[BLANK_AUDIO]. Okay, [SOUND]. Good morning, the house committee on finance will come to order. [BLANK_AUDIO]. We have a pretty full agenda today and our session is at 10 o'clock I believe we're not allowed to take any votes after a quarter till. I would like to introduce those that are helping us today, our sergeants at arms, our reggie seals, Marvin Lee, Rex Foster and Randy Wall. Our pages today, and please stand as your name is called. Catherine Austin from Craven County. Anna Bishop from Wake. Casey Jackson from Wake. Seth Lighten, Marieta Georgia, Wyatt Schlynn, Did I say that correctly, sir? Schlynn? Which one? Schlynn I apologize for my ignorance from Wake county and Nwood from Nash county we are staffed always by the capable Greg Roney/g Rodney [INAUDIBLE] Brian [INAUDIBLE] is filling in today for the beautiful and vivacious Trina Griffin I believe who is at her sons middle school graduation. We are a real proud mum, Nick Giddens, is Mrs Canada joining us today? >> Okay, she is not, all right thank you. The first bill we will take up this morning, Representative Hager is recognized to present house bill 962 distinguish flying cross plate no fee. >> Thank you Mr Chairman I also have a, just a technical correction amendment also when we get a chance sir. But I'll cover the, if it's okay with you I'll cover the bill and then send forth the amendment. >> All right the gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. >> Thank you sir, this is very simple compared to the next one you'll see I think is very simple, this just, all this bill does is remove the fee for the distinguished flying across licence plate. It is only one of two left that still have a fee on there, and I have had a request from a recipient of this in my district and we would like to remove this fee if possible if you guys see fit. Mr chairman on the amendment. >> Just a moment sir I've just been informed that we have a PCS representative Collins move the PCS be before us seconded by representative Ross all in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed. The PCS being before us, representative Hager you're an ex officio member of this committee the gentleman is recognized by the vice chair, I apologize, I'm demoting you now. Gentleman's recognized to send forth his amendment. >> Sometimes I like to be ex officio. Thank you Mr. Chairman this just amendment allows DOT to make necessary system adjustments to if and when this bill passes, so it's more of a technical amendment Mr. Chairman. >> Representative Hager moves to amend the bill. Seconded by representative Collins any debate? So many as favor the amendment say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed [UNKNOWN] The amendment is adopted. Is there debate on the bill? Representative Warren. >> Just for a motion at the appropriate time please. >> Further discussion, further debate? Representative Hall. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one question about do we have any other place that has a waived fee provision on them, or how many? >> Mr. Chairman. >> Representative Hager. >> Thank you, thank you. Representative Hall, we do. We have several, for instance active members of the national guard, 100% disabled veterans, ex prisoner of war, legion of valor, purple heart Recipients, Silver Star recipients all those have no fee on them also. >> Follow up. >> Just a comment, Mr. Chairman. I think it would probably behoove as all after we pass this that we go ahead and offer the amendment on the floor to make sure we make all marines plates be no fee. Thank you. >> Further discussion, further debate? Representative Warren is recognized for a motion. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Move for a favorable report for the PCS for House Bill 962 unfavorable to the original. >> Representative Warren moves a favorable report to the PCS on House Bill 962 as amended. That it be rolled into a new PCS favorable to the new PCS, unfavorable to the original bill. All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed no. Motion carries. >> Thank you, Mr Chair. >> Thank you. The next bill senate bill 303 regulatory reform act of 2016,
Representative Millers is recognized to present the Bill. >> Along with your core sponsors Representative Brown and represents No. I'm sorry the senators have it. Okay gentleman recognized. >> Ladies and gentlemen of the committee and the chairs of finance thank you for hearing this bill this morning, thank you for your attention. Along with me is Representative Ridell and representative Bell preceding the regulatory reform act of 2016 before you, we had lengthy discussion over each provision in detail and regulatory reform committee yesterday, we're here before you today to talk about some finance related provisions. As you can see on your Bill summary there is two provisions in discussion, section 2.9 and section 2.10, more than happy to answer any questions about those just so you know, 2.9 was at the request of the actual state board of refrigeration examiners. It was actually a bill that was introduced by Representative Sara Stephens and we incorporated into this regulatory reform bill to get this issue moving forward. The next item is section two point ten. It deals with the way that antic automobiles are classified when it comes to taxation, individuals are currently covered over special class, we wanna make the same thing through past trinities which is pretty much everything but as cops as well because of how some of this very expensive antic automobiles are handled, we wanna have entertain any questions and again thank you to the chairs of finance. >> Further discussion, further debate? Representative Holly. >> We're not going through this like section by section? >> Representative Holley I believe that was done in regulatory reform yesterday, so that bill explanation should have been complete was there a specific question you had or were you asking for a presentation on the entire bill? >> Two specific questions. Thank you >> Ladies recognized for a question. >> On page five, section 2.6 a, I don't fully understand what this is saying and I just wanted to look clarification on that particular part. >> Mr. Shear, do I have the permission to talk about this. >> Yes Sir. The gentleman is recognized. >> Representative Holley, great question. Just so you know on the floor today we're gonna go