guess first of all the question is I see it on the bill summary but just does everybody is it not true that because of the NASCAR two cents that Speaker Black asked us to approve that we pay 8% occupancy tax in Mecklenburg rather than 6 at most everywhere else? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Correct which is another reason why we did not want to increase their taxes. That's why I said they're the beneficicary of more special taxes than any other municipality. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And ?? tax is 1%? OK. Well I'm. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Followup? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, I'm sorry. I guess I'm concerned about the fact that the 1989 General Assembly gave approved this tax for special purposes, specific purposes, and so for this as you know and explained very well, let's say that the convention center does have needs next year. The problem I have with it is that it was approved by the General Assembly for one use and now it seems you're really taking money from there and using it elsewhere. And so I, it seems to me problematic in that respect. And I guess more generally what do you think about subsidizing a for profit operation that is according to the papers making a lot of money. I can't remember the number. But how do you feel about generally as a principal of government? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Your first question was this is a tax that the General Assembly approved back 20 plus years ago. I will note that it was at the request of the City Council and that this is also at the request of the City Council so that's logically consistent. They came to the General Assembly before and asked for permission for one use. Now they're asking us for permission for another use. So in that sense it's logically connected. In terms of subsidizing a team that has a lot of revenue we can go back and forth about whether or not the numbers in the press were accurate. But aside from that, that's why I made a point of making sure people understood that it gives the city a tether to the team and it gives them an ownership interest in the stadium that they currently do not have. So the money is still going for a similar type use as the original investment where they are investing the structure. They're not giving the money to the team and letting the team do whatever they want to. It's still logically consistent with the convention center funding and the other types of funding they have. And I will say at one point the city did ask for permission to expand the uses further which would have possibly having them doing some operations pieces and we declined. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Followup. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to thank you very much for the explanations to speak briefly on it and I don't want to prolong it. But even though I'm a big opponent of corporate welfare in which I think this really is even though it's done creatively. I just can't support this and I told Representative Carney I just think it's wrong this ?? operation is profitable as the panthers when we're doing so many other cuts to the average citizens of this state right

Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Holley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions of the sponsors. Here you're talking about maintaining stadiums, ballparks, and other public places that have a seating capacity of 60,000 or more. Other than convention centers and the stadium, what other facilities do you have that has that capacity? [SPEAKER CHANGES] None, that's why it was written like that. We picked that language off the original bill that had, there was another bill that had something that references the stadium when they were doing the initial, those structural improvements, so we picked that exact language out so it only describes that stadium. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. The other question that I have is if we own the escalator in a facility that is built custom for that facility, that escalator can't be used anywhere else. Did you all look into the possibility of proportionately- the amount of renovations that are being put in that we proportionately own part of the facility, that if the facility is ever sold or anything that we own at least partial ownership of the facility for the renovations and things that we're doing? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll ask, and staff may know the answer to this, if not, this does have a referral to finance, I can get a more specific answer. I sort of asked the same kind of question in a meeting with them, and was told that the way the contract's written it makes it clear what the city owns and what the city doesn't own, but it does give them in essence a type of ownership. But yes, they own the escalator but the escalator is attached to the building, and I can get you more details on it. There was some reason why they couldn't do what you were talking about with the proportional ownership sort of thing, but it does provide more of a tether when right now, all they've got is the land underneath the building. So it gives them an additional tether to the stadium itself. But I can get more, I don't know if you're in finance or not, but this does go to finance, and there's one other question we're going to clarify for finance, it's making sure that the language we've got is correct and the totality of the statute for that type of ownership and making sure that it's in there correctly. The intent is there, we just want to make sure, one of the attorneys asked a question whether we had it worded right. So we're going to check that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Just a couple questions, who owns the stadium? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, yeah, it's Jerry Richardson, know the stadium's owned separately than the team, and I think it's and LLC, or there's all these different corporate structures. I asked one and they're like 6 different corporate structures. Somebody else owns the team that owns the stadium that's affiliated with the team, and I think Jerry has most of the, Mr. Richardson has most of the interest in the actual ownership of the stadium. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So it's not owned by the city. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. It does not. The land it sits on is owned by the city, and they have a dollar a year, 99 year lease. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, this question may be for staff, we have had a number of projects since I've been down here, requests by cities to use, to levy a occupancy tax. My question is have we had one, have we issued these taxes for facilities that have not been owned by cities that have requested them? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's a question for staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, or if somebody else can answer it, that's fine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Adams, our occupancy tax expertise is pretty low. We will get the answer to that question for you from our occupancy tax experts, in between here and finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I add one thing? It's not just, you also need to check on the food and beverage portion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Rayne Brown? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Just want to make sure I'm real clear: Okay, with the taxes, the previous taxing authority, that was for the convention center, correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Two, there are three that are covered by this bill. Two of them are explicitly for the convention center, one was more hospitality issues in general. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Follow up Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Were the taxes for the convention center due to sunset at any particular time or were they open ended? [SPEAKER CHANGES] One of them is, one of them's due to sunset in 20, like 32, I've got it in here somewhere. Oh. The 1% prepared food and beverage tax is due to expire in 2034. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Rep. Brown. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Now this

