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 | April 23, 2015 | Chamber | Local Government

Full MP3 Audio File

I've called this meeting to order a local government. Welcome everyone here today. We've like to introduce our Pages, Lizzie O'Brien, Randolph County Davis Pervert, Guilford county, Desmond wood, Wake county and Jessica Was Fed, Guilford county. Our Sergeants at arms Karten Adams Joe Austin and David Layten. Thank you gentlemen for your service . Everyone listen now this committee will meet Monday at 3 o'clock to try and hear the rest of the bills that are subject to clause seven. Monday at 3 o'clock local government keep that in mind an announcement will be following today. Without an objection, we are going to go to House Bill 613 Representative Brolly and Representative Floyd. Thank you Mr. Chairman. This bill was actually requested by the Legal Municipalities last year. It's fairly straight forward. We have written ordinances for the display of political signs on state highways. I know you'll be shocked to hear this, but there are people that ignore our ordinances. On state highways within cities, the cities do not have authority to enforce our ordinance and this merely allows the city departments to enforce state law on state roads of Political Science and that's all it does. Representative Owen.   For motion at the appropriate time. Go right ahead Excuse me, I'd like to make motion for a favorable report on House Bill 613 and with a referral to elections please. You've heard the motion? All those in say Aye. Aye. Any opposed. House Bill 739 Representative Brawley. Thank you Mr Chairman. You may recall last year we repealed the business privilege licence because we had Cities that were billing businesses and as many as 88 counties, to sell within their limits. It turns out there is another regulatory ordinance that several Cities have decided to use to replace the Business Privilege Licence and now are sending letters all over the State asking people to register. What this bill does, is remove the ability for the city to charge for the registration but allows them to continue to do so. Right now I'm aware of at least three cities that are doing this one and not Charlotte let me say, I'll just an unnamed city has already put $800, 000 in their budget for next year using this ordinance as a fundraiser. There have been concern by the city of Charlotte by the league of municipalities and the metro mayors and I have agreed that if we don't make changes and settle differences before this goes through finance next week, we will continue to talk in the senate to try to come together with a bill that accomplishes the legislative intent of the general assembly, last year, while at the same time not creating new do have for the cities within the State Representative Wan[sp?]   Thank you Mr. Chair appropriate time I would like to make a motion for full report on House bill 739. Alright, anyone else? We'll get anyone from the public wishing to speak on this bill you have one minute to speak please come to the mic and identify yourself. thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Rep. Brawley. Rose Vaughn Williams. I'm director of government affairs for the North Carolina League of Municipalities and I appreciate Rep. Brawley's comments and willingness to work on this. The cities do have concerns and use this as a measure to track businesses in their area. The police chiefs know who to call at night when there is a break in or a fire, this type of thing, and that's the use of it and the fee helps to process that paperwork. There are other issues that this could bleed into for the cities, and I think these are legal issues to be working on and continue to work on. Rep. Brawley I'd appreciate that opportunity. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? You've heard the motion by Rep. Warren? Yes, Chair.

Yes sir. And that includes a referral to Finance. Yes, sir. You've had the motion on House Bill 739. All those in favor say, aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you. House Bill 128. And without objection, we have a PCS before you. Rep. Speciale Thank you Mr. Chairman. House bill 128 is a bill which will enable folks who disagree with large construction projects, live capital expenditures for capital construction to be able to have a say in the matter basically what we we have here is if a unit of Government is going to spend over 5 million dollars on a capital construction and there is enough opposition to it to what people can raise 10% within 30 days period they can raise 10% of the signatures of registered voters they can force a referendum. Now this was designed primarily written and owned and tweak and everything else primarily to work effectively for the smaller counties that cannot afford tax increases on privileged projects but while it can be used on a larger counties it's not practical to get 10% in a 30 day period of signatures, and generally the larger counties wouldn't have this problem because if they get ready to put up a building or do something, they generally have the funds available, they got a larger tax bases and a larger counties. But in small counties like Beaufort, Pamlico, Jones County, some of the smaller rural counties, if you're going to put up a project, you're going to spend $5 million, somebody is going to get their taxes raised because the money is not available. So this bill is a result of one of the counties in my district where they just spend a lot of money on rehabilitating one of their jails getting it up to code, and the county commissioners made a decision, some of the county commissioners who were leaving, who were either not running for