A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | May 8, 2013 | Committee Room | Finance

Full MP3 Audio File

This was an effort to get control of debt. I will tell you that Representative Brown and Representative Moffitt and I ran into a stiff headwind, particularly with one department, and what we've decided to do is to direct the Program Evaluation Committee to study this issue. Again, we're no less invested in trying to address the debt issue, but we're willing to have a longer period of time to discuss it, and so that's the beginning and end of the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes [SPEAKER CHANGES] I couldn't have said it better myself. I think everything ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do have a question. In your preparation for the original Bill that you filed, how much debt did you discover was being issued for projects over 5 million dollars? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't know that we found a number that we would put out there, but you can imagine, particularly, let's say, with the Department of Transportation, where every little exchange on interstate is a really big number. We know that there are rather substantial debt-like obligations and debt, and that's really what we want to get our arms around, Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I'm satisfied with the explanation and the direction he's taken this, so I move for a favorable report to the Proposed Committee Substitute for House Bill 364, unfavorable to the original Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Starnes. Any further questions or comments from the Committee? If not, all in favor say aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Thank you, Representative McGrady. It wasn't as bad as we all thought it was going to be. Now we'll hear House Bill 442, Municipal Incorporation Changes. Representative Brown--and we wish you the same luck as the previous Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Committee. This Bill makes one fairly major change to the way that we acquire municipal incorporations. At the beginning, historically, we have always had a petition of the registered voters. This Bill also adds a petition for folks that own property but who aren't necessarily registered voters. That's at the front end of the process, which is perfectly constitutional in and of itself, but it certainly gives people who own property, who have no voice, over whether the area in which they own property becomes an incorporation or not, gives them some voice. Of course, we left it at 15%, the same as it always has been. At the back end, because we know the petitions are not always relevant, the longer the lifespan of them. We have petitions that are still active, still in the works, that date back to 2000 or before, and we know that those are not the most valid of petitions. People die, people move, people divorce, etc., so we have put a there-year time frame on the process itself, from the time that a certain community decides they want to be incorporated, to the time that the petitions are signed, they are approved, validated, and then they go to the Subcommittee on Municipal Incorporations. We've given it a three-year time frame, which is perfectly legitimate and certainly long enough in order to get that accomplished. That's really the only changes. Nothing else has changed in state law. I appreciate your support, and I'll take questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley [SPEAKER CHANGES] Comment on the Motion, if it's appropriate. The comment would be you can improve this Bill greatly if you would tell the Require that when they sign that petition they sign acknowledging they understand to be incorporated there has to be a tax base. I received a petition with 600 and some names on it. Not a one of them I called wanted to leave their name on a petition once they understood that incorporation meant no tax base. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's probably a valid point. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At the appropriate time, I'd like to make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brown, have you discussed this with the legal municipalities? [SPEAKER CHANGES] There's no objection. This Bill has been out here for two months. There are no objections from anyone. What I did not want to do was to impair or inhibit any community's ability to incorporate, because traditionally--my county is a sterling example of that. We have so many incorporated areas up north, because what we were trying to do was to keep the city of Winston-Salem from encroaching, and so--this Bill in no way inhibit's a community's ability to incorporate...

Did not want to do that and in fact did not do that. What I wanted to do is, in those cases, and there's not that many of them, where the property owner is not necessarily the registered voter that this at least allows that property owner regardless of why they own that property - it may be a future retirement home, it may be rental property, it may be their vacation home that they occupy one week or a month out of the year but they have a right to have a voice in that incorporation at the front end. We know at the back end it's gonna have to always be a referendum. We learned that during our annexation battles in 2011 and 12 and it has to be a referendum at the end but at least in the beginning they do have a voice and like I say most of the time one is going to be the other but there are occasions where they're not and this will take care of that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. Thank you Representative Brown. I guess a question for ?? please Mr. chairman and that is and I don't know who'd like to handle this. Didn't we have this, a couple years ago, didn't we get into this problem of trying to give essentially some kind of rights to non-residents? And so I guess I'm trying to figure out how this doesn't get into that same problem where you decide you can't - I mean we know you can't vote in Atlantic Beach and Rhode Island just because you own a house down there if you live in Durham or Lexington so can someone speak to that issue of non-residents having a say on this issue? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Cohen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes this bill basically puts that at the beginning of the process as a trigger where in order which gives property owners as well as registered voters a say at the beginning of the process just like, for instance, to trigger the beginning of the process to create a fire district involves only property owners and eventually it's a referendum. What the court struck down was at the end of the process where it actually has illegal effect involving property owners sort of as substitute for a referendum because the Constitution says property qualifications can't affect the right to vote so this is similar to other processes where property owners trigger the beginning of the process. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Carney. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I just have a question of staff on the back page we've got this handout of places, municipal incorporations, that are not yet incorporated rather. There are several starting with Guilford County down through Dare County. My question is are these people going to have to get back in the hopper are start all over again with new petitions or are they - could you address that? Katrina maybe. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Roney. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This list was done by the ?? staff and what it shows is people that the way I understand it the ones that are in gray they did not actually incorporate. The reason - there's no call on here telling you why they didn't incorporate but most of these they didn't incorporate because we did check and most of them did not incorporate because the referendum failed. So that's where the art in the process they have a referendum and it failed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. So it failed but have they come back to go back through the process again. Have they applied for that, do you know? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Cohen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me may I just clarify. The ones that are highlighted they did not have a referendum? Is that what you're - they're X'd out - they aren't a yes or a no so does that X indicate that they did not hold a referendum? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't know. I can answer the question about one of them Representative Carney. If you'll look at Catawba County under something called Slanting Bridge. It went as far as the public hearing, the general public was not in favor. There was a very small group of people that wanted to prevent Catawba County from putting a sewer plant in the Lake Norman area. That never went past the public hearing, there was never a bill filed but it did it was a petition filed I think Mr. Cohen has the but that's one of them I can answer where it didn't proceed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Basically this provision says that after 3 years of submitting it to the commission the petition is stale, in other words that the House and Senate rules require that in order to bring a bill to the floor, not just to file a bill, but to bring a bill to the floor it has to have had a recommendation from this commission. Basically this will say that 3 years from the time the petition it's submitted to the commission it's stale it can't be relied on in the legislature that let us satisfy this rule and if it's still pending

