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 26, 2013 | Committee Room | Finance

Full MP3 Audio File

Committee members, we'll go back to the top of the agenda. House bill 179. Representative McElraft, are you? Hearing none. House bill 191, Representative Brown. Oh, Representative Brown. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chairman. Members. House bill 191 is very straight forward bill. Back in 2006 there was a partial of land in Grifton, North Carolina that was annexed into the town of Grifton so that they could connect to the water supply and the sewage system for hopes of a day care center. Unfortunately, the day care center never came to fruition, and it never connected into the water system or the sewage system. At this point the home owner seeks to be [DNXed] back out of the town of Grifton, and what should be coming around now is not only the proposal by the partial owner, but as well as a resolution passed by the town of Grifton proposing this. This was brought to me by the Grifton town manager. And with that I'll take questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harry Warren. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Chair did you say this was a PCs or was this just an original bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Mister Chair at the appropriate time I'd like to make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further questions from the committee? We have an appropriate time. Representative Warren. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to make a motion to give a favorable report on the bill before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee you've heard the motion on the floor. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor say, "Aye." [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed? Motion carried. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Brown. At this time we will have a report from the occupancy tax subcommittee. Representative Moffitt. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chair, members. Last Thursday, the 21st of March, the House finance subcommittee on occupancy tax convened to consider House bill 193. After much discussion - as well as a position from the North Carolina travel and tourism coalition. Not opposing the bill, we passed it out favorably. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Moffitt. Representative McElraft just arrived so we'll take up her House bill 179. Representative McElraft. There is a PCS for this. Representative Wells moves to have the PCS before us for discussion. All in favor say, "Aye." All opposed. Motion carried. Representative McElraft. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chair and members of the committee. I apologize for my tardiness. I had to go to my office to get my bill. I thought I had it in my car. Hopefully this is a simple bill. It is-- it was requested by three of my little towns in Carteret County. They, only one of them had police, fire and EMS. The other two really depended on the county for that. And what they did was form an inner local agency - the three towns did - and got together and used the resources combined to allow them to have cost-effective fire, ambulance, EMS, and police protection. And when they formed that ILA, inner local agency, they realized that they had not in the general statue been protected - the same way they were as individual towns - from paying sales and motor fuel excise taxes. And all this does is give them as an ILA the same authority that they had as individual towns, and be exempt from those taxes. And Mister Chair I'll take any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative McElraft. Representative Brawley, Robert. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chairman, at the appropriate time I'd like to make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further questions from the committee? Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Does this treat all inner local agencies the same across the state, or would they be the only ones that receive this exemption? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll ask that, but I believe this is a state-wide bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Roney? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, it would treat all inner local agencies the same. But it's limited to inner local agencies that provide emergency services, fire services, or police services. And so if there was another inner local agency that provided the services, then it would be entitled to sales tax refunds and be exempt from motor fuels.

Any further questions? Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for staff, a notice on the fiscal note, the impact is minimal. Is that because we’re really talking about a very limited group that we’re adding to the statutes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Johnson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right now, many of the interlocal agreements would qualify for the sales tax refund because of a bill we passed back in 2009 that applied to volunteer fire...well, fire departments, but it was originally designed for volunteer fire departments. That town...the interlocal agreement hasn’t had any problems with their sales tax refund. It’s actually the motor fuels refund that we’re not sure how many agencies right now that it would be applicable, but in talking to the firemen’s association, there’s a universe of about a thousand possible, but we don’t know how many of those are created through interlocal agreements. It would open the motor fuels tax refund up to that group. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Representative Luebke? Representative Luebke, we’re not hearing you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry. Trying to look both ways. Minimum general fund impact. How can you be sure it’s minimal? Your answer...I understood your answer, but it’s not clear to me that would make it minimal. It make it more unable to determine? Or… I’m just curious. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It was the highway trust fund that would be affected by the motor fuels refund. Many of the organizations already have a sales tax refund because of a previous bill, so this was just creating due any uncertainty, but as of now, I also contacted the department of revenue, there aren’t any outstanding sales tax refund requests that apply to that, so there was no foreseen general impact. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Warren. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I apologize because I’ve just now got the PCS here with the fiscal impact statement there. On the last page, it says at maximum, expanding the exemption reduces the highway and highway trust fund availability by over $900,000. Is that the worst case scenario that you’re projecting here? I guess that’s a question for staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, that is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A question for staff again. Who all do we exempt from motor fuels tax? Cities and counties, but who else gets this exemption? My guess is it’s not very broad. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Cities, counties, community colleges, schools, US government, state government and aviation fuel. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mss. Johnson, when you say cities and counties, does that include volunteer fire departments and rescue squads? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the extent that it’s applied for through the county. Often, county or city fire departments have a voluntary component, but it’s the city that applies for the sales tax refund and the motor fuels refund exemption. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m not real clear, but I think we need to be careful before we start going down the road of exempting motor fuels tax from a lot of these agencies. If I’m not mistaken, most volunteer fire department and rescue squads, they don’t get an exemption on this, but they may. I guess it depends on how they’re billed and so forth, but I just want to go slow on exempting motor fuels tax. I’m not opposed to the sales tax. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Starnes. Any further discussion from the committee? If not, all in favor…you’ve heard the motion from Representative Robert Brawley for favorable report of this PCS. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed? Motion carried. Thank you, Representative McElraft. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. I just would say in the case of my towns, these three towns would have been exempt and that one fire department would have been exempt anyway because it was a city fire department. They would have the motor fuels tax exempt anyway. My towns are not bringing any more cost to the state, but opening it up might so.