re-election or knew they were not going to get re-elected, had decided they wanted to leave a legacy. And this is my opinion on why they did this, but they were looking at spending $40 million on a rural jail. the people thought that was a little bit excessive, but as it turns out there was absolutely nothing that the people could do, they had no recourse. What they could do is wait three more years, or four years and vote. The other people are out of office if that was the case, but they refuse to hold a referendum and you know the constitution of North Carolina says that if you're going to spend money or taxes, if we're going to tax the people on their credit that they have a right to have a say, have a referendum. All this does is if a capital construction project is being built, it's going to cost more than $5 million, if there is enough opposition to where they can get 10% of the registered voters to sign a petition, they can force a referendum. Thank you Chairman, Davis. Thank you Mr. Chairman, a comment please. This bothers me, as a former County Commissioner, I know that when you're trying to negotiate to have projects done, you if you're going to do it, you want to do it as quickly as possible. Number one to keep the cost of construction down, and then number two, if you're going to be looking to borrow money to give the interest rate as low as you can get. What bothers about a referendum, number one it would delay projects which could result in construction costs going up, it can also result in the interest rate going up for money, if they were going to borrow the money to do it. But more importantly, what referendum are we talking about? When are we talking about the referendum being done? Are we talking about months off, so that's a concern that I have and also who's going to pay for the cost of this referendum? If you are going to have a referendum, that's the only thing that's going to be on the ballot, that's going to be a huge cost to the county that is responsible, the Board of Elections is responsible for doing that. If you're going to wait and have it when there's going to be a city election, or a county election, or something like that, that's fine. You can probably do it for less cost, but when is that going to occur? So I going to be voting no on this because of those concerns. Thank you. Yes. There is a procedure for referendums, and if you want to address that we could have staff Yes. The bill requires that the special election for the referendum if the 10% of the voters petition for it would have to be conducted in accordance with general law. The general law right now for special elections requires that

special election to be held at one of the four following terms, at the same time as any state or County General Election, at the same time as any primary election in an even numbered year, at the same time time as any other election requiring all the pooling stations in the county to be open or just for municipalities at the same time as municipal election. Thank you. Representative Ross. Yes, Thank you Mr. Chairman, I agree first of all my of comments esteemed colleague Representative Davis, and I have a number of problems with this bill probably too numerous to mention this morning and in little time. But in the case of Municipal Finance, whether it's a City, County or any local government issue when it comes to finance, we have something here in North Carolina that's unique, it's called a Local Government Commission. And when a bond is proposed and a Bond Package is put together, Cities, Counties, they don't just willingly throw a Bond Package together and just throw it out there. It has to come to rally, go through the local government commission, and I don't have time this morning to give you all of the scrutiny that the Bond Package goes through with the Local Government Commission, and by the way this is unique to North Carolina, one of the reasons we have the credit rating that we have. That bond package, first of all it has to be justified, the financing has to be in order, and every piece of that bond is going through, and The Local Government Commission even markets the bond. The local government has nothing to do with that. So, if we pass something like this, I'm assuming we probably need to get rid of the Local Government Commission, which obviously I'm not proposing, because I actually think it does a wonderful work. But in a comment made earlier about large cities have the money. They just go ahead and built whatever they want to built. That's not true. We're talking about capital projects and just as the Governor said the other day on the bond referendum that's being proposed for the state, capital projects are long-term investments that require a lot of money. It's not in the recurring budget, it's not sitting around in your bank account. It requires a lot of capital. A lot of these things, especially when you get in to water and sewer, and issues like that, are time sensitive. And you heard the issue the other day about interest rates, and where interest rates are now, they're at zero, they're going to go up. So if a critical situation came up where a local government needed to have some sort of a capital expenditure, and then needed to float a bond. If they had to wait around for a referendum, interest rates could go up against them, and it could literally cost millions. I'm afraid that's probably what's going to happen with our bonds with the state. I could go on and on, but this is just not good policy. All of these measures are already covered by the local government commission. And once again, we elect city councils, and we elect county commissioners, we need do their jobs, and we need the local people decide through the voting process for the city councils and the county commissioners allow the local people to do their job. So I'm opposed to this bill for even more reasons. Rep. Specion[sp?]