the commission itself, it has to start over again. So, basically it gives you a three-year life after the petition is submitted. If the legislature hasn't approved of the bill or if it's pending before the commission, the people have to start over on the basis that the circumstances have probably changed. We've had people come back to the legislature trying to get in a corporation bill five or six years after the petition was submitted to the commissioner after the commission made a recommendation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to make sure that we aren't catching some that are already in the process, you know, two years, and we're going to slam them. Then, they've got to turn around and go back and start over. If they're already in the loop, are they taken into consideration in this legislation to the bill's ?? ? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 11 says the bill only applies to petitions submitted to the ?? corporations subcommittee after this September 8th. That rule doesn't apply to anything, all these things on the list for five or six years ago aren't made stale by this. It only starts with new petitions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Warren. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just, at the appropriate time, I'd like to be recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have a motion. I think it's the appropriate time, Representative Warren. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I'd like to make a motion for a favorable report to the committee substitute unfavorable to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is not a PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah it is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry, sir. Mine says committee substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, but it's the old one. It was a PCS in a previous committee. It's not a PCS in this committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would stand here and let you correct me, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sir, I have good people to direct me, and they keep me from looking like a complete imbecile. So, bless your heart. Please repeat your motion for the committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to make a favorable report on the bill, and there is no referral. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, you've heard the motion on the floor. Is there any further discussion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman [SPEAKER CHANGES] If not. Yes sir. Representative Starnes, you caught me right before. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well. Let me ask the bill's sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] By all means. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wholeheartedly support the limits. My question is, tell me the thoughts you went through to come up with three years. Is that adequate time? I'm just wondering if it doesn't need to be two full sessions as opposed to one and a half sessions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can I respond? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The three years is from the time that a community begins the process to the time that they get it to the subcommittee of municipal incorporations. And that should be plenty of time to do the petition. Then, they've got thirty days to have it verified. Am I not correct? Mr. Cohen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's correct. This allows a full legislative cycle, either long and short or short and long, depending on when it's turned in. The petition has to be submitted to the commission basically by Thanksgiving of a particular year, and then the commission has to report by the first sixty days in the next legislative session. So, depending on which year the petition is submitted, this gives a full session for the legislature to review it, either short and long or long and short. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. My only thought was, if it's done in a short session, and it doesn't have unanimous approval, then it's ineligible. So, that carries it over another year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's correct. If it was submitted in a short session, it'll be eligible in the long. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further questions from the committee? If not, you hear the motion on the floor. All in favor, say "aye". All opposed? Motion carried. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Brown. We're glad to have you. For members of the committee, I'd also like to alert you that house bill 553 Amend Cateret County Occupancy Tax, has been referred to the Occupancy Tax Subcommittee, and we'd be tickled to death if y'all will have it. Representative Stone, do you have a report from the subcommittee on de-annexation? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The house subcommittee on de-annexation annexation met. We sent out a favorable report for house bill 567 and house bill 526. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Stone. At this time, we will have house bill 567 Lumberton De-annexation Representative Waddell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. This is a local bill. I would say a simple bill, but it's not had a simple journey [SPEAKER CHANGES] Nothing ever does. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Nothing ever does around here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It was at the request of the City Council of Lumberton to de-annex a little portion 95, I think, that they were having problems with, and