Representative McElraft, you have escaped the Finance Committee. [Laughter] Be thankful I would run. SPEAKER CHANGES: I know it. I know it. [crosstalk] SPEAKER CHANGES: That motion's out of order Representative Blust, bless your heart. Will...[laughter] I think you would be safe. We'll now hear House Bill 193 explaining the use of the from Mecklenburg County Charlotte local tax Representative Sameulson. And we have a PCS for this Bill. Who would like to...Representative...Well, Bill Brawley moves to have the PCS before us for discussion. All in favor say aye. SPEAKER CHANGES: Mr. Chairman. SPEAKER CHANGES: Yes sir. SPEAKER CHANGES: All opposed. SPEAKER CHANGES: Can I ask one question. SPEAKER CHANGES: Of course. SPEAKER CHANGES: Is this PCS different from the PCS that was approved in the subcommittee, the Occupancy Tax Subcommittee? SPEAKER CHANGES: Sir, I didn't. ?? I missed the question. SPEAKER CHANGES: Just on PCS's I know we normally make them routine but I would like to know whether this PCS differs from the PCS that was favorably reported out of the Occupanc...Occupancy Tax Subcommittee of the Finance Committee. SPEAKER CHANGE: Would you like for me to address that? SPEAKER CHANGES: Absolutely. SPEAKER CHANGES: It does but that's because the Occupancy staff, the committee directed staff to draft the particular language so they OK'd the intent. We just didn't have the language that we needed to get it done in committee, so staff, and she can add...explain that, she did it, she drafted this according to the directions of the subcommittee. SPEAKER CHANGES: Follow up. SPEAKER CHANGES: Follow up. Well, my question, Representative Samuelson, is this, that typically our PCS's are just very routine but we also know that under, under the rules it's possible for you and other sponsors to really recommend an...another PCS to us that's different from the PCS that was voted out of the subcommittee. So that's my question. Is the PCS out of the subcommittee identical to the one that's before us? SPEAKER CHANGES: This is essentially what the...this is in essence exactly what the subcommittee approved. It was just some of the particular language they were working with the City Attorney to make sure they had the right references and to get the language correct. The subcommittee approved the details of this and what it accomplishes, they just didn't have the exact language. SPEAKER CHANGES: Thank you. SPEAKER CHANGES: We have a motion on the floor to have this PCS before us. All in favor say aye. All opposed. SPEAKER CHANGES: Motion carried. We have the PCS before us. Representative Samuelson. SPEAKER CHANGES: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Some of you already heard a good bit about this Bill but I'll go through it sort of briefly as an overview. Back in the nine...1990s when the Panther's came to Charlotte and to the Carolina's, they did so with minimal amount of public impact. The public impact was, or public financing was primarily in the form of land that the city owned that the stadium sits on, some road construction and some other sorts of infrastructure. There was no actual city money or public money that was put into the stadium or to any other part of the team. Now you fast forward many years and even at that time that was contrary to what was happening generally in professional sports, and particularly in the NFL. Now you move forward. You've got a stadium that's got some age on it, you've got some changes in the NFL around the country, and so the team had begun to consider some improvements to their facility. During the middle of that they were approached by some other potential buyers that were willing to put up a lot of public money to help the team relocate. The City of Charlotte then got in touch wih the team owners and said, look, we would really like to keep the team here, can we work with you on some of these improvements to see if we can help to make it such that it is in your best interest to stay here in Charlotte? So, they originally came to us, to us being the Mecklenburg delegation, and I do want to recognize that I've got Representative Earle on the Bill, Representative Carney, and Representative Brawley and we have all been in a number of meetings with the team and the City of Charlotte. Their original request was for a one cent increase in the prepared food and beverage tax. We all looked at it and decided this was not the time to do that in Mecklenburg County, or frankly in the state, given the fact that we're in the middle of tax reform, but the economy is just now starting to turn around, and the fact that Charlotte is the beneficiary of more special occupancy and food and beverage tax, and other sorts of taxes. They are the beneficiary of more of them than any other municipality in the state. But, we did recognize that Charlotte's in a unique position, not only of having an NFL team, but that that stadium sits on city-owned land; and so if the team were to relocate, you would have an empty stadium with an absentee landlord sitting on city-owned land, plus you would lose all the economic impact of over four-thousand jobs and over three-hundred-million-dollars of economic benefit into the community. So, I personally, and I want to speak this with the other three members but.

