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 | April 21, 2015 | Chamber | 20150421_senate_finance

Full MP3 Audio File

Welcome to the finance committee we are glad that everyone is here in the timely fashion, I would like to welcome our pages at the beginning Ashley King from [xx], welcome Miss king, she has been sponsored by senator [xx] Nick [xx] from Rawley that stand, [xx] today Steven Steve, Steve Macray and Steve Wilson there we go, I would also like to introduce the pleasure of Mr. [xx] deputy treasure of the state local government decision, Mr [xx] everyone got a good look so you will recognize him and what will [xx] yeah, [xx]   ok Mr [xx] do you like to say a word or two since you're here and we're getting wound up and welcome? Yes, thank you very much. I look forward to working with all of you on the issues both the State and Local Government issues. I started on February 17th but at the same time that ya'll started in session it has been busy for me and busy for you but we are always ready to assist you wherever we can. Thank you and Senator [xx] wants to ask you a question, I'm sure you're ready to answer.   Thank you Mr. Chairman. [xx] what would be helpful is, who did you replace and what areas in the Treasure's office can you provide members of the committee and of the State Senate with your expertise? Vance Holloman retired. Vance was the Secretary Local Government Commission and of the State and the local government finance division. we deal with the fiscal matters of the state in terms of assisting with the sale of bonds or state bonds on the local government side add the per sale local government debt and also with the fiscal management in other words the audits and all the reports of that is managed through our office, and we will be willing  to assist and help with anything related to either the fisical side or the dead side with the local government and also with state debt Thank you sir any further question for Mr. Garven from the committee? I'm not thanking sir. Senator Turd I'm glad you'r here with that we will bring you to the front please sir for Senate Bill 159 transfer properties and in corrected level, there is PCS motion please to except PCS by Senator Ritchell. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Oppose. Motion kicked Senator Troley you have the floor sir Thank you Mr. Chair this bill and PCS is the technical correction from last session when we fixed the 2011 property tax that will allow property owners to give the county the authority. We have property owners that actually are not in possession of the property at the time of the revaluation and we'll send a tax bill and now need the ability to reverse that and refund them. Thank you, we have questions, Senator Rebon   [xx], appropriate time. Thank you, Sir if no questions then we have a motion from Senator Ron Rebon favorable to the P. C. S and favorable to the original. All in favor please say'aye' oppose no, motion [xx] thank you senator Todd. Thank you. Senate bill 204, infrastructure assessment, extend the sunset, senator [xx] this also as the P. C. S so I ask for motion to accept P. C. S for Senator Harrington. All in favor please say aye, Aye. Oppose no was in kind[sp?] to hear the P. C. S Senator Hartsell senate Bill 284 Thank you Mr. Chair and members to the committee some years ago we had adopted these special assessment bonds of an opportunity for folks to come together and address certain infrastructure lives in an area in the district voluntarily with a process similar to what some of you may know if you've ever served on the city council those are done. Well, you could assess adjoining property to build a road. To pay for the road you pay  for over seven years typically. This is an extension for that if you do that the projects voluntarily on the part