Expanded authority. Do they have to choose among all of their wants like the street car da da da da or is this just simply restricted to the Panther Stadium and like you said the sports center or whatever other plan they have in the works. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The revenues from these specific taxes will only be allowed to be used for the types of choices they have here, however these choices could also be funded by other revenues that the city has and so by doing this what we're saying to them is you need to prioritize among all your wants and wishes and so yes, this is not enough to fund all of what it gives permission for, whether it's the convention center, the amateur sports or the stadium improvements, it's not enough for all of that so the city could say we don't want to do one of these other things that we were going to use general revenues for and use it on one of these projects. Nothing is stopping them from doing that anyway. When they approached us they didn't want to reallocate that money and so that was why they wanted new money. What we're saying to them is we thing you need to set your priorities. We can't give you any new money. We think you need to look at your big picture of priorities and decide how you want to spend your revenues that you've already got. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Comment, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Three comments. Number one, I think it's time Charlotte learned to live within its means. It wants a lot. It's already 4 billion dollars in debt and I've got real concerns about that. I could never have voted to finance this with state money and in answer to Representative Adams question, the stadium was built on the back of PSLs. I'm one, own 3 seats, I would never vote to give a dime of state taxpayer money to this facility. I would never vote to give expanded tax authority because you can see the kind of debt that they're in. I have no problem with them having to choose among alternatives like each and every single one of us in our homes have to do every single day. We don't get what we want. It's not always good to get everything we want. I will vote for this bill because it doesn't expand the taxing authority. I think it's good discipline for them. I don't want to see the team go but if they go, that's, I don't really have a dog in the fight even though I own PSLs they haven't really been very good. I don't care. I don't go to see them anymore anyway, so I guess that was all. Thank you, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair didn't realize you were such an avid fan. Representative Bowles. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I think Representative Brown said pretty much what I wanted, but also the follow up on Representative Luebke's remarks on corporate welfare, I think this doesn't, this gives Charlotte the authority, it doesn't automatically divert the authority and so Charlotte had the option of doing it or not, so I think what this bill will give them, the choice and we don't direct that money. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, can I comment on that too. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To remember that Charlotte, this isn't money going to the team itself, this is money to help maintain an asset that sits on city owned land. The city has an interest to make sure that that asset is maintained and it is cheaper in the long run for them to keep the team here creating that 636 million dollar economic benefit then to have the team go and then they've got an empty stadium that they've got to help figure out how to take care of, so it's a wiser use of the money and it's not going straight to he team owners. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Clarification, Mr. Anderson, if you will, and I think it's a very important distinction for me. There's been some conversation about using public money. Using public tax money. Now my understanding is none of the revenue that's going to be used comes from my taxes that I pay to the state of North Carolina nor anyone else that lives in North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Correct. It's only paid by those people who come and do occupancy or buy prepared food and beverages in Charlotte. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I think that's a very important distinction for people to understand because a lot of the criticism I've been getting and I'm sure a lot of others are we do not want to support the Panthers with public money. Well, in my opinion, it is only public money as far as it goes for those people who stay in the hotels in the Charlotte area, eat in restaurants in the Charlotte area, generate that income and to my understanding it is just limited to that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Correct. I'll pay more of it than you will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland is recognized.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have the same concerns that Representative ?? has. We're playing a shell game is what we're doing and we're giving the city of Charlotte the authority to support their panthers stadium. I don't know how many hundreds of millions the panthers want to rebuild the place but I think it's wrong. And the perception in the public is we're giving them taxpayer dollars. And that's the perception out there. And in fact we are the taxpayer dollars might be coming from the Charlotte/Mecklenburg area but we are giving them taxpayer dollars. Although it's a neatly crafted work around I don't think it's right. I think that state money of any sort it's not state money. Tax money of any sort should not be used to support private enterprises. For my entire life have heard of the benefits of stadiums, coliseums, of convention centers. I have yet to hear or see one that has paid for itself. But there's always peripheral good things that come from the having one in my town. I have not seen any good results for the people that actually pay the bill. Now there might be some employment in a restaurant, there might be some tax dollars come in some other way. But looking into the actual full cost of these facilities and the actual return is just not there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Earle. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Thank you. I would just like to kind of bring it to the attention that there are huge consequences of the team leaving North Carolina. As Representative Samuelson said earlier more than 6 hundred and some million dollars generated by the panthers. Almost 40 million dollars alone comes to the state. If we lose those revenues that's going to be funds that are going to have to be made up somewhere else. And the comment on how much Charlotte owes, Charlotte has a triple A bond rating so the funds that are owed are being paid and I think we all have a dog in this fight. Because we are and we talk about creating jobs. We are talking about over 5,000 jobs being lost. I live one street over from the stadium and ?? stadium has been there. I mean we've had a huge huge number of restaurants. We have street vendors. We have a lot of folks that is going to be impacted if the stadium leaves and I certainly don't want a huge empty stadium sitting there in my front yard. I think we all have a vested interest. If the money that's generated just in the city of Charlotte. If that comes out of Charlotte's budget then that's going to impact a lot of people. Programs are going to be cut or else city taxes are going to have to go up to make up for some of the loss. I mean I think we need to look at the big picture. If you don't want to stay in a restaurant, I mean stay in a hotel then don't stay but mostly all over this state if you stay somewhere in a hotel you are going to pay some occupancy tax. And if you don't want to go out to eat then don't go out to eat and you won't have to worry about paying for it. But I think that is a huge economic impact that we need to be aware of and plus the fact the city will have opportunities to use the stadium for 4 or 5 events. That they will benefit and not have to pay for where as now they don't and Richardson has said he does not want to leave Charlotte. He will not leave Charlotte as long as he lives. But as has been said there are cities that have built stadiums just wanting a team. There is only 32 teams

