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.

Senate | May 15, 2013 | Committee Room | Finance

Full MP3 Audio File

The please let me let the state you see a late first things first, but it's a taxi to the site and to help us operate this meeting efficiently as to make and Steve Wilson can listen to do some analysts agree to a very much for your part in this effort but secondly let's talk to me and said the case if you want to see good thank you from the second, going two alleged use the agency Leo Mendelson, too, and they scroll into the Affleck Guillen Phillips said Mary Beth Louis M and game David, fed by thank you very much hope you're busy data general assembly has been pleasant and hopefully they'll any experience from little having taken the bill 15187 rating at both claimed that that could potentially unlimited phone call eight -bit of a deck of the location of the lake and then let's take up the 702367 months and ?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) nonmembers of the finance committee this has been discussed in detail the Arum nine company to a policy of the Bella vista that portion of the new strictly on the young finance issue , and said, would you be kind enough to address that issue when we came out of a little bit more about this product code on the floor as chairman, I think the financial aspect of this bill has to do with the fact that the county commissioners play no sales tax and school boards to pay sales taxes in connection with the county commissioners taken ownership of school for copying to shut the new schools, then suggested five in the process somehow the thing the financial aspect of this and they said some at the suggestion has to be covered if this had nothing more than coming-of the 17 you left us any additional thoughts on that issue are now says he has many friends-L. Scholz laughed (SPEAKER CHANGES) and fill the property for them to get the sales tax refund and that is that we LL like what the protest, stack 94, said the committee any questions on this portion of the defining its portion of they'll Mr. Leonard had set aside, how much money as lake county division of the discounting they currently more than sales taxes without errors as for the next bond that you that the school counterparts to now left and we do not now a county- examine the audience was Chairman Arafat question, does anyone good solid knowledge and come up to the likes of please identify itself to simmer gently talk to the United Press a button to Richard little chemistry-care for uninsured with a board the shares of companies worried about holding down , but run again, the science center A.J. Foyt are not too good to this question on Brannan chairman like a port commissioners as is very specific question for getting Manager David koepp he says (SPEAKER CHANGES )say the military to pay the four tanks , we have a mechanism that rather doesn't require us to pay sales tax, Morgan shot to make Avalon sure we get are reimbursements to the status of lose any money if the construction responsibility shifts to the county and clearly weekdays case probability, seven schools this world majority is going to let her tuition of the impact the court record your professional can enter data,ยข, violet-year budget-up respectively the one defense sales tax for the schools to 16 schools could turn a-45662000 and two for sales tax to pay all of those word for years, is what has happened in the last decade have this is the precipice else to explain why can't I can understand that they have any additional questions I know anyone else scheduled to speak on 236 call from the public said division I find that the actually said the cut was sluggish 7:00 PM up and complicate matters and he had left of center can't just click, not site, I realize another they've also eliminate policy but he remains a bad bill and Camille three ??............

The festive not vote for them want a wealthy, spoken lead me to death that would put the senate bill 236-7575 any discussion that the discussions elsewhere during a call that the things that you put the tiny 272611 academy of speech and 1/2-of-the-of-a tight ends at the notion that we have a family that the 7236 counties responsible for school construction of the Snohomish no further debate taught me say I hope this game highs that obtain seven rating thank you said bill (SPEAKER CHANGES) 151 coastal policy reform act of 2013 generated this chairman Yasser women are a long cinema to six servings ice cream across like that you assume on the MATIF going on that they have held out for the late-life-and-white-owned banks in 76 by ms- and-white-owned agents chairman of the members of this is a law of protocols and reform activity is someone says it is what it got into a buzz in four parts of the war medicine revision laws are two of them succumbing to learn, construction law courtroom and scam of the men and 44555 to 10 cities have a right to life and fort ?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) All on the public trust beaches or 11 bill, calling themselves with a partisan politics and sometimes , for good briefly and then as a question that she might have one of the Parks and communication loss of Lagos said that, they are commission no longer have to have a licensing agency and have taken every county saw some counties saw this simply don't have them anymore and that is four for the McHale, and it says to them and is also want to sell life and they carry them they can bet on the commission does not have to become a spot that have to be the number two is a own family fortune , the repeal some of the own requirements for a Brochure and so the finances that were last year and last year's bill and those still raise the cap allows for more trouble is five to be constructed from four to be applied four of the original 4:00 AM all the 54 and the 14??........(SPEAKER CHANGES) They and of the others outlaw Soviet and it opens up a little for them to a good than one call seven 9223 other hand, but said that at least two members have a copy of another big deal specifically with the dissection unlikely given 48 coming out this thing is first rate of 25 PM Monday when Money Line had a chance and celery symbol any good to come up 97 out of patience and a ballet, I think is any letup in that the four center even presents a better way we can tell us what you had any guts and ready by us some E day of the PCs repeal of them that we see it as some repeal the requirement of the of state not to hold the sixth inning of the ??.....