of about 60 [xx] like having 60% general projects the general obligation of bank referendum. You have to have 60% of votes and they have to come up with a plan to create some assessment, they pay it themselves they can advertise it over a period of time and get the job done Thank you, Senator [xx] correct me please, basically what this bill does, is it take the whole bill and exchange the sunset [xx] 2020,  thank you That's what I wanted to do is to tell you what the special circumstances were.  OK,  but it was taking you a while to get there Senator,  I know he's trying to help you. I'm a lawyer I talk a long time, and that's the way it is  OK, we do have a question? OK. [xx] any staff here prepared to walk OK? I can say, the only thing the bill does literally is extend the sunset that's what we were trying to get at  OK, but may have staff walk us through that bill? that's it. I understand  The proposed Committee Substitute extends the sunset on the ability to use these special assessments as a financing tool from 2015 to July 1, 2020, a five-year extension. The original bill would have repealed the sunset  further questions. Senator Cook. Can I move for a favorable report? Well,  thank you Sir we have that motion Senator Rucho. Senator Hartsell, I understand what it does in re-extending it how many times has this been used in the last five years? I think it was used once largely because of the economic situation it was used in in the Morrisville area I know of at least four circumstances one in Morrisville, I think there's one South Charlotte, one in Apex and I think there's one in Hillsborough and there are other folks who are looking at it as an opportunity, and let me reiterate, it is not tax increment financing, it's voluntary assessment financing  follow up  I guess by giving it five more years we're getting it chance to see if indeed there is enough utilization of this. Yes, that is the point  OK, thank you Mr. Chairman. We have a motion for a favorable report, unfavorable to the original favorable PCS prior we have another question I thought I was not compelled to ask that I also got another question over here I'll swallow that motion and, Sir, I just want to be sure if I'm reading this right, so the assessment of the property owners, over half of those still have to approve, yes, in order for it to move forward It is the owners of six 60% of the property served to the assessment after approval, are we good I'm in one more question from Senator Ritchel Follow up on senator Brown question, if he and I own a piece of property and he owns 65% of bidneon, 35% of it and we decide the guy with 65% says yes we are going to be through that so therefore you pretty much in task me into the voluntary paying the debt project That  is our call there is in the underlying bill there is a process where you define the difference in that 65% some will be let's say, you have a multiple properties in a district if the 65% owner wanted to approve it and the 35% owner didn't want to approve it and the 65% owner would constitute a vote that to 65% of it. To impose the assessment that would necessarily mean that there may be multiple hangers so that will be 65% or say 50% of properties so you only got 42.5 of the whole district, you've to have other people in the district to be able to access it. But if you've 65% is the only one and yes that would be [xx] any more question, for the motion is before you all those in favor please say aye, Aye. Oppose no. Motion kicked. Thank you so much Our next is Senator Tarr again. Here you go.

Senate bill 566 in this position of minimal property tax refund P. C. S, the motion to hear the P. C. S in a hypothetical way, all those in favor say, aye. Aye. Oppose no, motion [xx] Senator [xx] please. Thank you Mr. Chair, this is a bill that will make all your county managers happy, we are going to doing something stupid in State Government which is a new role for us often times. This is a request that came from my county manager to stop writting small refund checks for 23 cents, what this bill will do is limit a $15 if you have a $15 refund deal that will automatically be sent to you in the normal process, anything less than that you can either come get it, pick it up on the county office or have it applied to your next [xx] Mr. Chairman Yes, our motion call favorable report but sir, Senator Sycheles, what happened [xx] what happens in case of someone who's got $14 bill and then they move out of town in Middle Heaven out of or they sell the property what is what happens to any amount that's either not collected or there is nothing to forwarded to. If it is not claimed and stack in correct I believe we are going to the sheet fund. Any other question. Mr. Chair. Senator Jackson. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator [xx] how would the folks say got up $14 refund be notified they got them? They will get noticed by the county and then they are required if they do not request the refund either by showing up, or, and writing that they plan to come and do then that funds will set until, and they have up to until the next in to that fiscal tax year and if not then it will automatically get applied to the next year. Followup Mr. Chairman just so I understand this correctly, we're going to send them a letter saying they got a $14 cheque in our office.   No, no, no, I'm sorry they will get their tax notice, but they won't know that there's a refund I believe is that correct [xx] without asking. Would you like the staff to clarify that? Yes please, Mr. Chair. There's no notice requirement in the bill, so they will not know unless they know they made the overpayment or they get their bill for the next tax year. One follower. Yes sir. So basically if they got $14 refund and they were not notified and they don't know it it would be applied to the next year's profit tax bill.   That's correct thank you. Thank you, what else? Thank you and for the report. My concern is the question concerning multiple refunds, say if a person is going to get 10 different refunds, it's going to be more than that and or even 20 additional months. Proper vision, our considerations will be for that person To my knowledge the staff can correct me, I and you're only going to be noted by individual properties. So if you own 10 properties, they're not being aggregated into one tax bill, so they'd all be treated as individual payments. I that that's maybe something we would want to consider in this, Thank you any further questions from the committee? Senator Rock   Thank you Mr. Chairman, along those lines Senator Atter if you're if you have a development or a piece of property where you have 50 or 60 power source be separated in LOC in each of $14 is up to and they are sold and they are bought in trade may trade it for a horse. Your still looking at going on the same route that is not aggregated one find it's still separate my understanding of what Staben Heather answers specifically, but if you're getting individual bills for each personal unit I believe that is correct, if you being aggregated then it would be different, but I'm not sure that's how multiple property will be handled in a multi unit. Let that staff clarify each partial is treated separately regardless if one person has multiple pieces so the $15 refers to a single tax receipt, so for each individual property  it is separate but it does only apply to refunds it does not apply to bills so this is not for someone who owes less than $15, is only for refunds any further questions, Senator [xx]  So when you if you were selling that piece of property that's when you find out you had a $15 refund or something like that  I believe actually you can go online and look at your tax record on whether you have as a bill on what moneys do or a refund as well. Followup.