When I looked at that, I thought, you know, the City, in under just about any scenario at some point, is going to be put in the awkward position of needing to invest in that property. Because it sits on their land. And so, the question I had was, "Is it better to try to do it now while we have the economic benefit or to wait until after the team leaves and the city is either trying to buy the stadium, or tear down the stadium, or at the very least put a fence around the stadium?" And so it just seems to make better economic sense to do it now than to wait and do it later when you've got an empty stadium. So what we offered in exchange for -- not an exchange, as an alternative, to the one cents sales tax was we said to the City, "The special taxes that you have currently going to the convention center, which frankly is the same age as the stadium, they have a 3% occupancy tax and a 1% prepared food and beverage tax. That one percent prepared food and beverage tax does have a sunset in it in 2034. Those taxes are being used to pay the debt and the other pieces of running the convention center. They currently have some excess. And so, what we have recommended is that they use that money and any other prioritize money that the City wants to use to help do what they can to keep the panthers in Charlotte. To keep that stadium occupied. And to create a tether of sorts to the team." Hopefully to tie the team to the area for as many as 15 years so that we make sure we get all of it back. This bill gives them that permission. The changes that we were making in the Occupancy Committee was to make sure that every part of it confirms to the reality of the situation. Which is, that the panthers would contract and solicit bids for a set of improvements. The portion of the improvements that the city would pay for would then be billed back to the City. The City would pay for those improvements and the City would own those improvements. They would own the improvements that are in the stadium. So if they build escalators, they would own the escalators. They will then lease those escalators at fair market value back to the stadium. So the Panthers pay for it as part of a package. The City pays for their portion. They own their portion. They lease it then back to the stadium. The stadium will then charge the City a fee for the maintenance on those. But the ownership will still remain with the city. If in some unfortunate circumstance the team is moved,there is in the contract some sort of way of compensating. And we haven't worked out... they haven't worked out all the details on that. It's their obligation to do. But there will be some sort of compensation to make sure that the City is compensated for the improvements that they paid for in the stadium. The other thing we had to do on this to accommodate all that was to make sure under current,... I am not sure what the statute... it's not a statute, but with the ..Charlotte Regional Visitor's Authority currently is set up to operate anything that those taxes pay for. The complicated part that we had to do is to make sure that the CRVA, the Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority, is not obligated to run the escalators in the Panthers stadium --that the Panthers will run the escalators in the Panther's stadium. So that was the complicated piece that we were trying to figure out. And I think they found a neat and as tidy way to do that. And I believe that covers everything on here. So what we're essentially doing is saying to the City of Charlotte, "You have an asset sitting on your land that you need to do your best to retain and keep functional. We are going to give you permission to use the taxes that you already have to make that more likely to happen". There is no new increase in taxes. It's just new permission. Floor open for questions. Representative Blest You've used the phrase, "if the team still leaves". If this Bill is passed, is there still a chance or a threat that the team could leave? Is there no guarantee that, hey, you guys do this and we're staying. This bill does not require that the City choose to use these funds to help tie the Panthers to the Carolinas. This bill doesn't require that. Our hope is that the City, if they choose to set their priorities such that they should choose to enter into a contract with the Panthers, our hope would be that they would be able to get a tether on it. That had originally been part of the original agreement. But this amount of money is less than what they had originally asked for. So I can't guarantee in this bill what the City would do. All we are doing legislatively is giving the City permission to set their own priorities to do what they can with the money they already have to make it more likely that they would be able to create that tether. Representative Holly. I...

I just want to understand, if they do leave we will get the money back that we've invested in the stadium at that time? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can't guarantee that you'll get the money back. They have, as a requirement that they set up, a way to be re-compensated for it should they leave. Those details, because we haven't given them permission yet, those details have not been set out yet. They do have a document that they're using right now when they're working with the Panthers that includes a provision that that be in there. Bear again, all we're doing is giving the city permission to consider and begin the idea of using this money, as well as other monies that they may have, to, we don't give that permission, they already have that permission, but to use whatever monies they have to make these negotiations. We're simply giving them permission to consider using these funds as part of their negotiations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Samuelson, you said you were giving them permission but I read this as, "Shall be applied in accordance," and they can't move anything until they do D and then E. Is that correct, if it's a shall or a may? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Which, can you tell me which line you're on? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ma'am, sorry about that. It'd be line 18-19. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This, okay, this original part in section 2 is in the original statute where it was being limited only to the Convention Center. If you look on line 13, they marked out Convention Center facilities. And so it's saying that they can only use the monies for the things in this section 2, which would include the Convention Center, the possibility for the, what we call the Panther Stadium, the Bank of America Stadium and then E is if they should choose to get in to amateur sports, which is another thing they've requested. So we're really giving them full choices to decide what to do with the money that they are collecting. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I guess, let me just ask staff a couple questions. How much money is the occupancy tax generating currently? Because basically you're talking about the occupancy tax funds. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I may have it if they don't. Do you have it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, the 3% portion of the occupancy tax generates approximately 11 million and then the food and beverage tax is about 20 million. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And they are currently using a good bit of that already on the Convention Center. So they would only be considering the excess and some money that they've saved. I think it's about 24 million that they have already saved that they weren't using. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So how much money are you saying will be used for the Panthers annually? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We, in this bill we are not directing them to spend any particular amount on the Panthers. We're allowing them to choose, within the tax that they're collecting, what they want to spend. A good portion of it is already allocated toward paying the debt on the Convention Center. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up then. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, you've got some idea how much money you want to give them or how much they're asking for? [SPEAKER CHANGES] They're asking, they actually asked for $60.5 from the state. They asked for another $60.5 from, no, they were going to do $60 and then we, then they wanted $140-something from the city. This doesn't come anywhere close to giving them what they asked for. We are not giving any, and according to this bill and I'm not aware of any other way that they are getting any state money at all, and so what we countered to the city when we found out we had that, they had that 24 million that was not currently allocated we said, "Why don't you use the money you already have and you set the priorities about what you think is most important for your community." And so it really is a local bill that's saying to the local officials, "You need to make this decision, don't come to us and ask us to be giving you additional revenue at this time." [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up then. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] How much money is required for the debt service and the operation of the Convention Center? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can look and see if I have that chart. I do know that the city told us they had 24 million that is not currently used for that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that on an annual basis? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, that's the, they've got it in, right now, in a pot and at some point, as the debt goes down on the Convention Center they will have a little bit more