what does the amendment. does that goes back to the original bill within the no state funds will be used on the groins and that .net is the innominate vote. okay, I I get on a motion for this discussion of that amendment was German question me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] thank you Mister so section four have the permission of using on appropriate state funds, which is now being put back in the bells understand that the correct of no state funds will be used on the film. [SPEAKER CHANGES] then sections it remains a section three is revealed can either you or staff tells with section three good second blessed after the life of thought is that is that I can drop the event. let a staff member here. mostly he likes and read the OPEC to circumvent myself. yes, this is Jeff Hudson, a staff that said, I environment the snow while the surge in activity earlier this week on the terminal blind legislation was passed in two thousand eleven, section three of that directed the Department of environment, national resources to adopt the rules necessarily necessary to implement this act. I assume it's been determined that they won't be to adopt rules to implement the accident would it would continue to repeal that provision as a Senator Raven explains this change in the amendment will retain section four of that law in the log and provide no state funds. maybe Stephanie activities related terminal groin. unless there's a specific appropriation from the General assembly is ninety okay, [SPEAKER CHANGES] okay all right. and you don't let us first handle this. we have a motion for the adoption of the amendment of all available he said I suppose they eyes have it. okay, maybe to the committee any additional questions before I give the public opportunity to have one person said you said yes, and perhaps a bill sponsored by some information about this for there is language previously adjudicated of the town or county who want to pursue any security projects I want to do so that they could not do so without the having some type of holder approve financing in place for it. everything is prohibited. you know you don't either half using nonvoter approved general obligation bond certificate anticipation things like that to go to protect homeowners in the community from long-term debt that might be associate waste projects list the voters there actually decided they would take on an obligation. one. why are we deleting that language doesn't seem to protect the citizens and residents of these particular communities. they could otherwise be adversely impacted with tremendous day for project which has been voted on to set up a thinker of statement businesses are correct impartially and correct on the circular McKissick of many of these towns have fun all funds that are wrought tied to the occupancy tax and allow them to be used as the erosion control Levitra nourishment and I'm sure that some of these downs with a with his problem was in place are willing to use some of that money can back fill the groin than to do the beach erosion control is that money has already and has already earmarked for that purpose, I would assume that most of the miss about who go before the voters were those ultimately we all answer to voters as to what whether they want to pursue with this or not all of the follow-up question, but ought we to leading their car and managed in occupancy type tax money could be used, but that's never been generated money for these projects millions of dollars coming. hey, looking at building now repealing the languid feeling with nonvoter approved General obligations funds mediation is that unless I'm mistaken, we nestle in which I saw are perhaps staffing approach that our address that question since I and I would ask that the instances do not specifically address. not sawdust staff to clarify that the language are discussing is on page four of the bill find twenty eighth through thirty forces subsection H, the legislation passed in two thousand eleven, provided no permit for terminal groin may be issued where the funds are generated from any of the following financing mechanisms and you have the three to elicit their finances on my urban expertise that my understanding is these are all types of non- voted on dad started this right now