Followup. But if you didn't do that you find it out if you sold the property. That's right or the next tax bill when it came through and you have you would have a credit apply your actual tax will be a little bit lower by a few Dollars. Thank you. Hi Mr. Chairman Senator Tarte who's requesting this, is there a problem out there that somebody? It did their's not a lot of this going where it stems from is the reevaluation we did in Mecklenburg County so we've got a number of properties that are being refunded our county tax manager on Mecklenburg has requested that we do this because we've got a number of bills, we're literally seeing people write 23 cent checks. OK Senator Rachel. Can I followup? Oh you may. I'm just curious, can you do a local bill in Mecklenburg County. Actually staff can correct this because the nature of the bill I don't think it can be done as the local has to be uniform for opportunity for every county to participate. May we ask for clarity on that from staff. We don't I don't think you can have a local bill on this, but it's permissive, so this isn't required of any county, so any county that doesn't want to do this doesn't have to do this, to do this a county actually has to pass the resolution by June 15 for the [xx] Okay, that you. Senator Rachel[sp?] Senator Todd I guess the fact is up to $15 it's not worth all the effort to try to get that check out, even 23 cents of $15 and it's trying to offer some flexibility and cost effectiveness for the counties as if they need it or not, and again it goes along with the fact that they would put in the orderliness am I correct? Correct. Any further questions or comments from the committee Senator Wood. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator Todd, what amount of money we are talking about refunds and what it costs to send the cheque out. The county told me it's between $7 and $9 ours typically that cost the process stamp time, and stop factored is typically. And we were actually the $15 kind of an advertory amount. You know as some point having $10 12 $13 can be important. Someone else where we sited at that level. Follow up. Senator Tod do know how much money there are in refunds that are around $15 are standing [xx]. I did not know, but in the two heavily embedded through this [xx] evaluation over $26 million to date to residents. The increase amount because there is some up tech these in tax about a total about $250, 000 across the county so either there is a lot going on for us as we fix this revaluation. Follow up. This not bellow $15 we don't have any. That's right. Any further discussion fraction on debate. If not we will attend motion to OK. To accept the PCS on unfavorable to the original. All those in favor please say, aye. Aye! Opposed, no. Thank you. committee and sorry senator Jackson for the confusion. Thank you. Our file bill today is senate bill 592 clarify approve the balance and ability for crimes of PUV. Mr. Chairman  Yes sir. I appreciate you putting an only agenda there but this one is medium rare need to stick it back in the stove a little bit and I could have it removed the agenda of the day for a later consideration. Okay, then that we will Present the subject to crossover yes, does that have to make crossover? Does not. We got a yes and a no all those who think it's going to have to meet the crossover please say aye Mr. Chairman we got a competing bill and that's the reason we think the competing bill is going to be better than this one and we just want to stick back in the stove a little bit so I think were OK. Better than your bil put that on the record it's hard to believe ain't it senator. OK well that concludes today's and we will be here tomorrow for discussion only I believe and I wouold like to thank the deputy treasure for coming by today so meeting is adjourned. Andrew good job.