But at this point most of the numbers that we’ve seen have just been using that 24 million and using that 24 million to either finance or pay directly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, what I’m trying to figure out and your answers are very evasive because the debt service for the convention center is so much and then it costs so much to operate the convention center and then so these taxes generate this amount of money so you’re saying they have a little bit of surplus but I’m trying to figure out how much do you anticipate diverting to the Panthers and if that creates a short fall then does the city, are they going to be required to raise property tax or come up with other tax money to pay the debt on the convention center? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are correct that if they should choose, in other words, we are not telling the city what to do with their money, we are giving them the option of deciding what they think is the best use of the money they already have. We’re not requiring them to give it to the Panthers, we are merely saying, if you choose to use your tax money that is collected by your citizens and you want to do this we will give you permission within these two sources. They also have four other special taxes that we’re not touching. They also have property taxes that we’re not touching. All we’re saying is if you want to use these that are already allocated to the convention center and use the excess or however you prioritize for the Panthers that is your choice. I’ll admit that there are some who said, well we think we’d rather use it on the convention center and that is still their choice. If they look at it and decide it’s in their better interest to use it on the convention center, they may. What they recognize is they own the land under the stadium and at some point they’re going to have to do something with that stadium and so we are giving them the permission now, so that hopefully they will be able to keep the Panthers, but if they can’t or if they choose to do something otherwise that’s their decision. We’re not telling them what to do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a comment, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] By all means. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well it almost seems disingenuous. You’re collecting occupancy tax and sales tax on food for the convention center for its debt service and its operation. So now you’re saying well we are not going to use any tax money for the Panthers but we will divert this over there to the Panther’s stadium but then if there’s a shortfall in the convention center then they raise taxes for the convention center and so I mean it’s just, you’re shortchanging one fund to buck up another fund and it just seems like it’s a little bit disingenuous. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We aren’t telling them to; remember they have asked us for this. They’ve asked us for this flexibility. They came to us; we didn’t go to them and impose our will on them. They came to us for additional options to allow them to have the option of funding the Panthers and they support this option so it’s really the elected city council who’s responsible to their citizens who will be making the decision that you’re talking about. We’re not ordering them to do it, we’re simply giving them the choice. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well then one last question, please. Does this tax money generate enough to provide for the convention center and the Panthers both? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It does not provide enough to fund everything the city wishes. The city wishes for convention center money, they wish for several, for a lot more money for the Panthers, and they also wish for money for amateur sports. We are not increasing any of their money we’re saying you need to set your own priorities and we’re going to allow you the flexibility to set your own priorities. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Carney. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion when you’re ready. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Ross. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and I think that this is a good bill. I think that the city should be able to figure out how to use this money; I also would point out that because most of this particular revenue stream comes from occupancy and prepared food and the Panthers probably generate most of the occupancy and prepared food taxes that this pot of money represents to say that they wouldn’t be able to benefit from it for the stadium seems to be somewhat unfair and if you lose the Panthers than you’re going to have a whole lot less money in this particular pot to pay for anything so it seems like an appropriate marriage between a revenue stream and a potential use, not a mandatory use but a potential use, and I trust the city of Charlotte to make

Use of this money in the way that it will benefit their city and their people. Thank you. SPEAKER CHANGES: Thank you Representative ??. Representative Bill Brawley. SPEAKER CHANGES: Thank you Mr. Chairman [laugh]. As you can imagine, we've had no controversy over this issue at all. SPEAKER CHANGES: None whatsoever. SPEAKER CHANGES: None at all. This Bill doesn't really commit us to do anything with the Panthers. It doesn't commit the state to do anything. The City of Charlotte did approach us about asking for a tax of one cent for thirty years, which would've generated a billion dollars of which they wanted to give one-hundred-twenty-five-million to use it to up-fit Panther Stadium, which they would own and put in a fifteen-year tether. That's all well and good but I didn't see it reasonable to ask this body to vote for a one-billion-dollar tax increase without a vote of the people, and a lot of other people didn't. We negotiated some more and there were other back and forth, but as part of that discussion, it came out that the occupancy tax that was originally passed in the City of Charlotte, and the prepared food tax, which was passed specifically to pay for a convention center, and I know this because as a member of the Matthews Town Council I came up here and lobbied and supported. That tax has just about paid off the bonds. It will generate one-hundred-ten-million dollars during the period of need of cash that is not committed to pay bond debt service on the convention center. Would the City of Charlotte use that for something else related to convention center and the related facilities if that money were not needed somewhere else? Yes they would. Do they have to? No. They would lik3 to invest in Panther Stadium as part of a move to support keeping the Panther's in Charlotte. They have other issues in which they would like to invest. We are not able to provide them in this political climate with additional revenue. What we are doing is giving them the freedom to allocate all the revenues they are currently collecting and for them to decide where there priorities are. Somebody said, what are you really doing? and I said, well, my kids came to me and said, Dad, we want our curfew extended so we can start going to the football games 'cuz we can't get home until late 'cuz we have to go out and eat afterwards. You know, you been there. Okay, great, no problem, you can stay out late. Well, I need more money for the football games. No, you've got money. If you want to go to football you just rent fewer videos or you buy fewer Itunes. They get to set the priorities. All we're doing is allowing them to allocate the money as they see fit. We're not committing the state to do anything for the Panther's for the convention center. We're not requiring any bonds to be done. We're not requiring them to raise property taxes. We're simply saying you've got more of these special taxes than anybody else in the state. We'll give you the freedom to use them as you see fit. It's your city, you deal with it with what you already have. That's all we're doing here. Thank you Mr. Chairman. SPEAKER CHANGES: Thank you Representative Brawley. Representative Jones. SPEAKER CHANGES: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just like to make a few comments, if I may, and for one Mr. Chairman I,I expect this is going to be a divided vote and I would ask at the end that there be a division and show of hands on the vote if that's possible. SPEAKER CHANGES: Very well. SPEAKER CHANGES: Just from the comments and in all due respect to my, my friends from Mecklenburg on both sides of the aisle here, I understand what you're trying to accomplish. I think I understand your explanation pretty well, but as a, as a representative from the district where I come from, I'm just gonna share a few concerns that, that I think are out there. And if I understand you right, basically what the Panther's were asking for was at least two-hundred-million-dollars, if not more, in tax money from the state, from the city, if you do the math, maybe so, I think you said one-hundred-forty-million from the city, a-hundred-and-sixty more from the state and so forth. And so basically what we are offering them it looks like is a portion of a tax that generates somewhere between eleven and twenty million dollars and that's going to be an incentive to actually keep them to stay. You know, where I come from that's a lot of money. I think there are a lot of people in the state that have a philosoph...