Representative: with having said all that I will stand for questions and ask that you make it favorable. Speaker: Representative Warren? Representative: A question for the bill’s sponsor. Speaker: Representative Videll? Representative: I understand you say sir that there was no opposition at all? Representative: No opposition. Representative: Mr. Chair, at the appropriate time I would like to be recognized for a motion. Speaker: Further questions or comments from the committee? Representative Warren, as always, it is the appropriate time for a motion. Representative: I would like to make a motion for a favorable report on house bill 567. Speaker: Will you refer to the committee on government? Representative: Absolutely. Speaker: Thank you Representative Warren. Members of the committee, you have heard the motion on the floor. Representative: We had this in government Mr. Chair. Speaker: To quote the grail from the computer, it was sent to Senator [xx], but was withdrawn from the committee, according to the computer, and referred to the committee on finance and is favorable. So it has made one more trip to government and it should not be long, otherwise, we are going to meet in government tomorrow. Representative: Thank you Mr. Chair, I look forward to hearing it yet again. Speaker: Yes, I do too. Members of the committee you have heard the motion on the floor, is there any further discussion? I hope not. All in favor say aye [aye]. All opposed? [silence] Motion carries. Thank you Representative Warren – Videll, excuse me. Representative Videll why don’t we have you, I know you want to get this over with, why don’t we just down to house bill 526, chad burn voluntary annexation . Representative: Thank you Mr. Chair. This is a voluntary annexation that was requested by my hometown chapman to annex a small personal land for victory in jesus. There was no opposition. They had a public hearing. I have got all the documents. Speaker: Members of the committee, this one does not have to go anywhere according to the computer, and we rely on those greatly. Representative Collins and then Kerney. Representative: I would like to make a motion when it is appropriate. Speaker: Bless your heart, Representative Kerney. Yes ma’am. Representative Collins, your motion? Representative: I would like to just state once again my ecstasy at being able to make a motion that we accept and give a favorable report to house bill 526 for a voluntary annexation in chadwin. Speaker: Absolutely. Members of the committee you have heard the motion on the floor, is there any further discussion? I hope not. All in favor say aye [aye]. All opposed? [silence] Motion carries. Thank you Representative. Representative: It has been a pleasure. Speaker: At this time we will have house bill 545, modify Henderson occupancy tax, and I am sorry Representative Grady, I would have caught you when you were up here before, if I had realized. Representative: No problem I just want the same result. House bill 545 is dedicated to Representative Howard. Last year we adopted an occupancy tax for Henderson County and dedicated a portion of that tax directly to a certain nonprofit. House finance committee, former Representative McGhee and other leaders, did not much like it but the senate did not much like it. Well, low and behold, we are back to reverse it. We are repealing the provision that house finance did not like last year and we are taking care of a name change. That is all the bill does. The house finance did not like what we did. The senate finance insisted upon it. so this puts it back to where house finance wanted it last year. Speaker: Redemption has been reached. Members of the committee, questions, comments, motions? Representative Moffet? Representative: Thank you Mr. Chair. I would like to make a motion for a favorable report for house bill 545. Speaker: Members of the floor you have heard the discussion on the floor, is there any further discussion? I hope not. All in favor say aye [aye]. All opposed? [silence] Motion carries. Thank you Representative McGrady. You are holding out today. At this time we will hear house bill 552, remove area from county service district. Representative McElray? We will thank the Potomac County schools for that.

The fact that it was that the procedure to thank in this area are said to me, I started at a level beyond NEA as a white male, actually less cancer remains from a group of people from Ankeny Service district in a wide receiver district S error, they never gave them this service says(SPEAKER CHANGES) ML Media Services anymore ms from Michael E from that was the people they were in F minor sewer district could never receive the services to the import firms 10 years SL from family would like to be taken now that the MSN commissioners agreed for this allowed into the NL home some would likely be lost everything in this handsome tusk SSA Loudoun this change his name the knowledge of space in ordering that much of this question of certain incidents or party to send postcards about the clicking that this is so humble tuition of 1% of property owners petition for removal does that mean the county commissioners have to remove the now they do not have to open excel despite a 21 can of this, this crack-push from the date the commissioners that those left the second motion care about they'll have to do a asserted that the conditions are met and send them the commission said the option to editors -stars making with a permissive language with this fix the problem you got scant mail to be involved reference-slow for your pressures of agreed to remove the pot De Kamp Asia requested this language. One college, how widespread as soon as you did you find that many other instances where this is happening since you turn it into a statewide mail at SA ID turn it into say Y Dellums suggested by staff could be turned into a statewide else I don't know if I don't know how widespread as a cell that was not my suggestion that the stats suggestion on some idea how many of them have a widespread good questions, she committed budget and the committee that symbolic of those move favorable court house bill 552 9% from the referral is are found to a move favorable that even the most on for a further discussion is knowledge that are so out of those missing. Thank you-go rank you miss chairman said. Thank you for this to anyone hear the proposed use of state house bill 341 that's in the public web; the seventh at 3000371 defense for discussion of them are so out of this motion. Thank you go-kart-up taking the latest chairman of the committee also like to acknowledge we have two nice young lady from that part of labor was a data entry and questions as secretary in that endeavor sincere regrets am up the issue they were addressing this morning they could not be here , (SPEAKER CHANGES )as chairman, have you wish to handle this is bill was hurried a subcommittee of this full committee an ugly this report at this table this morning I recommend Starnes Mr. Any further questions are not been reading club at this ms in the balloting U.N. and please the report said if the demand that they have exited dollars a minute , written about the amendment one of the first part in the mood changes from seven months to nine months of home during the year a person has to be employed on independence program the second or the amendment sets puts a sunset home tax credits which is basically what we've been going on with old tax credits and they allowed 78 , the way the bill is currently read a bit gives anyone enrolled in the appropriate biggest employer the right to sum up the one from coach program and take a $1000 tax credit four eight, thank the accountability is to promote new hires shall not be best for them to mimic those who say they will only apply to new hires after the effective date this would keep an employer that they still like a duo 540 employees of some ??................