The coastal resources committee could not issue a permit for a terminal growing. If any of these finance mechanism would be used to finance the terminal growing. This would remove that prohibition so they could issue a permit for terminal growing thats paid for by these types of financing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One quick follow up [SPEAKER CHANGES] follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think that we really would be protecting the homeowners residency areas we allow them to vote on these type of projects if they're gonna be pursued. Rather than sitting here removing that type of restriction could have an adverse risk factor on their local economies. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you senator McKissik that means your time was up. Thank you I've got senator Sanderson.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mr chair just a couple questions to Senator Raven if I might. Senator Raven could you tell us which of the four areas received these permits and if any of the four have been completed. None of them have been completed the permits have been applied for ?? island ?? ocean island and theres one more. I don't wanna give you the wrong one. And holding ??. Basically I've been made hold sir.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up question. I know that in the 2011 legislation that were there some safe guards put in place. One of them being that enough money had to be set aside in case these groins were proven not to work that the money was there to either remove them or whatever is that still in this legislation?[SPEAKER CHANGES] That is included in here it was extensively discussed with the coastal caucuses part of what we wanted to make sure was there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ok senator Woodwin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mr chairman. I guess I'm following up on both of senators Sanderson's questions. As I understand, the four that were approved in the 2011 legislation really were pilots. But since none have been constructed, I guess I'm confused now as to why we wanna move forward with any assessment or any understanding of how well they worked. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you and I appreciate that question because it opens the floor for me to answer. There are already two existing terminal groins in North Carolina. One at the bridge and the other is for the Fort Macon. The one is Fort Macon was built bu captain Robert Ely in 1845. And its still working. He was a member of the US Army at the time according to engineers. The one at the bridge has stabilized Broder bridge and if it wasn't for that the Broder bridge would probably not be present today and we would be facing another dilemma. Now it takes times to get these in. Takes a lot of time and a lot of hoops to jump through. North Carolina is the only state other than Oregon that does not use these. So there's plenty of data that terminal groins not to be confused with ocean groins do their job when they are engineered properly and they do it well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mr chairman. My second question to senator Raven would be back to the bonding requirements if one of these fails. I guess I maybe misunderstood your answer. Is that bonding requirement gone under this proposal would that be removed. Or is it there and I just missed it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm gonna let staff answer that so ?? ?? if you would answer that please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The financial assurance language is at the bottom of page 3 this is sub division six. The bill modifies that requirement from the 2011 legislation. Right now under current law there are four different items listed under sub division 6. That the financial assurance has to cover. Three of those would be deleted by the bill before you. But the one that will be retained is that the financial assurance would have to cover the cost of modification or removal of terminal groin as provided in the management plan. Under the management plan if theres something thats going wrong with the terminal groin then there would have to be financial assurance of the modification of it to address the impacts or the removal of the terminal groin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up [SPEAKER CHANGES] One more follow up. Within 6d if I'm a private land owner within the proximity to this groin and theres some damage to my land. Theres no guarantee theres no bond that would ...

...for any damage to my property, that would be my responsibility; is that the way I read that? [SPEAKER CHANGE] That would be staff. Staff, please. Staff: It does remove that requirement from your permanent application process, that the financial insurance would no longer have to cover restoration of private or public trust properties adversely affected by the growing. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you. The Chairman: Senator Stein. Senator Stein: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to pick up the line of questioning from Senator McKissick. And really this is on the heels of Senator Tucker's legislation that we passed limiting the amount of special obligations bonds we could, because of a general consensus of our Chamber that there's benefit to society for the voters to vote on any long-term obligation that's incurred in their name, and by deleting section h in its entirety, on page 4, lines 28 through 34, we have eliminated that protection for the taxpayer. At this point there's nothing that stops a community from incurring some type of long-term debt, without getting voter approval prior. I know that you can use the occupancy tax; you can pay for it out of current revenues. But I would think that this body would be very reticent to give up that protection to the taxpayer. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Stein, I think probably, if we put it in the proper context, that is a local issue that we're allowing them to make the judgment to, and I think that Senator Tucker's reticent [??]; so I think there's too different issues there. Senator Stein: Mr. Chairman, where are we? The Chairman: Senator Brown. Senator Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to respond to that piece. Now, what's happening now is that a lot of communities are moving the inlets, taking on this type of debt already, to try to mitigate some of the problems that they're having, so this is already happening, to do other type of projects; it just doesn't happen to be growing at this point. I know at North Thompson Beach, they just did a $6 million-dollar project to move New River inland, so they took on this type of debt anyway; so this is already happening. This will just allow them to do it for the growing, as well other projects. The Chairman: Okay, I've got Senator McKissick and one other question before... and don't try to renege on buying us ice cream, Senator McKissick, so make it short. Senator McKissick: Oh yeah, that's for five years down the road, if all of you get re-elected [chuckles]. In any case, [laughter] you didn't read the fine print. The Chairman: That's pretty good, Senator McKissick, thank you. Senator McKissick: In any case, simply this, Senator, would you be open to the idea of possibly putting the language back in there that talks about voter-approved financing. I think that was a smart provision that was in the original law, and when you're talking about taking on this quantity of debt, that would be impacting taxpayers for literally thirty years, it might not be a bad idea to rethink whether you really want to exclude that language from the earlier bill. So maybe that's not something you can answer now, and you need to think about it, maybe you can think about whether perhaps we might want to have an amendment that would put that particular language back in. I think many people will benefit. The Chairman: Thank you. Do you want to respond? Senator Brown: I'll respond to that. Thank you very much, and yes, I have thought about that already. In fact, I've thought about it to the extent that I removed the state money in the amendment, but I don't think that the coastal people who live on these beaches in this area are going to spend this without first talking to their constituents and what have you, and again, it goes to local control, and we want them to be able to move ahead and start their studies and start their planning, without having to take that step. The Chairman: Thank you. Senator Tucker. You had a question, Senator Tucker, yes sir. Senator Tucker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief, and certainly Senator Brown or Senator Rabin can answer this. Just to clear the air through discussions here, some people have said that the reason we are changing this and pulling things out of this is because the communities in these areas have had trouble raising the money or will have trouble raising the money through a voter referendum or incurring that debt, so we were removing that to give them more flexibility. Is that what's going on now, Senator Brown or Senator Rabin? And it's not the fact that we're trying to make it easier for them to incur debt?