Ethical problem with what is happening in professional sports and with the NFL in particular the mental picture that I get when I hear the description earlier is that we got this dilapidated rundown facility down in Charlotte this just about the folly and and we got to somehow put it back up as evidence beneficial to use and I think the reality is is that we are in a competitive bidding war with cities all over the country that some places that are willing to expand a tremendous amount of taxpayer funds to build stadiums that are well over $1 billion and the NFL is big money wasand without a big business here they certainly exert a lot of influence disabled based the question is meant as a nothing by represented stars in particular about the dedicated times that have been raised for a convention center in which we had net and your Senators $24 million in the pot that is not necessary for the been silent about money that we can use in another way ISOs wholesale half of the 87,000 citizens that I represent and I think a lot of other districts after like-minded in a $24 million ago a tremendous place in our state to do a lot of good we got water needs we got NEEDS where we can't get a fraction of that billion steel if we Money to daily studies are not running along that I'll just say that this sounds a lot like the argument that were not raising taxes were just allowing them to read dedicate a portion of what's already there something that it doesn't already have the authority today and my concern is what we see a lot around here is the of the show game if you will that the money comes from here today but when the convention center goes down tomorrow is another need of the city will be back and and Italy are an avid Is have a dilapidated facility that somehow we need to take taxpayer money to do have in the day I just have problems with this I think many of the people that I represent have problems with it I don't think I can that sort again I respect the sponsors and what you trying to do and is our for Mecklenburg maybe I would see things a little differently that time you on behalf of my Matthey politest felon and a decided negative symptoms of several thank you as always say that we would look at the big picture on yes the scenes have a lot of money and that they are in great demand also in a country that an awful lot to this economy for the state and for the local and a region and on okay from Navy with a considerable oh well districts or whatever they benefit from this money that comes in from this team the players alone pay and contacts in the state and that's a huge amount of money that this generated from the businesses in the area which are generated by the Panthers being there is likely a good look at the at the big picture over $40 million comes to the state of North Carolina if he leaves the way to have to make up that difference somewhere in the and in your accounting Rep. journalism sure that there are appropriate benefit from those dollars that come in from the Panthers and the Richeson's finance this team from the very beginning and have had very little of the public and hope you know that there's only 32 of these teams and they are in great demand at any they could be bought and moved someplace else is hope that we would look at the big picture you may not support giving my two NFL teams of whatever but bottom line is we need to keep this team in North

Carolina, we need to keep it Mcklenburg County and this bill only gives city county the authority to do what they need to do, to make this happen. I just hope that we would look at the big picture and support this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative [??]. Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the work that the Sponsors are doing. I’m in the Government Committee that this Bill passed, pretty overwhelmingly in the Government Committee and so I expect it’s going to pass here. I have no illusions about whether the political clout is there on behave of the Bill Sponsors to get the Bill through. First of all Mr. Chair, I want to talk about the history of the [Occupancy] tax and should also say, I hate to vote against my seat mate, I just hate to do it. Representative Carney and I have talked, and Representative Carney has been an outstanding Chair of the [Occupancy] Tax Committee over the years. Oh, you didn’t Chair it? I’m sorry, but you’ve been an outstanding member. She should have chaired it, right? [SPEAKER CHANGES] She just suffered through it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Actually, it’s a very important sub-committee and let me tell you why Mr. Chairman and members. The [Occupancy] Tax Sub-committee was set up in response to requests from the Travel & Tourist Agency Advocacy [??] statewide. Half of all of the counties and cities that benefited from the [Occupancy] tax and the reason why they were here, they came up and convinced us, Finance Chairs at that time and I was one them, to put together the [Occupancy] Tax Sub-committee is because too many juries and cities in their opinion were diverting the money form direct benefits for what they had asked for and were putting elsewhere. They had a set of requests and they felt a lot of counties were violating that. That is why we have that Sub-committee, the Sub-committee came in and basically would say to Bill Sponsors, you Bill doesn’t meet the criteria, so you need to change it in order for us to bless it and send sent it on to the whole Finance Committee. Those of us who have been here a while remember that process. What bothers me in this Bill, if I read correctly, Representative Stam and Representative [Burr] if I’m wrong correct me, but on page 2, line 4 of the Bill it says that the Charlotte Regional Authority has no power etc., having to do with this diversion of the monies for the Panthers. So, am I not correct that essentially the power that typically is given to [??] taxes for the Visitors Authority to run, that that is being taken away from the Regional Visitors Authority. Am I right on that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Only for these improvements that are being inside the stadium that would be run by the Panthers and they Okayed this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Who’s they? [SPEAKER CHANGES The CRVA. It doesn’t impact their ability to run things, only those improvements that inside the stadium. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And why would they do that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Because it would be very difficult for them to run score boards and escalators inside the stadium that’s being run by another team and they were okay with this and they understood it. The convention center, they run the whole the convention center, so it makes that they would run that. In this case, they don’t run the whole stadium, which is part of the problem because the stadium sits on city owed land but it’s owned by the Panthers and these improvement will be owned by the city. This is trying to make it function more smoothly for everybody. [SPEAKER CHANGES I guess to speak on the Bill Mr. Chairman. First of all Representative Samuelson, you and I know it’s not quite accurate to say that the convention center and the . . . well maybe you’re right. Maybe I should ask, I’m sorry. When did the convention center went in? [SPEAKER CHANGES] 1997? No earlier than that. I’d have to look. Somewhere in the 1990’s. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Panthers came in 95’ . . . [SPEAKER CHANGES] Shorty after. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I understand. Thank you. It just seems to me, my conclusion reading this is, this is corporate welfare