[SPEAKER CHANGES] Up to get a $1000 tax credit just because I put them under a friend’s probe. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move the adoption to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members you’ve heard the motion from Representative Brawley. Any other discussion? Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t understand, your sunset, isn’t that in the PCS, lines five and six? Or five? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley? I’d have to defer to staff, they just handed me the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Miss Scrition? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes, as you recall the subcommittee yesterday amended the bill to add the sunset, which is what you see in the PCS before you. There is an amendment drafted this morning to add the language about the new hires and the amendment that you see simply moves the sunset from the uncodified part of this statute, I mean the uncodified part of the law, to put it in the actual statute. That’s more of a technical thing. It just made more sense to put the sunset in the statute. The sunset isn’t new to the, isn’t new to the amendment but this committee hasn’t seen the sunset before but that was adopted by the subcommittee yesterday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further questions or comments from the committee? How about a motion from the committee? I know you’re all out there. Representative Howard? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, I’d like to move that we give a favorable report to House Bill... [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’re on the amendment. Pardon me, I’m ahead of myself. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m so sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s my fault. Members you have the amendment before you for House Bill, the PCS for House Bill 341 and the motion for Representative Brawley. Any further comments or questions regarding the motion? Representative Talbert? Yes, on the amendment. Pardon me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There’s absolutely no way can we not support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Talbert. You heard the comment from the bill’s sponsor and the motion. All in favor of the amendment from Representative Brawley say “Aye”. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed? Motion carried. Amendment passes. Kittens and honey. Representative Howard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to move that we give a favorable report to House Bill 341 as amended, rolled into a new PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you ma’am. Representative Luebke? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to send for an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do members have the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, I think staff has it and it’s being passed out right now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee will be at ease until the amendment is with the members. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d raise the point of order that this is not germane to the bill, number one, and number two, it’s already been defeated in this committee several times. Although that’s not… Anyway, I raise that point of order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, may I respond? This is a bill on tax credits, Representative Stam waited for a bill on tax credits so that we could consider another tax credit. Representative Brawley’s amendment makes clear that the history of our committee is that we put sunsets on tax credits and this amendment simply really runs parallel to the Representative Torbett’s bills so far as amended by Representative Brawley’s. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This amendment’s been defeated several times. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, if I may continue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please finish. [SPEAKER CHANGES] They’re also... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Has he been recognized to debate it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He’s just responding. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m responding to your concern and also, I would also add, Representative Stam, that Representative Richardson is here today. She actually had filed this as a bill and was told that the bill would not be considered in this committee so it was the only way we could consider it was as an amendment. She’s here to speak to that if you would like to hear that, Representative Stam. Mr. Chairman, I just think it’s appropriate to add another tax credit extension, sunset extension to the bill which is why I’m moving adoption to the amendment and I can speak to specifics if you would like, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Luebke. Representative Moore? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that the gentleman’s amendment do eye upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members you’ve heard the motions on the floor and the second. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can we not in a committee discuss such a motion, it’s not the floor? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m aware we’re not in the chamber, I realize we’re in Finance Committee Room. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think members can discuss this in… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of order. The gentleman’s trying to debate when a motion to table’s put before the committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The rules chair is right. Members of the committee, you’ve heard the motion on the floor. All in favor... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ayes in...