Go ahead and, Senator Rabin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have, uh, had no one from the, uh, from any of the coastal towns in my area mention that at all. I have had them call me and thank me for doing this, but I have not had them use that as, to be part of the conversation whatsoever. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Meredith, did you have a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator Rabin, I appreciate you bringing this legislation forward. I would just like to ask one more question and just clarify for me, if a groyne has to be removed, it's because it's having an acid, adverse effect in the area that it's been placed. Why would we not want the bond, if its having an adverse effect, why would we not want the, a bond to protect public and private land that's also being damaged. Because the adverse effect is not just gonna be the groyne, but the area around it. Why would we not want to protect those people? [SPEAKER CHANGES] A couple of things and I believe you read the bill closely you will see that, that, what you're mentioning of adverse effect has to be proven by science and not just, uh, the other deal, just let someone say, "Oh, well this is, this is damaging my property." and then suddenly there was a liability claim. Whether it was founded or whether it was not, there is language in here to see that the groynes themselves can be removed if they are, by data, proven to be faulty. Which I doubt they will be. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. All right, now, I have a motion from Senator Wade regarding a favorable report, but I have one speaker that's registered, [Mr. LeMay?] you have one, two minutes and then we'll get on. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name's Rob [LeMay?], I represent the North Carolina Coastal Federation. The Coastal Federation is a home-grown conservation organization that was founded 30 years ago, and has grown to 10,000 members and has offices in three different coastal communities. The fact is that this, we were very engaged in the conversation around the 2011 legislation. We opposed the Repeal the Moratorium, but short of that we had a great deal of respect for the protections that, particularly for tax payers that were put in the 2011 bill. The taxpayer protections in that bill rest on a three-legged stool. They are the protections from local gover-, for local taxpayers to be able to vote on, on debt before it's obligated. It was protection from state taxpayers to require a vote of the General Assembly before any state funds were obligated for these structures. And third they were very, very demanding bonding requirements to protect the taxpayers, not only for the cost and liability of these projects right now, but into the future. Remember that they're going to be on the ground in the ocean for generations. The fact, we greatly resp-, appreciate the bill authors' willingness to restore one of those legs, but the protections for local taxpayers continue to be stripped out of this legislation. And there's no, um, these projects are very controversial. A number of them, including [beach re-nourishment?] projects have been rejected by plebiscite in recent years. We believe the voters ought to have the opportunity to vote on long-term debt that they're going to have to pay. And then finally, the bonding requirements are, in this bill, in the new bill, are considerably weaker than the original legislation and, uh, you know, if we're gonna do this let's be really clear about it. This bill radically weakens the taxpayer protections for the liability and cost of terminal groynes, which can cost millions of dollars to build, hundreds of thousands dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain, millions of dollars to repair after storms, millions of dollars to remove if they have to be removed, um, and there's no protection. We're, essentially this bill is saying, um, folks, taxpayers in the future will pay, uh, will pay that bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Thanks very much. Members of the committee, we have a motion before us for a favorable report for Senate Bill 236 as amended from Senator Wade. Seeing no further comments, all in favor please say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] all opposed nay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Nay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ayes have it. Members of the committee, this Finance Committee is over.