This is welfare for a major profitable corporation. In my opinion, corporate welfare has always been wrong. I just don’t think it’s right to do what we do with that. And I’ve been indiscriminate on this corporate welfare policy of this state since it was first initiated. And I will say under Governor Hunt, so I didn’t mind disagreeing with a fellow democrat. But we’ve got a situation here, where as Representative Starnes says, if the convention center runs out of money because this money’s been diverted to the Panthers, I guess it’s tough luck or they’re going to go to the City of Charlotte and ask for help. So, we’re doing a kind of, maybe again Representative Jones talked about as a shell gate. And it’s hard for me not to see that it is just that. And also in this sense if there were not an occupancy tax in place allowing the bill advocates and by extension, the city, to direct the money to the Panthers, you would have to ask for a tax increase. Is that not true? Tend to generate the money. If the occupancy tax weren’t in place… [SPEAKER CHANGES] They asked for additional taxing authority and we turned it down. They happen to say to us that they had some excess money in their existing taxes. So we’re saying, “fine. If you, elected body, decide that you want to spend your money that’s collected in your community on this property that sits on your land we will give you the option of using your money that you were elected to allocate on land that you own.” [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, it still seems to me that this money, as I said following the occupancy tax subcommittee, was supposed to be used for things directly related. For example, the 1989 Statute, as I understand it, was to build a Convention Center. That’s where the revenue was supposed to go. Now with your diverting the revenues, I’m just saying if you didn’t have an occupancy tax that was passed in 1989. So you didn’t have an occupancy taxes. How would you help the Panthers right now? The only way you could help the Panthers is if they weren’t occupancy tax dollars to divert is to generate a new tax. So, I know you’re against new taxes, but in a way this is just a roundabout way to, in effect, have new taxes because you’re diverting money from the reasons why the bill was passed in 1989 to a new effort. So finally I’ll say on this, I tried to argue subsistently why it was wrong. But more generally I just do not agree with the idea that money should go toward the Panthers. This is both wrong in terms of, I mean it happens in sports all the time. The franchises move from one city to another. It just does. The reason why the Los Angeles Lakers are called the Lakers, bizarrely, is because of course it used to be the Minneapolis Lakers. And the reason why the New Orleans Hornets are called New Orleans Hornets is because they used to be in Charlotte. And I could just keep on going and those who know more about sports franchises do better than I. It just seems wrong to me and from my perspective, and I know not everybody in here will agree with this analysis, but this is particularly wrong given that this General Assembly has cut unemployment benefits for unemployed people. It has refused to take medicaid that when given 500,000 people who are without health insurance right now, would have provided health insurance. This General Assembly has voted to get rid of their earned income tax credit for 900,000 North Carolinians of moderate and low income. And when you look at just those three bills that were passed and then we contrast it to this, it’s really that for the unemployed and the moderate income poor folks of this state, we have to cut you back. Tough time. But for the Panthers, it’s not a tough time. We’re diverting money around to help them. And I know some may disagree with that analysis but that’s what I think it is. And to me, the cuts we’ve made to average citizens in the state, contrasted to what we’re doing here for the Panthers, is wrong. And I’ll be voting against the bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Luebke. Representative Earle would like to say a few words. [SPEAKERS CHANGES] Representative Luebke, with all…

... due respect we're talking apples and oranges. If you don't stay in Mecklenburg county overnight you do not contribute anything to this tax, and if you don't eat out - and I'm talking about more than McDonalds or Burger King - you really don't contribute. So I think we're talking apples and oranges, and we do have this ?? tax in place and it's been there for a while, so that's basically what we're talking about - we're talking about a pot of money, a revenue stream that is there, and we are looking at options as to how to use it. So I think we need to be very clear on where we are and what we're looking at. So I just wanted to make sure that we're talking apples and apples and oranges and oranges if we're gonna ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Earle. Thank you Representative Hall. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I'm a little bit late coming in so I may address some issues that have been addressed earlier, so I apologize for that, for everybody who has to sit through that, but I do have a question about Section 2E as to why amateur sports facilities are included in this if this is primarily about the professional sports team, the NFL. Is there something going on that hasn't been discussed or that relates to this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's actually a good question because this is not only about the Panthers. A local elected body - which I'm sure some of you all have served on local elected body - a local elected body needs some options for spending money that they are already collecting. They are going to collect that money whether we pass this bill or not. They would like additional options for the allocation of the resource now that some other needs have been highlighted to them. They came and approached us for an increase tax to pay for two things: upgrades to the Panther stadium which sits on city-owned land, and for amateur sports. We are basically saying we aren't giving you any increased revenue, but since you are the elected body that's supposed to decide how to spend the money that you are collecting, we will allow you the option of spending your existing taxes on the two things that you have asked for. So the city will be making the decision as to whether they spend it on the convention center, whether they spend it on the stadium, or whether they spend it on amateur sports. That will be a decision for them to make looking at their long-range goals and plans and how much revenue they have. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? Can I have a couple of ??. So in this discussion were cultural amenities discussed at all as far as being able to be eligbile for some of these expenditures? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is where you missed part of it. They have four other tax revenues one of which is already being used in that vein so they've got those covered in other areas. These were the two taxes that were not originally voter approved and seem to be most closely aligned to the interest that was included with the stadium and the amateur sports. They're hospitality/tourism sorts of things. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And finally, has there been any discussion then about - and I know this is not decided in this bill - but any discussion about what the effect of this is gonna be? In other words, are we just being used as a bargaining chip to up the ante for somewhere else? Do we have any ability as we give this additional authority to get some kind of guarantee about the length of ?? we'll have that'll be enforcable? [SPEAKER CHANGES] What they're trying to do is create a tether - Mr. Richardson who owns the team has made it clear that he does not want to move it. However, he's 76 years old and a recipient of a heart transplant, and according to the NFL the team must change hands within 2 years after he dies. And so that put the sense of needing to deal with this now. We have not been told that they are actively negotiating with anybody, if anything he has said that he intends to keep it here as long as he's alive. The desire is to create a tether that would keep it longer than that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Wales. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't know if it's because I'm a new member, or because this debate has generated such strange bedfellows, but I'm confused. I thought we were dealing with a local issue. Now, before I became a politician, I had a 20 year run as a son of a city manager. So I gotta tell ya, I'm bowing up a little bit at the continued suggestion that our cities are incompetent. Granted, some have some issues, but they're not all bad. And after being here only a brief time, I got...