so, you know, if they can’t buy a team to come...move, then they got an empty stadium. There are stadiums waiting for people to come and I think we just need to look at the big picture of the impact that this team has and it’s not just about giving to rich, fat cat, ?? I don’t know how to categorize it. I just think we need to look at the big picture of what it brings to the city, the county, and the state of North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, seeing that we have eight other bills on this docket today and I believe hearing most of the major arguments at least two or three times so far, at your discretion, I’d like to make a motion when you think it’s appropriate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’ll call you at the appropriate time. The chair appreciates the fact we do have eight more bills cited and this does have a serial referral to Finance, so I will encourage the members to wrap up your questions as quckly as possible. Representative Holley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a question, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is there any kind of way that this can be adapted. That we could at least get the lease reduced proportionately with the amount of funds for renovation. I’m just trying to figure out some kind of way we could get ownership into a facility that we...I understand all about the surrounding economic development, but we’re going to end up owning nothing, and like they’re saying, other cities have stadiums that they own that are looking for teams, I’d like to see us own something besides the escalator that can be used nowhere else but a stadium. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, we won’t own anything, the city will. But we’ll look into it and try to figure out how that works and do what we can. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins, the chair recognizes you for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we accept, or that we give a favorable report to House Bill 193, I don’t believe that’s a PCS, with a serial referral to Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion before us. All in favor of a favorable report for the original, for serial referral to finance. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed say no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair says the ayes have it. Thank you, Representative Samuelson. Our next bill has a PCS. I have a motion from Representative Setzer to accept the PCS for House Bill 222. It has a serial referral to Finance as well. Representative Moffitt, if you’re prepared to present your bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee I have this bill and the two bills following it. I’ll move through them in the interest of time, fairly quickly. The first bill is a bill that was developed with our local officials back in Buncombe County. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative, Moffitt? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If the chair could interrupt for a second. I did not hear, did you inform the members of receiving a revised summary from the pages right now? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, you’ll be receiving a revised summary as indicated by the chair. The change in the summary is, we are asking that the county of Buncombe be given this authority, and the original summary indicated the city of Asheville. Does that suit the chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excellent work sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. If you have one that says the city of Asheville, it should be the county of Buncombe. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I dont’ have the right bill summary and would like to have that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If not, Mr. Chairman, the Committee Substitute is wrong because it says it authorizes the city of Asheville, as does the original edition. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have House Bill, do you have 222 in front of Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. What I see, and it’s just been pointed out to me, under bill analysis it mentions county of Buncombe, under the summary at the top it says city of Asheville. I assume Representative Moffitt, you said we should go by the county version. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s correct, Representative Luebke. Is that sufficient, Mr. Chair, to proceed with this bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe we’re there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The city of Asheville, in conjunction with the county of Buncombe have asked that they be given authority for a design/build method of construction for a project that they are in joint development of.

Many economic development standpoint that the project is something that is until four years specifically for this one project of the changes between the original bill in the PCs are too high we expanded the number of blood that puzzles, from 2 to 3 at the request of the general contractors only also had a sunset provision at the bottom of the bill only allow this authority to exist for three years temperatures four are some officials recognize and six (SPEAKER CHANGES) thank you Mr. Chairman and I also for national testing case the members need to happen at this meeting at I have a problem with this bill (spk) Eric you pay very close attention to details are coming into their enough that some more frequent is too quick question and answer all of them often disavowed people are doubtful (SPEAKER CHANGES) and statements of this for all committee and is always as if you got stuck in the high-flying on goals when the media firms and in a spate of course, so the county will and they always do that (SPEAKER CHANGES) I have not ask a question of specific, regarding this data project I can get that answer for you between here and from its collective revisions such an expert, like to make a motion for Federal report they use to represent with the passion, along things in your test question are saying is only one facility is this correct money of online services run construction renovation buildings facilities best practices one tackle and that will have multiple buildings on this one project also the company, ( SPEAKER CHANGES) we know that seems to me and authorizes them the government bodies to do this on multiple projects, not just asking if the makers of looking section 2 (SPEAKER CHANGES) to the city address systems is on specific in section two of the addresses of things are sense that you request from ocean movers there were four to proposed the subs to press the 222 of which 10 refer to the committee on finance said that are rethinking thank very much ( SPEAKER CHANGES) on hold in favor say I opposed to going beyond seven resume off of electricity to propose to a substitute to 04 house bill 224 on a motion made by represent such (SPEAKER CHANGES) I would love this ,this bill Mack still hasn't recovered from the fish are there is some on a disagreement and regarding our local delegation regarding these two bills the first one which is hostile to 24 years for moving annexation of four the opportunity to take a 40 to see a pastoral with the annexation reform the last session there is some concern over the relevance of the T.J. on a statewide basis I can certainly appreciate brown on I do know that there are efforts to address that have to cut the issue and bottom county or one of the few counties actually has countywide zoning Sony T.J. oval a trace of the school to restriction that is to Islam necessary and it has created some issues on which way of law enforcement in arm of emergency services regards to the slipcover that particular area this bill and spent on 18 to 40 has extended by the city of secondly it gets on that's a 12 year moratorium on any type of annexation of involuntary annexation that can be considered in those areas reverse the city of a school because preserve the county bought guns of planning and zoning appointment on the policy vessels planning and city zoning board and that's the extent of this particular bill representations recognize between (SPEAKER CHANGES) Larry not committing an offense and Braxton of sandbags and ran CIR Spokane slices on this bill and they like to talk a lot about the history of Federal Agency between states : by the county , but about the history of the legislature distressed at the , 49 SF term here , as I recall there was a time when ………

and it was not in the very, it was in the pretty recent past where, if you had a bill that you wanted to bring before the legislature and it was a local bill that you would work with your local delegation to come to some agreement, maybe have a meeting prior to introduction, and consult with each other about what you might want to do in terms of legislation. I will tell you that I have not had a chance to meet with my delegation about this bill. The first that I knew about the bill was last week. But all that aside, what used to happen is that you would come to consensus and that no local bills would come before the body unless the local delegation agreed that it was, that they were on board. And I think one thing that this helped was to preserve the idea of local rule. That if local governments were doing their jobs and they were doing the things that needed to be done locally that Raleigh did not need to interfere in that. That was one approach. I think things have changed now, obviously, but beyond that and specific to this bill the city and the county are already working on a transition for the county to assume this role in terms of zoning. The process, again, I think would be better handled locally. We don't need legislation, and you'll see a number of Representative Moffitt's bills and McGrady and Ramsey's bills coming forward that deal primarily with local problems. I believe the city and county should be allowed to work with the county to get, work together through a transition plan, and if this can happen in Asheville in Buncombe it can happen at any county and city across the state. And so I would urge this committee to think about the idea of allowing a city and county to move forward together to work through this issue and to keep in mind that severe limitation of annexation is bad public policy. It stifles growth. Most of the development that happens in the county is on the edge of the city of Asheville. And so how do you just completely put the brakes on that? And this is over years. So there is also frequently a need for the city to use annexation to clean up jurisdictional confusion about boundaries at highway interchanges and other purposes that just promote basic public safety. And so I think that this is a little bit of overreach. I think that, again, Raleigh should not be interfering in the business of local governments and I would urge this committee to really give some serious thought to what could happen in your own cities and counties across the state. I will be voting no on this bill and I would urge the committee to do the same. Thank you so much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Mobley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just wanting to question the fact, had we accepted this proposed committee substitute, but I guess it's being discussed already. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry, could you repeat that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If we had voted to discuss this proposed committee substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ma'am, we did. Representative Setzer made the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Wilkins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maybe several questions. Representative Moffitt has the Asheville City Council weighed in on this bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. I met with Vice Mayor Esther Manheimer on January 2nd this year and explained to her what we were considering, or what I was considering in regards to local legislation, and I mentioned repealing the ETJ authority that they had. They were aware of it. At that point, probably two or three weeks later, they engaged in conversations with the county because they felt, in my conversation with her, they knew

since annexation form has taken place, that the ETJ issue would be next in coming, and that she had spoken to the city manager and told staff to prepare for this inevitability. And that's where we are. As far as the, if City Council has made a public statement on this issue, I'm not aware. Privately, I'm not aware of other comments except from the Vice-Mayor. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Follow up, Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Moffitt, is that to say that Ashville city council has not taken any kind of action, any kind of vote as it pertains to this bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES]I'm not aware of any, Representative. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Follow up please, sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I think one could surmise that any request that came to you as it would pertains to the filing of this bill, would come from the county of Buncolme. Is that a correct assumption? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Are you asking if the county of Buncolme came to me regarding bringing this legislation forward? [SPEAKER CHANGES]May I respond, Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes sir, that's what I'm asking. [SPEAKER CHANGES]No. This legislation was really brought forward by me, simply at the request of many of the constituents that live in ETJ areas, not only in our county, but other areas across the state. We are sensitive to the plight they have in regards to having to answer to the city is that control their property, but do not have the opportunity to vote for those folks. However, doing this on a state-wide basis is a little more complicated than doing it through a local act. In regards to this particular local act, our county, we have the benefit in the fact that we have county wide zoning, so we have the capability in our county management structure within our own planning and zoning at the county level to handle any land use planning issues within the ETJ. So removing the ETJ is something I just discussed when running for office, and this is me delivering on my promise to do so. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Representative Moffitt, and thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES]My pleasure. Representative Hollo? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, one quick question for Representative Moffitt, to help educate me a bit Are there a lot of other cities in the state that have already eliminated the authority, or other ones that you know of? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Representative Hollo. As a history on that, I would have to refer your questions to staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Staff, could you give a quick response for Representative Hall? [SPEAKER CHANGES]We believe in the past different counties have has their authority to exercise ETJ restrictions. There are also other counties that have had it extended. We can give you a list of currently applicable at different times and different places. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, staff. Representative Setzer is recognized. For a motion and comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]At the appropriate time we'll plea back for a motion. Would you like to make your comment now? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes sir. Some of you may or may not know, but I used to be a mayor of a small town, and I served on the town board as a commissioner. During my time as a mayor, and I no longer live in the city, I live out in the country, I don't support the ETJ. Now, Catawba county is blessed with county-wide zoning, but the point was made, and I support this point, that the people in the ETJ have no say over what is done over them because of the zoning that's laid across their property. Now that is an issue that causes a great deal of heartburn. Now I did live in the city, but my family, I mean my family never did, and I grew up outside the town of Catawba. It's a lovely place, you're all welcome to come sometime. I'd love to show it to you, it won't take long for a tour. I was the official referee of 650 people, and enjoyed my time there. But, extraterritorial jurisdiction is a problem, and I think this is a good first step. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Brown? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a clarifying question

Representative Fisher said that the county and the city, I don't want to say a come to Jesus moment, but they're coming together and it sounded like from your presentation that that kind of started after you notified them of your intention to file this bill, is that correct or incorrect. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's exactly what I thought. Thank you so much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pittman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Setzer did what I was going to do so. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think my question has been answered. Let me just make sure. Representative there has been no vote or no comment from the city council regarding your proposal, is that correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not that I'm aware of, no, ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Did you make an attempt to get one? I mean to find out what they thought, other than speaking to the vice-mayor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I did not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Fisher is recognized again. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question for the bill sponsor. Were you aware that the city and the county had already begun a process of looking at some agreement and then preparation for the county to take over the ETJ areas and just, you know, as a follow up to that, had they indicated to you that this would be a process that would take maybe 120 days or so to work through and could they have the time to do that without it being legislated? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Fisher. I guess two things. The difference between the PCS and the original bill, we did change the effective date from 60 days to 120 and that date was developed in conversation with the city manager as well as the county manager, so that timeframe is an acceptable timeframe for all parties involved. The first part of your question would require a level of trust between me and Asheville city council. To this moment there is not that trust. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just one more follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And so most of the bills that we're going to see coming from you having to do with the City of Asheville have to do with your inability to trust the City of Asheville, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, that's incorrect. The conduct of the City of Asheville, as long as the City of Asheville continues to try to exercise authority of people outside of their corporate limits, the General Assembly will continue to intercede. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say a word in favor of ETJ, extra-territorial jurisdiction. The reason for ETJ is to make sure that it makes some sense the way you have development in your area and ETJ allows a city to deal with issues that are adjacent to the city limits as I understand ETJ and I think that's very good, otherwise you could have a residential area. We have ETJ in Durham and it's worked out very, very well for city and county and we don't have any complaints against ETJ and it's because. Representative Moffitt, I just wanted to make this point. ETJ keeps, if I understand it correctly, would keep a county from zoning a strip mall next to a residential area when the residential area is inside the city of Asheville, and I don't know anything about Asheville, so I'll just say between the city of Durham and the County of Durham, is that not true. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you want to respond to that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll let Nathan respond. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, just to give you some context. The city and the county over the period of beyond a decade have had discussions about trying to resolve this ETJ area. One of the many failures that occurred when I was on the Board of Commissioners and served with 4 members of another party on a 5 member board is we tried to enact a joint planning area adjacent to the city of Asheville to eliminate ETJ and it would be some combination of county regulations and city regulations so as that area grew we could reach some compromise. One of the ongoing complaints of people who live

?? E T J areas was the fact- number one they could not vote for the people that lived on city council, so they did not really have a large amount to say about what went on in that area and the other complaint was that the city of Asheville chose only to enforce certain regulations in their E T J. So we had adult bookstores and other things that were in E T J's that the county had regulations to prohibit certain uses but the county regulations could not apply as long as the city was excersing E T J authority. So I would submit this proposed bill is not a controversial bill. We've had much discussion with Asheville city council. They understand the annexation policy of the state of North Carolina. They are not adamantly opposed to rescinding their E T J. The county is ready, willing, and able and they have the regulatory capacity to regulate the E T J area and enact a full range of ordinances so the people in those areas have the same protections as people that live in other areas of the community. So, this really cleans up a lot of problems we've had in the past; I will submit is somewhat more controversial. This really is not a controversial bill, would be my argument. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak briefly on the bill. Representative Ramsey, I disagree. This is a very controversial bill because, well first of all, because it's a local version of what I think members of your party are going to put forward as a state wide bill, at least that's what I'm hearing, and specifically, with respect, you did not answer my question about why you couldn't have a strip mall next to a residential area, but just to go on and bring the comments to a close, it's important to remember that while the complaints come from people whole in an E T J, they do not live in the city and they are not paying city taxes. And they are benefiting from the economic livelihood of the city. They would not live were they live if the city of Asheville was not an economic engine. So, I mean, I think there's an equal swap because people who live outside the city limits, they live off the city and I live in the city of Durham and pay double taxes. My friends who live out the county, do not. Yet they wouldn't be living in Northern Durham county if it were not for Duke medical center and everything else that provides jobs in the city. So, I don't think it's unfair at all to have E T J. We just have a disagreement but it is controversial, representative Ramsey. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ross. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chairman. I have one question and a comment. My understanding was there had been little to no communication with the Asheville city council and then I just heard in a separate statement that there had been a great deal of communication with the Asheville city council so I'm a little confused there. But, further with a comment if I may mister chairman, with regards to E T J's, in my community I had a similar situation with the city of Burlington. We had some individuals that lived right outside the city E T J that, same thing, we had no representation. We don't like the E T J until someone came in and tried to put in a landfill and all of the sudden they all loved E T J and begged us to do everything we could to keep this landfill from coming in. So, there is two sides to this E T J issue and I hope that members will keep that in mind. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you representative Ross. To address your first question, representative Ramsey is former chair of the Buncombe county comissioner so he had an ongoing relationship with former and current existing city council members where I do not. In regards to your second question, we are sensitive in regards to those E T J matters which is the reason why this is a local bill. We are comfortable with the land use planning capabilities of our county. We have the regulatory framework in place and it is just time to remove this overlay jurisdiction. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Setzer is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chair, I move for a favorable report to proposed committee substitute for house bill 224 and re-refer to the committee on finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have a motion before us from representative Setzer. All in favor say aye. Opposed, say no. The ayes have it and representative Moffitt

Regale us with another presentation? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will. Thank you Mr. Chair. This last bill is oddly enough regarding the City of Asheville. It is repealing a 2009 local act which gave permission to the City of Asheville to take 5% of the public enterprise water system revenues from the water system and use them for water related projects. The issue here is the definition of water related projects. From a policy standpoint, public enterprises should be managed with the utmost of integrity and no money should be diverted from any public enterprise into any city’s general fund for any purpose. This local act goes against that policy and this particular bill seeks to repeal that local act that’s in place. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does that complete your presentation, sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is the extent of it. Yes, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Fisher is recognized for a comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. [PAUSE] I think that you know what you’re again seeing here is this idea of Raleigh needing to tell Asheville what to do. Or Raleigh needing to tell local jurisdictions or local governments what to do. Several years ago, the Sullivan Acts were passed and the, part of that resulting legislation was that the City of Asheville could use up to a certain percentage of money to work on projects that were related to water, to infrastructure, to sidewalks, streets, anything that had to do with water maintenance. And what Representative Moffitt’s legislation is about to do is to take even that away. I would submit to the committee that this would upset a very delicate balance that’s been worked out over several decades. Other cities in North Carolina have the ability to use revenues for street and sidewalk improvements associated with water line improvements. And this bill would take that away. There have been outside auditors who have looked at the money that has been used by the City of Asheville for those improvements and they have, their findings say that that money has been used responsibly. What I don’t understand is, and I’ll just end with a question. Why is it that just about every bill that we see here coming from Representative Moffitt, coming from you, has to do with limiting Asheville’s authority? And why is it that we haven’t been able to have any sort of delegation, conversation around these issues before we see these bills appear? That’s my question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Fisher. I appreciate the question. I appreciate the fact that you would like the public to know that our local delegation is dysfunctional. It is. In the interest of full disclosure, the bill we’re repealing at this moment is a bill crafted by Representative Fisher. It’s an amendment to a bill that she was also part of in 2005, in regards to Sullivan Acts 2 and 3 that were crafted in conjunction with Representative Fisher on the House side and, ?? Representative Goforth, Representative Sherill on the House side, she’s saying together, that the local delegation came together to craft local legislation to where Raleigh would interfere with the operations of the City of Asheville at that time, which she finds distasteful now. But more to point, this issue is whether or not it is appropriate for this body to allow public enterprise