Tough, take highway fire the motion? (SPEAKER CHANGES) They say, Lisa Hollywood Park automatically respond and the appropriate manner in which each thing is certain is that can lead to clarify exactly like the committee is studying elementary school in 10-to-end of the line from the K. Hongisto and that is much better said Alexander(SPEAKER CHANGES) no representative lost representative of the league of Rollie yes represent the Brawley can be Brawley U.S. Representative Bart Representative Callie Carney no representative Collins on Collins' U.S. representative problem that this end of day this biggest U.S. representative dollar represented a tour they're guess that this in all know the whole no Representative Hamilton Hamilton no deficit of things who paints no representative archer artists are guests are pursuit holly holly no Representative Howard yes represent on seven represented Jones of Jones as the presidential and Jordan guests Representative Lois representative Mickey Liu QI no represent a big mess administered no Representative Moffett yes the pursuit of our more representing more Timor guests represented the walls D. Ross no represents several send Samuelson U.S. representative safer safer guests to put on the pursuit of stamp us to pursue the storms Starnes guests representative stolen stolen guests are% five no purpose in one bill oneself no purpose in the morning wore and guests that the sale else Wells U.S. representative sensor on subservience to full of a pound of that the commission to monitor this headline on the table as 10:41 Mr. Chairman (SPEAKER CHANGES) Yasser speed on the disapproved of those top of the famous mention that the budget plan taken as chairman, said committee I really regret that we're now bringing to the level of the finance committee the following true maneuvers saw that we saw today to four and yesterday on the house floor to listen to be a sad moment a week and has had discussions on the issue and I can't think that the hi-band members of Congress from 47 amendment, it's a good bill of attainder like a bird said Wally Goodwin added because he made sure that people shouldn't would never really volume is basically a contract from the state by claiming the plane crash for interns and the marquee liars, that's all that apply this can understand why we cannot have a discussion on how to work in fourth and extension of the state earned income tax credit for five years would be great, fisheries service you can trust this to the burn the estate tax cut that was passed yesterday as a coming by the cells into seems like we got good news that the bill, and the content of featuring merchant artist bill to provide to NAPM tax credit of lawyers from why this committee refused to have discussions about to undo this is the state earned income tax credit extension of issues for the army artillery that the majority of the motions a Collingwood, this would feel emotions and all this and more you spend more time on this includes us today ??...

And it really makes me wonder and should make the public wonder, in what are you afraid of in having a debate. So, thank you Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. [Speaker changes] Thank you Representative Luebke. Further discussion and comments about the current bill from the committee? Representative Tine [Speaker changes] I just had a question of the Bill sponsor, how it works. Is it for all industries and types of employment? Or is it certain segments? [Speaker changes] The easiest answer would be to go to the Department of Labor website and look under the ?? program and it will show you page after page of each identifying process. [Speaker changes] Representative Howard, you’re recognized for your motion. [Speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would move that we give House Bill 341 a favorable report as amended rolled into a new PCS and favorable to the original bill. [Speaker changes] Members of the committee for the motion on the floor any further discussion, if not, all in favor say I. All opposed. Motion carried. Thank you Representative ?? [Speaker changes] Mr. Chairman members of the committee thank you and just proves again that we are working under worst government process there is, besides all the rest of them. So, thank you all very much. [Speaker changes] It’s been a real pleasure. Representative McNeil. [Speaker changes] At this time we will hear House Bill 656 Forfeiture for Speeding to Elude Revisions. [Speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Chair, committee members. House Bill 656 is a bill that is changing the forfeiture for speeding to elude arrest provisions. I believe it was in the last biennium that a bill was passed, making a speeding to elude arrest a felony and also creating a way to forfeit the vehicles for those that commit that crime. When the bill was passed, this body used the provisions for selling the vehicles that came under the pre-arranged racing statues. It turned out that those did not work very well and this bill is basically changing the current law to sale the vehicles and forfeit the vehicles under the same statue as impaired driving. I will be glad to go through the bill line by line, until you all want to stop me. [Speaker changes] Representative Warren. [Speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Chairman, just appropriate time. [Speaker changes] Thank you Representative Warren. Any other comments from the committee? Or questions? Representative Stone. [Speaker changes] Quickly just tell us what it does, real quick. With out going line by line please. [Speaker changes] Basically what it does, under the old statue for prearranged racing, it made it the Sheriff’s responsibility to sale the vehicles, basically turn them over to them. This pretty much turns them over to the school board, I guess. In a short, short version. Basically ??, instead of the Sheriff. And if the staff has a quicker explanation than that. . . that’s pretty much it in a nut shell. [Speaker changes] Mrs. Sights, please. [Speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Chair. The main thing is the DWI statues have a lot more procedure and process for dealing with innocent owners, lien holders, there is a state wide contract that DPI already has set up to take and hold these vehicles until the court case is decided to auction and sale off these vehicles and distribute the proceeds to the School Board. The process that is currently in statue is only used in one other statue that is very rarely used and Sheriff just aren’t really not set up to deal with all these vehicles. So, this is a process where its already in place for the DWI vehicles. [Speaker changes] Representative Alexander. [Speaker changes] A question to the Bill Sponsor. What happens if somebody who is arrested is not operating their own vehicle? Is operating a vehicle owned by somebody else in the household? Or is operating their employer’s vehicle? [Speaker changes] There are provisions in the statue for that. Staff if you want to jump in? Its section two, on page two, line nineteen I think it is.