. OK we don't want to use the term capital expenditures. Capital expenditures can be anything from a long term contract for office supplies to anything else OK or whatever for your fire trucks if this is for capital construction period. If you look on the second page. The section shall not apply to any of the following: Capital expenditures to comply with federal law, capital expenditures to comply with state law with orders of the court, and water and waist water systems. They are exempt those are the things that have to be done. This is not something that's not going to be used frivolously and I didn't say the municipality has all the money like large municipals. What I said was well it's not likely that they're going to have to raise taxes to pay for a project OK. In a small county you a put up a building $5 million, $10 million the money is not there it's likely the tax is going to have to go up, and the people should have a say in it. and the opposition and I am getting opposition from the county commissioners and the leaugue municipality and I've told them I said you understand what my goal is here and my goal is one of our primary goal is is

to protect the right of the citizens yes they elect this people but they elect them every four years or whatever or may be, by the time the next election comes the excuse well you can always vote us out of office sometimes you get rogue commissioners you get rogue folks in office who don't care and this was as a result in my opinion of one of those cases where we had folks in office they will going to run for re-electron or they knew wont going to get reelected but they want leave their legacy on this extravagant building a neighboring county same size been $6 million to put up a jail, nice jail this county here want to $40 million this is the type of thing that this is designed for it, number one, number two we don't want to get lid of the local government commission because in 99.9% of the cases there are going to be the determining authority on it. This will only apply for those cases where the citizens in that unit of government believe there was being done is unreasonable and it's got to be at least 10% of them to force a referendum is what we are doing here is we are protecting rights of the people. Some times we do have log elected officials and this is for those types of cases. Rep. Speciali if you would suspend we are going to vote on this bill at 10:20 we've got a bunch of people want to speak keep your comments as quick as you can and we are going to take a vote on this at 10:20 Rep, Random. I will be really short as a former county commissioner I oppose this bill because I think is poor government but I do think it's a negative that we ought not to do. Thank you. Rep. Pendleton. I'm putting on my county commissioner hat today as a county commissioner, we never used the certificates of participation the whole time I was in. But I still think cities and towns should be able to do it because if they find a good deal on a building they ought to be able to act on it rather than losing that sale. So I would have to be opposed. Rep. Graham As a former commissioner, I too would like to join with my other fellow commissioners in opposition to this. If we continue to kick this ball down the road heading in this direction we are going to find ourselves in a great deal of trouble. There's a role and function for local governments with cities and counties, and I think we ought to let them do the job. Thank you. Alright. Do we have a motion? Representative Ross. I make a motion for an unfavorable report to House Bill 128 PCS. You have heard the motion for an unfavorable report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it and House Bill 128 gets an unfavorable report. House Bill 527 and without objection there is a PCS. Representative Bar. Thank you Mr. Chairman. The P. C. S that you have before you on House Bill 527, this legislation will move the elections for the 10 municipalities and Stanley County from the odd years to the even years. I believe this is the right thing for the municipalities in my community because it will increase voter turn-out obviously, and increase voter involvement and have a little more say in who they're electing, because obviously in the even numbered years we have a significantly higher turnout. This move will also save the taxpayers in those municipalities by combining the municipal elections with the county, State Federal Elections, and for those wondering the last municipality that was moved was in 2011 Representative Paul Well moved the city of Western Salem from odd years to even years. And I know of no opposition in my, from my municipality, from anyone in my community, the only request we've had is just to update a couple of the general statutes to match up with some of the local ordinances and I appreciate your support. And Miss Chair I do have one amendment just partially technical one in cleaning up just two pieces of the language, if I could offer. We have an amendment, do we have a motion to accept this amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye!  Any opposed? Representative Braur I appreciate your vote.  Representative [xx]. Thank you, [xx] had a question to ask the bill sponsor if there was any opposition he's indicated that so that if there wasn't, is there anybody here from any of the counties that wanted to speak to this sir. Anybody here want speak for or against this bill. Seeing none back to the committee.