?? dollars to be diverted from public enterprise into a municipalities general fund at the same time that the public enterprise is being pushed into debt simply because they do not have the cash flow necessary for the ongoing maintenance and repair of their existing infrastructure and this is on top of the fact that our public water utility back home is losing 30% of its water through its aging infrastructure. So when you start looking at all those facts, it would be legislative malpractice on our part if we were to continue to allow a city to utilize public enterprise dollars to subsidize their general fund in a very loose way. To give you an idea, there is one project that they have funded where the water line extension is $189,000 but the road and sidewalk improvements that they want to put in there are 2.1 million. So in the spirit of when that amendment to the ?? Act was adopted, it was adopted to allow the city to build new sidewalks and improve roads, just in the immediate area of where the street and sidewalks were cut for the utility repair and replacement. So again, although this is regarding the City of Asheville, we have a broader policy argument in regard to public enterprise oversight and management. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to explain to the committee members. I am a co-sponsor of this bill and the reason that I am is because, well, it is a local bill. Local in this sense means where the water is and the water system managed by the City of Asheville is in part, comes from Henderson County and in fact Henderson County has a number of its residents or users of this system. Representative Moffitt has explained the policy side of this. Everyone has already heard, no doubt, there will be water legislation moving forward. Well, this isn't it but you may want to know how this relates to it. Whether or not the General Assembly in its wisdom were to pass water legislation that I anticipate that we will introduce in the near term, this piece of legislation makes sense. It dovetails whether the legislation were to pass or not because for the reasons that Representative Moffitt has stated, this can stand alone and even if we never move on other water legislation, this piece needs to be addressed. And, if we in fact do move on legislation to move the management of water from the City of Asheville to a regional governmental entity, this legislation also makes sense because in that case, frankly, the so called ?? Acts don't have any real application and so I am saying to you, that I am on the bill because it is important to Henderson County. We are impacted by what is going on here and too, this legislation makes sense no matter what is to occur in the future with respect to the management of the water system itself. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Fisher. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had a question for the bill sponsor. Do you happen to know how much money the City of Asheville withdrew from water receipts for 2011-2012? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can give you 10, 11, 12,combined, is that sufficient? $2,658,000. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For the fiscal year [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. For the fiscal year 2011-2012, of the utility revenues, the total amount that the city used for infrastructure improvements related to waterline projects was $574,310; 2% of utility revenues which is right in line with what other cites use to go along with water improvements, infrastructure improvements related to waterline repair. What I am

Land really trying to caution the committee about is that this is that they all have implications for every city North Carolina and is the arching principle all Mr. Moffat is that last Gander Mountain is back again and the idea that you O'Callaghan and an elegant reach into local government business to make statewide legislation that prohibits acyl from doing that as against holidays principle and Phenergan and I would say that City National is using Mathematica 5% of an affidavit to deal infrastructure repairs waterline improvements and infrastructure repairs related to nothing. They are in line with the rest of the city the North Carolina and I would highly challenge that's enough that's it to come into line with represented Fisher affect will the glaring omission of Congress is the fact that probably the suit is referring to develop their water systems this is a public water utility managed positive Asheville that was jointly developed some how filling hundred to 1927 authorizes city of Asheville County welcome to jointly develop a water system is what happened the city rational has continue to try to embrace that particular history and I cannot and for this legislator speaking on on my behalf is that I find it offensive that we resolve this issue as you will narrow 19 9419.95 uniformed and regional water authority and us where we had unanimous support of the city rational the county Bachman Henderson County was impacted by water issues wherein the creation of that regional water authority was a landmark moment of regional cooperation and in our city changed hands politically over the last the probably 15 years this this new higher thoughts or better reasons elected official feels that history is invalid and are being fourth-generation member of the city of Asheville and and very local interest local bill is very personal and him not been aware the city of Asheville to take the history of very rich history of of cooperation simply because the leadership chooses the click on this is such a place like the commercial preferable report overtime trocar we have two people left to speak on this will represent Wilkins thank you Mr. Ripley Moffitt will representative McGrady since this bill makes sense does it make sense to rational civic this particular city Council it would not make sense know represented a representative Maranello is just a follow and is that the society you are and him that Asheville city Council is taken two-year-old has Asheville city Council Turkestan all aware of any public statement that the we have issued in regards to this particular this figure bill underlayer unhappy about it is called please was not exact off corollary but amendment banning Alioto what wondrous Rocky Mountains is one of those cities it's unfortunate be enough midtempo electricity's group noted that the our city is will number of other cities diverted money out of our utilities collections for years and years and years despite the fact within 35% premium from some electricity with people in County Cabal from progress energy until in our case brought by the press finally shined on it and now they began to walk lower Latin version finally we Chris-Craft legislation last year to to make sure that that was limited am very sensitive to the standard versions ago only not certain misfortune bill was of such a request for motion is relative to was preferable report house bill 252 referred to committee on finance and register for referring committee on finance much to Massaro has been a member of finance