If the Pierce of Camas; are an excess of provisions for that the sex education, and that's a cop-out sessions said the definition SS cents a minute. Not even permission to buy the cards when I got in a letter C: (SPEAKER CHANGES) real estate, or a real discipline of bell company that operates a different scenarios to dispel addresses by basically taking that make NFL at CNN as a mail cart ADC they can then they signed and knowledge and that basically if it passes cops painkiller S in the car DNA that the situation by the first round in making it the car back and get back to bite the troll com N safeguard the place to go about doing 9/7 process (SPEAKER CHANGES) thank you Mr. Moffett things just a question for Mr. Staff level than that to happen in that area as an owner of the three sons and they get permission from Mike Bobbitt calls from the 935 lovely than 36 misplaced the FrontPage two in the same section of this another section that this painting school in west is basically says that buys the owner of the cortisone are the car would have to agree to prosecute one of my children and other to not lose that vehicles at my interpretation this chair designed the sets you only have two of dollars worth of trash used e.g. could not get the defendants pressured by a commission to 5:00 PM to the CDC to gain access to the fax is often features of ICL addressed to either the defendant expression 5% of people am Boston, where she said that you can use as expressive operation, D: that would not apply T thinking, so the questions from the committee that two of the following get out of college us from asking someone started been answered unthinkable confused or other circumstances under which I can give one of my children permission to drive my car and they can end up calling the car to be forfeited the sites Bali if they have previously been caught C Chile last MSA in your car jacking for you to think of the first half is the first 9:00 AM, not the fourth day he left, dns the letter S and possibly a back issue deserves that as a follow-up I was making that's one of the few cases in the wall where we actually have a criminal penalty for being stupid-half and then further comments from the committee that someone like that might like to make a motion to defend that the committee substitute an event of a national building in 50 central plot is that a good lesson for PCs and military is five-footer to the table to understand that the density of this social and thank you notes and one for you and others into the comments and questions is no other side of the deposed motion. Thank you think you're sitting in a baptist and comments today we will hear the proposed new substitute for house bill 269 children with disabilities scholarship greatest lesson will have some instead of a bill before service this much is all in favor say out all those motion. (SPEAKER CHANGES )But he lives in Jordan things chairman committee up-from a little quick overview of the out of the bill have a couple of this politician with making a delivery station they'd like and we could just be that can be of the financial, portion of this is a staff of 269 film with disabilities scholarship grants this is basically the same program that we pass from the same children age 344 last session said it was a tax credit by got 9457 are some general assembly and this program makes it even better increase if the item to attend a special education scholarship grants for children with disabilities that the court from the end PCs before this clarifies a section and, in the process in section seven of ??.......

As a eligibility as to just a small change in the swim from 269 repeals the current tax credits increase the following new program , the special education scholarship grants a file not more than 3000 per semester for eligible students for reimbursement tuition a special education related services , priority is given a warning message to Mr. Cedergren (SPEAKER CHANGES) the previous semester the wisest research librarian of the order the applications are received an eligibility very quickly as a job with disability under the age of 22 to meet all the following requirements would be eligible they have they require in IE P and individualized education plan they receive special education related services on a daily basis they had not been placing the nonpublic school or facility by public agency at public expense and they've lost any time and roll the postsecondary institutions a fulltime students taking at least 12 academic and ours did not receive a high school diploma and any one of the following requirements in may when role in the public school during the product reviews semester the north, public school they receive a special education are related services staff for the public schools as a preschool shot with a disability benefits Mr. They're still receive a scholarship grants the previous semester or tax credits for students with disabilities in the fall semester of the 2013 school year or the eligible for roaming kindergarten first rating and that was, of which school and on either too much attention to this day and take us into reverse into jobs back to CNN as if the committee at the thing my colleagues are doing a good job and actually explaining the bill CI just wanted to say that, I had one of the sacred place to be one of the sponsors of the law that we pass to last session and sometimes we pass laws around here in the criticism you're well it doesn't really benefit all that many people in the context of the 10,000,000 people in the state police are real estate in a state law that we pass in the WINNT slowing cruise was a significant benefit an alliance of those people that we hail from a really , he had to meet some of those stories in the mails and letters and I got from families that benefited from this legislation from telecast last time again that this is actually a cruise into the stands to more people on the basis for the site is sometimes seen out that we release of the personal stories and the benefits that people are truly help us something seaweed a dolly criticism I ever heard about this particular legislation was sick… (SPEAKER CHANGES) Too bad we can extend the more people and for financial reasons that the state is limited as to how many week and a bit of Islamic turn over to my colleague representing stamp to continue to present the bill and standout the status of the serum at come from controversial standpoint that maybe this is greatly appreciated for most families with five children with disabilities stated they really speaks to help make years in jail for sustained in the cattle getaway motion would be lawmakers would give a Federal Court to propose a piece of state Colin for two appropriations unfriendly racial bill and my discussion would be just take your system on this issue and mention the two years ago this was RE bipartisan agreement, and the education committee of three members of the other party spoken manner of that and all of the objections to it in the education committee were not actually to the bill before you back to the law to display all ready in effect let me make clear what this bill does 99% of what it does is to move it from a tax credit to a scholarship grants police in this as a way we pass a tax credit two years ago it was non refundable which met that that parents who were not well enough calls to pay state income tax update no benefit from seven by almost all of the changes in this bill make it so that the parents that the modest now can access so I am hoping for a unanimous report from this committee got one and two other technical but changes to probe the technical fish buyer the changes to the programs but that's what you're voting 12 weeks then this program to the parents who can afford to me that the mulch be glad to answer any question that the following the low-tech by ??.....