Follow up. Yes.  Chair I'd like to be recognized for a motion in appropriate time. Okay Representative Floyd One quick question how large is this commision how large is it. Stanely County is about 61, 000 people in it.    Follow up. The members on line four, it had members to expire in 5 years and it shall expire in 17 and the numbers on that, the number, are members of the commission. This is a large commission? It depends on which one you're looking at if you're talking about the city of [xx] I believe it has seven members, six members on the commission and the Mayor, so 2015 will be the last year we'll hold elections on the idea and then it all moved to the [xx]. No one's term would be cut, I'd add that as well, everyone's' term was extended a year so, we're not interfering with anyone's term and they would just run [xx] next election. Representative Hamilton. Mr. Chairman, I think somebody's [xx] I'd like to make a motion, well Representative [xx] Yeah? You want to make a motion? Yes sir, I move for favorable report on, was this PCS? Yes. On the PCS unfavorable to the original with a referral to elections [xx] Mr. Chairman, did we vote the amendment? Yes we did. Yeah, we did. We did vote on amendments You hear the motion before you with this PCS and [xx] the amendment, and provide the PCS a favorable report and unfavorable as the original bill and refer to the PCS committee on elections. All those in favor favor say aye, Aye.  Any oppose? Hallelujah! Moving on. And don't forget we'll make this announcement a couple of times. This committee will meet Monday at 3. We are trying to get bills that are subject to cross over. We'll meet Monday three and you will be getting the notice today from Chairman Davis. Let's do Senate bill 5, Union County Local Act, Representative [xx] Thank you so much Mr. Chairman, members of committee, this is a real simple bill. Last year Union County had a dispute between the school board and commissioners over school funding. Last year or last term we put in a bill that says, the school board couldn't sue but then we appropriated two years worth of funding. They have since played nice and come together and [xx] and what this does is repealed the second year funding. It puts it back in local control where it ought be and let the school board and county negotiate, they're doing better. That's your spot. Any questions? This is Senate bill 5. and this is the local bill and I appreciate you hearing it because of the urgency in am negotiating a budget matter Representative Bowes[sp?] At the appropriate time. Yes. Representative Jitter. Real quick question for the bill sponsor. I assume both the County Commissioner and the School Board are okay with this Yes. I assume. Good answer Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this? Seen none. Representative Balls[sp?] Make a motion to accept Senate Bill 5 favorable report and Representative [xx] reelection with the acceptance of this You've heard the motion all those in favor say aye Aye Any opposed, all right. House bill 761, Representative [xx] Representative Stem Good morning, a decade ago charter schools were an experiment and were hardly contested, they were the end of education as we know it, they were allowed a start but were burdened down with rules that were designed to ensure the failure of this experiment. Despite the articles that the chartered schools were given they value a part of education to many communities, in my community the charter schools

are doing well and the regular public schools have had to step up their game and the education environment has for everyone despite problems with our local economy, one of the obstacles that they had overcome was the absolute propagation of capital spending from the Local Government most local governments don't have the money to spend on capital projects for any of their schools, but some have seen the need to hold the community to all the resources of Charter Schools. In my community all new buildings was refurbished using the store of tax credits and the local Government had part to do their part to secure their funding and their tax credits. In Cleveland County the commissioners gave 57 acres of land to the Charter Schools because they saw the need. This bill would allow but would not require the County Commissioners to help the Charter Schools with some capital funding. This will be an additional tool for small counties they have a better options that don't exist in their counties. Maybe a tool for fast growing counties to help if they can't build the schools fast enough. The schools boards will oppose this because frankly they oppose everything chartered. The County Commission Association is neutral because they have some counties in favor of it. This bill has a potential to save tax payers money and give the County Commissioner another tool that thy can use or not use. at this time Representative of Cleveland would like to send forth an amendment, you have it before you. Representative of Cleveland? Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is actually just a technical amendment to point out a misconceptions about where money will go if a child or school disolves. Move approval. You've heard for a motion from Representative Guinta for approval, end of discussion. All those in favor of the amendment say I. I.  Any opposed? Alright. Representative Stan. I would like to address the part about getting the money back, the call back. There is a provision that if the counties do this, what can they spend the money on? And that's on lines 20 through 27, but if they spend money for buying real property sites, playgrounds, athletic fields, then they will have a lean on the property a note on the deed of trust the Bill at the bottom requires that they have a secure that, but it maybe subordinated to other leans to build because most builders wont take other than a first position. So why have a subordinated link? Two reasons, one if in the case of dissolution or cell the county will be of unsecured creditors for example in a bankruptcy. And second, they may be equity in the property, there probably would be equity so this is to make sure the county gets its share back. Some charters receive students from more than one county, so in that case that money would go back proportionately to the counties that if they were to jointly fund it. I'll just mention, let's just take a hypothetical school of 500 students. In White County what would it take build a new school for 500? 