the chair recognizes your motion and puts it before the committee. All those in favor please signify by saying "aye". [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All those opposed, please say no? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The "aye"s definitely have that, and the chair thanks Rep. Moffitt for his presentation this morning ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We're moving on to House bill 186, Rep. ?? you're here? Okay. This is a PCS, we're moving on by the motion of Rep. Pittman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Rep. Pittman. Mr. Chair, with your permission. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill 186 is a bill that would allow the towns on Lake Norman to enforce ordinances 2500 feet from the 760 water mark, which is the high water mark on the lake. Primarily noise ordinances out into the water, within their city limits. I will acknowledge that 2500 feet from the water as I had that pleasure of speaking with Rep. Setzer earlier today, could theoretically go slightly cross into another county's jurisdiction, but it would be a nominal cross as most of the time, the county line is in the middle of the lake. So this bill simply allows this provision for towns like Cornelius to allow that if there's a boat, houseboat blaring music 5 feet of the coast in a cove, to enforce noise ordinances like they do anywhere else. The coastal communities most of them already have this right, we're simply asking for the same right as the coastal communities and the lake communities. There was one opposition, which is why we have the PCS, that was from primarily from duck hunters concerned that this would take away their ability to fire a gun in duck hunting. The PCS specifically limits that so that cannot be a problem moving forward with this legislation. And so Mr. Chairman, I am happy to answer any questions at your pleasure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Rep. Moffitt is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. I have a question for the bill sponsor? How does this affect wakeboard boats that are playing music at a rather high level and they're passing by this particular zone or passing through this zone versus being stationary? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is my understanding of this legislation that it would not affect them because the noise ordinances for the current towns are static noise that can be heard for a period of time, a doppler effect noise impact is almost what I believe you're referring to would not be subject to this ordinance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would presume that these- there's multiple towns in this particular bill, do they have a uniform sound ordinance and if so, what are the hours that that ordinance applies? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would argue that they probably do not have a uniform sound ordinance. I don't think that's accurate. Most of them have a limitation at some point of night, there are some towns- I'll give you a primary example: Huntersville, where I served on the city council for 7 years, that some noise ordinances that exist 24 hours a day. So you couldn't go into your garage and work on an engine and test fire it at 3:00 in the afternoon if you kept it at a decibel level for a period of 60 seconds above a certain decibel point. So I don't necessarily believe there's continuity, I do believe though there is continutity from what the city's asking to do on the water versus what's already admissible and permissible on the land. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. I've actually looked into this issue and I've spoken to some of the local authorities that brought this forward or asked for this to be brought forward. I think it's a good bill and that's an appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Collins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just have one question. I know 2500 feet, if my math is correct, is just about half a mile, and I'm not familiar with the geography of Lake Norman living on the other side of the state, is it possible, are there places in Lake Norman that are more than a mile wide, so if I wanted to go out there and listen to Stevie Ray Vaughan at 120 decibels I could pull up somewhere in the middle of the lake and be more than 2500 feet from either side? [SPEAKER CHANGES] My recommendation would be go to the Catawba county side of the lake. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I object. Strenuously I object that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, Lake Norman is the largest man-made lake in North Carolina, there's certainly cases where that's the case. The other thing you have to understand is it does not prohibit you from going 2000 feet out or going 1500 feet out and playing Stevie Ray Vaughan, or any other music you'd care to listen to. It would have to be at a decibel level upon the shoreline that would cap over

Limit so if you were sitting in the middle light blaring music, the likelihood of that pushing over the desk pool I would say is nominal at best. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have some problems with this. I mean, having a town enforce its ordinances 1/2 mile onto a navigable body of water disturbs me to say the least even though it might have a good rationale for it. Who's measuring the decibels at the shoreline. Do you have devices set up there so if it goes to a court you could say he was at 110 decibels at this time of day and here's the piece of mechanical provided evidence? I just, the concept to me is, you know, a little strange. Don't we have, I don't know. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're going to find that most of my bills tend to be strange by nature. I appreciate the question Representative Cleveland, and I would like to preface this has nothing to do with the city of Asheville, so I would say that as it is and currently the majority of towns I'm talking about there is not static measurement equipment. The regulation would require a complaint to be notified to the local police department. The police department would then actually have to come and stand on that personal property's owner and they have a decibel meter that is issued by law enforcement, it could not be a private citizen, it would legitimately have to be a certified law enforcement official of one of the town's municipal law enforcement agencies. They would hold the decibel meter. If it exceeded that decibel of the permissible decibel amount for more than 60 seconds at that point it is enforceable, recordable and transmittable for the court of law. So there is no, you couldn't arbitrarily sit in my backyard and say hey, that boat over there, Jeff Collins is listening to Stevie Ray Vaughn and I can see right here on my handheld device where they exceeded the decibel limit and that's not fair. It would have to be done by a police officer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moffitt. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move for a favorable report on the proposed committee substitute on House Bill 186, unfavorable to the original with a subsequent referral to Judiciary B. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. We have a motion before the committee from Representative Moffitt. All in favor please signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All those opposed, please say no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That sounded less than the decibels needed for the chair to make a determination. I think the ayes have it and Representative Jeter, I think you have another bill to present. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. This is another local bill for the town of Cornelius. This one is, they currently have, this is Bill 195 I believe, Mr. Chairman. With your permission I'd be happy to present. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. Please proceed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] They have a design build clause that was permitted to them some years ago. It currently sunsets on July 1st of this year. They have some existing bonds, they have some bonds that they have yet to sell that they would like to continue to be able to utilize in the design build method which has proven to be effective in their community. They would like the sunset of this bill to be extended until June 30, 2016. That's the only change. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Faircloth. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to at the appropriate time make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. It would appear this is the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move a favorable report for the bill with referral to regulatory reform. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have a motion before us from Representative Faircloth to give a favorable report to House Bill 195. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, say no. The ayes have it. Thank you Representative Jeter. Representative Brian Brown is before us to present House Bill 191 with a serial referral to finance and Representative Brown if you're ready. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unlike the previous bills today, this one truly is a straightforward, non-controversial bill. This is a bill that was brought to me by the Grifton Town Manager. In 2006 a single parcel of land sitting outside of the city limits of Grifton, the town limits of Grifton, was looking to become a daycare center and in an effort to make that available to become a daycare center it needed to be annexed.