I have a lot of concerns about this. And I have a very serious question now we are talking about giving grants and grants to people to send there kids to other schools These kids with disabilities that are recieving in order to get it they must be receiving daily programs from the public school on this disability. Dos that also apply to where this money goes. That if this child goes to a private school Does that school have to address the disability and does this funds go to the addressing the disability that the child has [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holly The child must receive special education or related service on a daily basis that is a defined term 4 pages in the federal registry of what that means That part of the bill does not change current law if that is a question you have or a concern you have that is a question you have about the bill that was passed 2 years ago not this bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. Follow up. For being a grant we can stipulate that the grant go forth a special education provisions that this child needs. That's what I am saying if the original law does say and then the private school and then the private school does not address the disability of the child at all. But we're now giving a grant making it a grant does this grant money go for the disability of the need of that child [SPEAKER CHANGES] It may well again that's no difference than the current law in this bill but to answer your question it may very well be under this law that they receive the grant to go to a private school but then receive the services that they and daily services outside the school for example the school does not have a speech pathologist so every day they go to a speech pathologist and receive that. But they must receive that. defined services on a daily basis in order to qualify for the money [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up follow up Is it the school then that providing the speech therapy not necessarily not necessarily so parents may then have to come up with additional funds out of their pocket to provide for the disability of the child because it was not included in his grant [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howlie I would point you to page two line 12 to help alleviate your concerns scholarships grants should be awarded only for the reimbursement of education and special education services follow up follow up if it all goes towards tuition and what representative starnes was saying the child is still getting help from the dis ability. they only qualify if they get the services daily you know you cant say yes if the qualify if the public schools they get currently I still don't understand i have to many questions representative hall was next in the que [SPEAKER CHANGES] I want to focus on a question of the somewhat severity of the children who would be recipients of this and I am concerned and I don't now if since this bill has been in effect for two years that if we have any thing from staff or from the bill sponsors as to what the severity disability level of the children are receiving or participating in the program currently

Of course, that's not a change from the existing law to this law. But to put it into terms probably easily understandable. You'd have severe disabilities, moderate, and minimal. This would include moderate and severe, but not minimal. Because minimal disabilities, if you have to have a pill once a week that doesn't, doesn't count. So it would not include uh, the least severe. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Followup. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Then, the staff have any background research information on how the program has been used to this point. Whether or not they're in moderate or severe? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Dripdty, or Cara? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? Well, well the bill eligibility requirements is that you have to get them the services on a daily basis. So we don't really have a way of defining that other than it's on a daily basis. I believe we've got some numbers from Fiscal research that said how many students qualified for the tax credit in the past two years. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As far as the number of students, information provided from DOR indicates that six hundred and nineteen returns received the assistance in 2011 taxable year. We don't have complete data for the 2012 taxable year, but so far they have four hundred eighty five returns. So four hundred and eighty five. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And we would expect 2012 to be more because 2011 was only in effect for one semester, whereas, 2012, a whole year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Followup? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Followup. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is it correct then that, since we're moving this to a grant program, that we can make this for the most severe children with the most severe disabilities to be able to take advantage of it. As opposed to folks who, who may not need it as much? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That amendment was offered on the floor two years ago, and was defeated about three to one, your free law for that amendment. And I would challenge you as to what it would actually say. That's a very difficult definitional problem. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, make a comment and a motion at this appropriate time. But the question about the grant and listening to this debate, I was under the impression that we were just talking about a three thousand dollar grant once you establish eligibility. But I read on down on page two, line seventeen, eighteen, and nineteen. It says that the authority to, that well. It says, the authority can require receipts or other disbursements must be approved to demonstrate costs incurred. The authority shall award a scholarship in the amount of the cost demonstrated by the parent, up to the maximum amount. So they don't just get a grant. They've got to demonstrate there've been expenses for that, that, to try to help that person with a disability. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And it's three thousand per semester. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But it is demonstrated cost, so. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Up to the actual cost. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr.Chairman, at the appropriate time, I'd like to make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Brawley. Representative Starnes, has Representative Stam made one. I will get back to you. Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I need some clarification. On page one, starting on I guess it's twenty four, twenty five. The ineligible, the eligibility requirement is that you're enrolled in a public school during the previous semester. Then you get over there on page two, and lines eleven and twelve, and it says eligible students may not be enrolled. I'm trying to reconcile all that. Help me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, if I could. [SPEAKER CHANGES] By all means. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To become first eligible, you either have to have been in a public school, which you just sited. Or if you go down to line thirty and thirty-one, you can start at kindergarten or first grade. Or twenty-nine, got it in the previous semester. So to qualify to begin, you have to have fit one of those. But obviously to then receive the grant, you can't be in a public school. You can't double dip. You can't get the public education at twelve, fifteen, twenty thousand a year, plus the grant. It's one or the other. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, well follow up then.