25 million maybe but if they let money to a charter for the site for $1 million dollars, and thereby save themselves construction costs of $24 Million, the counties come out a hit. This is a win win, It's  completely optional, with the county I will get some land up in the queue and keep them as quick as possible, got two other bills we are going to try to get to representative Landon One of the questions that I had was safeguards about charter school's failing to protect their thing  all of that. The other point I got is if you got more than one charter school in the area, like five and only one gets the money what's the issue there, If you give money to one, how are you going to keep the others off you constitutionally with the way schools are set up now and some of the laws that have already been passed for public schools. Representative Landon, it might be a political problem if they picked and chose. It might be a election problem but it's not a constitutional problem because counties do that all the time, picking and

choosing to provide one service over another. So I would hope that most counties do this. If they do it, we'd  have a policy of when they would do it or not, but I don't foresee a legal problem. Rep. Fisher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was on the school board at the time that charter schools were embraced if you will, and we did embrace them under the idea that they would be they would serve as laboratories for really good ideas for all of  the schools, all of the public schools, and I've always recognized charter schools as public schools but I feel like we have been sort of on this slippery slope of allowing charter schools to dip in and check in and check out without any kind of accountability. So, my question is, amendments aside, we allow this to happen and then a Charter School fails and we have teams going in to find out where the money went? And why this school isn't performing as it should? And where did the money go? We've had instances of this happen in the state, already. What are the remedies there? Well existing all dissolution of assets is right there and we have the State Board of Education, we have the Chatter School Advisory Commission, we have the County Commissioners. We have all sorts of people looking at chatters. There records are transparent. We are taking a voting on this at 10:35. Representative Wang[sp?]   Just a quick question to the bill sponsor Representative Stamen said that, if I understood you correctly that, If the county, the county would lend money or fund, they would stand at first position if there was liquidation at the school is that that correct? No, what I meant to say is that, they would have a secured position, but they could subordinate that to somebody else's first lane build a facility, but there would still be a secured creditor. Representative [xx] On this I think this is a great idea in fact is bad as the Wake county public schools fall Charter schools to the nail, now they have come up and they want to be able to do Chatter schools because they can't compete academically with some of the Chatter schools. Representative Jitter. What happens to to the building and the of chance that a [xx] goes under, if [xx] and the building is build so this bill, who retains possession on the bill if for some reason that chatter ceases to operate? Whoever has liens on it so the school board. Well the county would have a secured position, but it could be that if somebody else had a foslene[sp?] for a loan they might come ahead of it, but who would not get it would be the operators of the travel schools, then they [xx] not changed at the very beginning of the bill or main assets go to the LA. Representative Barley[sp?] Thank you Mr. Chair. I've been interested to hear the discussion what happens when a charter school fails since some of them do, I would point out just a statistic I generated when I first ran in 2010. Chatter those are very strict rules that they must meet, and if they fail their standards two out of three years they receive a death sentence, and they are shot down. During the year that I was running, 14 Shallot Mecklenburg schools had exceeded the conditions under which a charter school would have been closed. We allow these schools to fail because they're experiments. That is a good thing, we do not continue to transfuse the corpse but that that one didn't work and move on to find something that does. So I think we have a secured position for an investment, which can be recovered if the school fails, I don't see that as necessarily a worse case in the school that continues to fail year after year and we don't recover the funds and move on is something that works. do we have a motion, Representative Pempton  I make a motion, Mr. Chairman, that we

Role the amendment into a PCS and provided the PCS favorable report or unfavorable the original bill and refer the PCS to the committee on education [xxx] 12 you've heard the motion, all those in favor say, aye, any oppose no  The no's have it, the bill fails. Division division should have been called before we took the vote, the vote has been taken.  No sir, the recorded vote at the no's will need to be called for the vote. When you were calling it, I am questioning the Chairs call and requesting for a raise of hands please. It's Chair's discretion, we'll call for a raising of hands. All those in favor of this bill, raise your hands, all those opposed Motion fails, 12-7. Thank you Mr. Chairman Representative Brody, House Bill 799 and Representative Acre, and without objection, P. C. S is before you Right. Go ahead Representative Brody. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I bring before you, I would say to me is an interesting the bill is we are in the process of trying to pass the historic tax trades and if there is successful, I started out this bill with the idea that I want to encourage people to buy and rent and renovate some of these properties of the tax credits. So what I did as a contractor, I stepped back and got a hold of the other contractors that do these projects, I reached out to agricultural resources, the historic foundation, the [xx] municipalities, we all talked and tried to put these pieces all together, and what I tried to do was answer a couple of questions that I believe was real significant, in the decision for a contractor or owner to actually step in into that arena, because it can be quite scary, because basically when you start doing remodeling of older houses, you really don't know what you're going to find once you tear down the wall. The other thing is that you're dealing with what would be called the stock preservation commission, whose sole purpose is to make sure that this buildings are finished in a way that they would envision them to be finished, and secondary or maybe not even all is the cost of doing this. So there is a number of things in this here but there's a number of things in here, but I want to address to basically what I would call the. Representative Brody, wait one second. Representative Floyd. At the appropriate time [xx] Go ahead. At the appropriate time move for a favorable report at 799, I don't see [xx] PCS referrals and J2. You've heard the motion.   All those in favor say I.   I. Any oppose? There you go, the I's have it. Congratulations Representative Brody. Thank you Mr. Chairman, it was a tough crowd but. Representative Jordan. House Bill 875, and without objection you have a PCS before you. This is a simple bill. This is a tough crowd I've been bitten by you all last session. This is not a simple, this is not this is not a particularly complicated bill but it is certainly somewhat controversial. Thank you Mr. Chairman, the PCS is as a result of making a number of changes to streamline the bill, County Commissioner's Association is for this, the league is against, and here is the situation, current law says, when a municipality or other unit of local government, wants to condemn land outside of it's boundaries and outside of the county that's it's in, so

you're going into another county, you need to get approval of the county commissioner in that other county. It does not stay the same if you're doing the same condemnation within the county where the municipality is located. So this is a balancing issue in my mind that you've got to get permission or approval of the other county, you should get approval from your own county commission if you're going to condemn outside of your city limits, and that's in my idea, that's because you've got citizens who are being affected by the condemnation, and are being affected by an entity that does not represent them. Whereas their County Commission would represent them and can stand in and get the approval by representing those citizens. So that is the situation we also made one change, the current law only applied to 85 counties where a municipality had to go into another county, we made that state wide, all the counties. So really we're just extending current law to a county where the municipality is located, and I'm glad to answer questions at this point. Representative Bowles. Ask the bill sponsor a question. You are ready? How does ETJ affect this? ETJ would not change anything, it still has to be condemnation outside of an ETJ. If it's within an ETJ, the city can still do it the way without permission from the County Commissioner because they've been given permission to to affect that land and control that land already.  Follow up. So I understand, technically the city limits or their ability to convene is all the way to ETJ amendment. Yes sir, because I said part of that approval if they don't actually have a vote by the county commission part of that approval could also be the existence of an urban growth area like in Wake county where the commissioners have already said [xxx] when you think you are going to extend into this area. so that's already an approval by those commissioners an ETJ would already be an approval by commissioners that the city can affect that land within that one, two to three mile outside the boundaries. Okay guys, we have a long list and we have two minutes and we will have to do something in two minutes Rep. Ross Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I can do this in two minutes, but I will certainly try, one issue that have is and opposes as a question my understanding is this only requires a municipality to go to the county commission. It doesn't require any other water or sewer authority or any other utility to have to go to the county commissioners to condemn for utility rams that makes sure I'm I reading that correct?  Representative [xx] that is correct because the current law is a language that transferred over to this, it is city tells special district [xx] unit of local government follow up follow up I'm trying to understand and while we're singling out the city, just a city in particular because I know in my city we had a number of cases where we had either, an example a large apartment complex that located right outside the city with the expectation and it would come in, but they needed to have water and sewer in order to run those lines you have to condemn. We also had at the same time a situation, I hate to point out or a term from my colleague special, but we had a couple of rogue commissioners and weren't seeing eye to eye [xx] so in essence they could have locked that apartment complex from being built by telling the city, no you can't condemn the land to get the water and sewer to the project. It builds up from there and the economic development projects [xx] they're outside the city which [xx] sewer lines too, I think this might work in some unique situation however I think there's blanket policy across the street, I just think it's a bad idea. We need to hear staff quickly on this Thank you Mr. Chairman the provisions of the bill apply to any condemnation by any local government. All of them will require an approval. Okay, this time this bill we will move it to Monday and continue this discussion, this committee is meeting Monday at 3:00 o'clock look for a notice going out today and Chairman Davis will try to make and an announcement on the floor today also. This meeting is adjourned.