[0:00:00.0] …I’m not really impressed with some of what I have seen at the operation the state government over the last 10 years. And we may have our hands filled right here before we go tell Charlotte what to do. We are not raising taxes, we are not allowing Charlotte to raise taxes, we are allowing them to use an income strength that already exist, that’s already been approved for uses that they choose to use it for. I’m missing the entire philosophical debate here. Now, I’m from a community and just lost 30,000 jobs so I got a little more to worry about in my district and what's going on the city of Charlotte and I support this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Alexander. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen and the committee first I wanna tell you that I plan to vote for this and I plan to vote for this in a full realization that from my philosophical position what the city of Charlotte requested in the first place is the measure that I would have preferred that we dealt with because it would have generated much more revenue and we would have been able to do a number of the things we are talking about but this is not the morning for me to climb upon that particular political soapbox and start beating drums one way or another. What we have to deal with is where we are and where are if we wanna play in the NFL game, we have to upgrade the stadium whether we like it or not. And I’m afraid that stadiums don’t get upgraded without spending money and the amenities that have been discussed by the current ownership with Panthers are reasonable, cost effective and we will help create a stadium that it may not be state of the art because the art keeps changing but it will have a traditional stadium they are calling, ‘Classic Design’ now that will be around for a very a longtime and will be an extremely useful building. Please understand in case you are missing this that in North Carolina benefits and Charlotte benefits by being able to see the team play on national television, it’s advertising a whole lot of money all the time. And that’s part of what we have to do, I think you all will know how we still investment…Local control of this and that and another and I’m moving this because that’s always we asking for, we are asking for some local control the ability to try to help advertise North Carolina, advertise Charlotte, and bring some more economic activity into the state. That’s all I have got to see, I hope you better vote in favor of progress coming into the 21st Century and building all those good things and we always make speeches about. And the motion I would make if it’s appropriate… [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have on the Representative Carney but after… [Laughter] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ross. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman I will just be brave and I just wanna reiterate the point that I had made before, one of the entities that generates most of the revenue that we are talking about here is the Panthers and to tell them that they cannot then since they are all very involved in generating this revenue and promoting tourism in this area that they can, that we are not gonna let them benefit in anyway they perform from this is ridiculous I mean we want this revenue to come in if we wanna keep it coming in, we need to continue to invest in the travel and tourism attractions need to trust our cities to be able to figure out how to… [0:05:00.0] [End of file…]