into the town of Grifton in order to be tied into the sewer treatment facility within Grifton. Unfortunately, the project fell through at the time. The parcel of land was never tied in to the sewer treatment plants and the owner of the parcel of land has requested to the town board of Grifton to be ?? back out of it and the town board of Grifton voted unanimously to allow that to take place and thus I am before you today. So without any questions I will welcome them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Setzer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At the appropriate time I'd like to make a motion for favorable report. Do we have any questions for the committee? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, just very briefly. So you're telling us, Representative Bryan, that the city manager requested this by implication of the city council supports the managers position? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir and all the documentation is right there before you from the board meeting, the board minutes - [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Seeing no other questions, Representative Setzer you are recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to make a motion for favorable report for House bill 191 in ?? the committee on finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have a motion before the committee from Representative Setzer to give favorable report. All those in favor please say aye. All those opposed say no. The ayes have it. Thank you, Representative Brown. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis will be before us to present House bill 205 with a serial referral to finance assuming that meets our approval today. Representative Millis, the podium is yours sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee. This bill before you today is at the request of the town of Bregaw. It's in regard to the makeup of the tourism development authority board. Currently the town of Bregaw has a 3 member board. In the way that the current law is crafted is that 3/4ths of that board has to be active in the promotion of tourism and travel. With a 3 member board, this presents some confusion. Since that law was crafted, the house chairs for finance revised what is required for actual being in compliance to one half of the members of the tourism development authority board have to be active in the promotion of travel and tourism. So as a result to not only clarify in order to be in compliance but also to clarify for the town of Bregaw that their 3 member board is adequate in order to meet the intent of the law I'm requesting your approval for this clarifying language. As you can see that the proposed language before you strikes the word 3/4ths and replaces it with 1/2. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you done sir? Representative Millis have you completed your presentation? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have completed my presentation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Setzer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to make a motion for favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Wilkins. I'm sorry. Representative Floyd. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a question. Why not majority instead of 1/2? [SPEAKER CHANGES] In 2005 the House finance chairs changed the percentage of the members to be currently active in the motion of travel and tourism from 3/4ths to 1/2 so this bill here would actually be in compliance with what is the current guidelines for these boards in relation to occupancy tax. So not only would this legislation now be in compliance, it also clarifies the issue and clears it up with at a 3 member board stands. Because not only is it important to make that change but right now, the way the law is written, is that 1/3 has to be actually active in the business of collecting the occupancy tax so you've got 1/3, you've got 3/4, you've got a 3 member board. If we don't make this change then it will be confusing on the behalf of maybe requiring a 4 member board. Does that answer your question, Representative Floyd? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes man. Christopher Southern Pines. Yes man. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Setzer, you're recognized for motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that when favorable report be given to House bill 205 and re-referred again to the committee on finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, once again, Representative Setzer's put a motion before us. All in favor of his motion please signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no. The ayes have it. Thank you Representative Millis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Welcome. Representative Elmore is going to present house bill 270. Representative Elmore, [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. As Representative Boles informed me I am the last thing between you and lunch. So I will speak fast about my local bill. I have consulted with the house delegation, which is me, about this. But I have also talked with Shirley Randleman , our senator representing district 30. She's running an identical bill on the senate side. What this bill does it puts a referendum on the ballad in one of the municipalities in my district the smallest municipality in my district. The background on it in the original town charter the town had recall capability in it's charter. But in the 70's the General Assembly striped all of those recall capabilities from the municipalities. What this bill does it allows through voter referendum in November that the people of Ronda can vote to put this prevision back into their charter if they choose and the bill also spells out how the recall would be conducted if they place it back into the charter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You Sir. Representative Collins is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My commotion whatever you think is appropriate Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd [SPEAKER CHANGES] Another question, I'm just a poor little country boy from Cumberland County. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We will bare with you, Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Fifty percent, I mean, why not fifty one percent I'm just... [SPEAKER CHANGES] What the fifty percent number is that is the percentage that they would have to get on a petition of the registered voters. Right now there is 266 registered voters in the town. That means, to allow for a recall, the person would have to go and collect 133 signatures to in-act the recall mechanism. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ???, would it be...I would feel a little better if he got 137, but... [SPEAKER CHANGES] The signatures do not remove the person from office, all the signatures does is allow for special election to be conducted and then the voters would come to the special election just with normal election procedures. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up Mr. Chairman [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up [SPEAKER CHANGES] ??? Boles wants to go to lunch, that's okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I would like to make a motion that we give a favorable report to house bill 270 and thankfully it looks like there is no referral to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have a final motion before us from Representative Collins for a favorable report on house bill 270. All in favor signify by saying Aye all opposed say no. The chair says ayes have it. Ladies and Gentleman we are adjourned Thank you very much.