...and I guess that's one thing I've got a little bit of problem with. Now I support the bill, but it troubles me that to be eligible, a child has to be enrolled in a public school the previous semester. I'm just afraid you're going to have unnecessary, unmanageable enrollment shifts. Let's say I've got a child that I'm home schooling, because they have special needs. And they're in the first grade, and so I decide I would like to have this child in the private school, but for them to be eligible to be in the private school, I've got to put them in the public school for one semester. So I enroll them in the public school for a semester, and then I pull them back out and put them in the private school, and it just looks like it's an unmanageable enrollment shift, between the public school and the private schools. You understand? [SPEAKER SHIFT] That was addressed in the fiscal note two years ago as a possibility, and of course, what we found out is the numbers just have not been that overwhelming. This year there may be a thousand students involved, but that was addressed in the fiscal note. But if you don't have something like that, two things. First of all, the gatekeeper for this is the public school, because you can only get this if you have an IEP that you receive at the public school. In other words, you can't go out privately and get an IEP that qualifies you this. The public school says, you're qualified, because you have an IEP. So you have to start there. And secondly, if you didn't require starting there, it would blow the fiscal note up into tens of millions of dollars. [PREVIOUS SPEAKER] Followup. I understand that it would blow up the fiscal note, but are private schools not qualified to give an IEP? [ORIGINAL SPEAKER] They may be technically qualified, but there's no mechanism for it, and that's not a change from existing law. In other words, we made a conscious policy decision two years ago that the public schools would be the gatekeeper to determine whether in fact you are disabled, and if so, how so. And you could argue with that, but it's just a policy decision. Otherwise, the argument was, there would be too much possibilities of fraud or collusion, or Representative Moore, you'd be doing an IEP for Representative Ross. But that's the reason. The Chairman: Representative McManus. Representative McManus: Since I wasn't here two years ago, I am curious that, with limited funds, what was the rationale about not prioritizing this for students with the greatest needs? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Actually, it was prioritized for those with the least greatest need [chuckles]. By an amendment offered on the floor that was a combination of people trying to kill the bill and people who honestly didn't believe in refundable tax credits, and the people who just were trying to kill the bill were repented and said they would try to fix it later, which they have done. I will tell you that in the Education Committee, speaking in favor of this, were Representative Charles Graham, who has is a special ed teacher, Representative Glazier, and Represenative Brandon. The Chairman: Representative Hamilton. Representative Hamilton: I was not talking about greatest financial need; I was talking about greatest need for services. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Okay, it's very difficult to define, for one thing. Secondly, when the amendment was offered to try to define it, the numbers came out that it was only covering ten percent of the people that this bill covers, and this bill only covers about a thousand kids a year, so it would reduce it down to insignificance. The Chairman: Representative Hamilton. Representative Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the bill's sponsors, if I may. The bill provides for a child with a child with a disability to qualify for the grant, but it does nothing specific to address the child's disability. In other words, we're taking, we're giving, we're rewarding the parents for pulling a child out of the public school system, where they were receiving services and giving them money for...

Putting them in a private institution. Is that correct? A private school, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hamilton, the funds are only as a reimbursement. So they’re going to be providing documents to show what they’ll be reimbursed for. And the point is to get these services anywhere they’d like to. We’d like to give parents a choice as opposed to putting a bill that required certain services be provided by certain providers. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But the eligibility is only for reimbursement for the tuition, not reimbursement for the services that are being received? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No ma’am. It’s tuition and the special education and related services. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One last follow up. Probably more or less a statement and then I’m going to be sending forward an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’re going to vote on this bill today, Representative Hamilton. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I got an amendment coming forward. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well you’ll have to take it to the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well let me just say, that this bill has a really great title. It’s hard to argue with providing tuition reimbursement for children with special needs and disabilities. But I can tell you from personal experience that most private schools are not providing the same level of service for their students that are provided for their children that are provided for in the public school scenario. So effectively, pulling children out of the public school system and putting them into a private school situation rewards the private school by increasing their enrollment but it does nothing to help the parents because again, speaking from personal experience, if the private school doesn’t offer these services then the parent is going to have to come out of pocket and pay for additional services that otherwise they would have been receiving in the private school scenario. The amendment that I intended to bring forward and will bring forward on the floor is to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Tie the reimbursement to the. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hamilton. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, I’d like to finish my statement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’re not discussing the amendment that’s before us. Please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, you’ve heard the motion on the floor from Representative Stam. All in favor of this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed, say no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Division. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Division. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All in favor of this bill raise your hand. All opposed. The PCS for House Bill 269 passes. 21 to 11 This meeting is adjourned.