...and this revenue. And Charlotte has done an excellent job of dealing with these issues and making sure that it balances its books. I see absolutely no reason why this would not be appropriate, and if it was originally the occupancy taxes recommendation, if it came in and this was the first time they were doing the occupancy tax and the Panthers were there, I can not imagine the occupancy tax committee would not have reported it out favorably. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Ross. Representative Collins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Nobody hates, what's normally called corporate welfare, more than I do. I tend to think of it in terms of these incentives that we talk about, but the thing I hate about the incentives is generally it favors out of state companies over in state companies and it picks winners and losers between businesses in the same industry. This does neither of those. We are talking about an institute that is already in North Carolina, and as far as I know they don't have any competition. I don't know of any other NFL teams in North Carolina. If there is another one I certainly haven't seen them. So we're definitely not doing that. Something else, I'm not so sure this is...this is disconnected from the convention center that we're talking about. I don't know how many conventions come to Charlotte because they have professional sports teams there. I know I'm a member of a professional association that has its annual convention every year in September and I've been to San Diego, and was actually able to see the Panthers beat the San Diego Chargers in an opening game if you remember that crazy catch that guy made a few years ago. And then I've been to one in San Francisco where we saw the Oakland A's play baseball. To me that's always an added attraction if I can go to a major league sporting event. I'm a lot more likely to go to those conventions than I am if it's a city that does not have those things. So I'm not sure the convention center itself doesn't benefit from the Panthers being there. It definitely benefits the city of Charlotte and the State of North Carolina. Now we're talking about some revenue here. If we're concerned about the moderate income poor people, every year we have to find hundreds of millions of dollars more in Medicaid for those folks. Where we gonna find that from if these professional athletes aren't paying income taxes to State of North Carolina? If the other tax revenues we generate from sales? We are generating revenue from sales in Rocky Mount, North Carolina off Panthers sweatshirts every year. There is revenue all over the state coming from this stuff, folks, and we are gonna have a lot more than this $24 million dollars or whatever we're talking about to replace, and that's occupancy tax money. We don't...The State of North Carolina has basically no investment in this, and yet we do get a lot of revenue from it so where are we gonna find all that money that we're talking about? Now, I'm, I believe in philosophical things, but I'm also, there's a pragmatic side to me as well, and I do believe, very much, in the trickle down economic theory that Representative Earle described so well a few minutes ago. It works. It always has worked. It always will work. And, for all those reasons, I am going to vote for this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Collins? Representative Blust and then Representative Carney for the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, I agree with a lot of what has been said here actually on both sides so I'm somewhat ambivalent on the bill. I think what Representative Wells said was well spoken and Representative Collins, but I too was...I wanted to say something because I wish we could capture this debate here today. Representative Earle,... [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is being captured. I'm sure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ...did. She did? Now, we've been accused on our side of the aisle, in sometimes belligerent fashion, so far in this session about favoring the greedy over the needy, and we've heard about how our side represents that 1%, and it is ironic that in this situation we have some who would ascribe to that sort of description of things, in this instance are arguing to help that 1%, and explaining very rationally how helping that 1% helps so many down at the lower levels. And we've heard a description about how the economy works so I hope that we can temper some of the rhetoric going forward since we are being asked to vote for this bill that helps Representative Alexander. It helps those at the very top. Helps them the most, but they are doing things that spend money in the economy that helps people down at the bottom also. Representative Collins explained how this can even effect our Medicaid so I hope we'll learn something from this, and I think Representative Earle was very right...

About how the economy works and I am glad Mr. Richardson and the Panthers are doing well because it does help everyone when some, when a few do very well it helps other people do somewhat well themselves. So I hope we'll learn from this today and remember this description about how the economy works. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall and then Representative Carney [SP] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair and I'm opposed to any reduction in heated rhetoric that we might have so I hope this committee is not a temper [??]. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We're not going to change, we're not going to change at all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As we go forward first of all so I want that on the record. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Second of all... [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's part of our by-laws. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Seriously on this I hope we're not - and I want to borrow a word from Edgar Starnes, I hope we're not having a disingenuous discussion about this because we are partners in this whole NFL franchise, the state of North Carolina put a lot of investment in the infrastructure, highway, interchanges, etc. This is not just a local situation, this is a state and it's called Carolina Panthers for a reason and not the Charlotte Panthers. So I do want to make sure we understand Charlotte is not alone in the investment that was made but rather the people of North Carolina made the investment that ultimately help ensure that team got here. And this appears to be a continuing investment and wanted to make sure that we did look at that, the idea that folks downstream are benefiting I would say that we continue to invest in this team and we took those same resources and invested them in a different way, I think quote folks down stream would benefit as well or maybe even better. So I want to make sure we make those two points as people talk about voting for this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Hall. Representative Carney for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Wow, thank you Mr. Chairman. First of all I do want to give credit where credit is due and Representative Edgar Starnes is the occupancy tax guru around here. I've worked with him many years on this. And I want to say to representative Wells, that was extremely profound, we could have used that Amen and moved on with the motion then. And representative Collins you summed it up well yourself. Everybody has spoken eloquently on this and that's what this committee process is for and I think it has been a very good debate this morning and pointing out all this particular bill, not looking in the past or forward, this particular bill has no state money, it is not a tax increase, it is local flexibility, and I would move that we give house bill 193 the proposed committee substitute a favorable report, unfavorable to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members you heard the motion. The clerk will call the role. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Alexander? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alexander, Yes. Representative Blust? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Blust, no. Representative R. Brawley? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] R. Brawley, no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill Brawley? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bill Brawley, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] representative Burr? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Burr, no. Representative Carney? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Carney, yes. representative Collins? [SPEAKER CHANGES] yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Collins, yes. Representative Kauffam? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Kauffam, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Davis, No. Representative Dollar? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, yes. Representative Hager? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hager, yes. Representative Hall? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hall, Yes. Representative Hamilton? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hamilton, yes. Representative Haynes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Haynes, yes. Representative Harttister [SP]. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Harttister, yes. Representative Holly? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Holly, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Howard, yes. representative Johnson? Representative Jones? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Jones, no. Representative Jordon? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Jordon, no. Representative Lewis? Representative Luebke? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Luebke, no. Representative Mcmanus? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] McManus, yes. Representative Moffett? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Moffett, yes. Representative R. Moore? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] R. Moore, yes. Representative...

Representative T. Moore. Representative D. Ross. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] D. Ross, yes. Representative Samuelson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Samuelson, yes. Representative Schaffer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Schaffer, yes. Representative Setzer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Setzer, no. Representative Stam. Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Starnes, no. Representative Stone. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Stone, no. Representative Tine. Representative Wadell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Wadell, yes. Representative Warren. Representative Wells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Wells, yes. While the clerk tallies the vote if you will, just for housekeeping purposes since we're not going to be able to finish this agenda, please leave the Asheville folder on the desk so they can take them back up. I apologize to the Asheville delegation that came up here today because we run out of time shortly and we will not have time to take up the bills. The committee, as I get my bifocals here correct, the vote on House Bill 193, the proposed committee substitute, 21 yes, 11 nos, the bill passes. Thank you sponsors and thank you for your thorough explanation to the committee Representative Moffit. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. If everyone could leave their Asheville folders on their desk. We'll pass them out next week. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for your time and patience, it's adjourned.