through each provision and debate it fully but just to give you a little bit of background on this. This is actually bringing some statute limitation to land use violations when it come s to local government and coding enforcement. Just want to make sure that you read there that this is a is very specific in regard to it does not cover aspects dealing with potential danger to public health or safety and it's also qualified that it has to be fully viewable to the public. So what this is dealing with is a lot of times individuals have a business, a piece of property or something within local governments enforcement for a long period of time, they go to sell it and all of a sudden, even though it's been going on for twenty or thirty years, all of a sudden there's all these violations that pop up through that process and all we're trying to do is just make it very clear to local government and when it comes to a violating that is not a threat to public health safety and it's not secretive that it's fully viewable to the public that actually has some type of statue limitations to it just so we don't have this unnecessary regulation that could come back to bite individuals within local government. >> Follow up? >> Lady is recognized for a follow up. >> I am just moving just trying to understand, so what we are basically doing is we are saying if you are in violation, your property is in violation, and it's been in violation for a while, that now after a certain period of time you are no longer in violation. >> Representative Holley, I think we are getting deeper into this in the finance committee needs to debate the debate on this on the floor would probably been more appropriate and if you would defer and take it up to that time I would appreciate it. >> Okay I will. >> Thank you mum. Did i see someone seeking recognition? That was a way vote. Further discussion, further debate. Representative Hager is recognized for a motion. >> Thank you Mr Chairman I move for a favorable, I think this is not a PCS move for a favorable, for senate bill 303, and I recommend it be sent to the floor >> Representative Hager moves seconded by Representative Setzer for a favorable report,
senate bill 303. All in favor say aye >> Aye >> Opposed? >> No. >> Thank you representative Hall. >> Motion carries. House bill 299 occupational licensing private protective services Representative Burr. [BLANK_AUDIO] We have a PCS before us. We have a motion by Representative Warren seconded by Representative Martin. With the PCS be before us, all in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed no> Representative Burr is recognized to present the bill. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, this is an agency bill that Representative Mcneil and I introduced last year, it's made its way through the judiciary committee and we are obviously taking it up here today in finance, before we send it to the house floor hopefully with a favorable report. There were several changes Mr Chair that were made dealing with the private, [INAUDIBLE]. So perhaps if you would have staff that worked with the department to make these changes run through them briefly that would help to explain that to the members, and then happy to take any questions. >> Thank you, sir. Mr. Geddings, I believe you're the attorney to present this. Mr. Gedings is recognized. >> This bill basically made changes to several things that the private protective services board and the alarm systems licensing board can do including what the department of public safety wanted in regards to being able to investigate activities by persons who are unlicensed and be able to issue cease and desist letters, further being able to deal with real property and requiring certain organisations to get licensure for their armed guards, and basically modify times within when business entities need to be licensed by the PPS Board and replace their qualifying agents. Now the purpose for being in House Finance is because it introduces to late fees. One for the business entity when they do not replace their qualifying agent within a designated time period. And second for applicants who do not pay the initial licensor fee and the payments to the Private Protective Board's fund within a particular designated period, which is 90 days. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Thank you sir, Representative Hager, were you seeking recognition? >> I was sir, thank you, just. Thank you just for a quick question, just a clarification. >> The gentleman is recognized for a question. >> To the bill sponsors. Thank you Representative Bermers/g and thank you for bringing this forward, the question I have is without, I haven't read the sheets so I apologize if I am probably completely off base. But there's an issue where I know what the, what I call the institutional law and folks like in AT&T for instance it does alarm business verses the small alarm guys that they were some move a foot to make the AT&T all their employees be licence under alarms, is that in this bill? >> Gentleman is recognized. >> All right, do you want staff. >> Well there's >> Geddings. >> So you're talking about the out of state companies where they didn't have to get licensure before? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Mr. Chairman, if I could answer that question. >> The gentleman's recognized. >> No, I was talking more about There's a difference, I'm gonna use AT&T as an example in the offices that they have where they have their support personnel versus the guides that actually go out and install alarms. There's was a move of putting some point out here where they were pushing them to have everybody in all their offices licensed because they worked in alarm company rather than the guys that just installed the alarms. I guess my question of clarification, does this increase the amount of folks that need to be licensed versus the ones that just go out and install alarms? Does that make sense? >> Mr. Geddings. >> I can get clarification on that exactly and send it to you later, but I believe it would because there's a situation where they're looking to repeal. If you look in section nine, subsection four, there is a situation where they do require alarm companies located in other states to, I believe that requires actual Let's try, it could be incorrect. I'l get clarification on that from the Department of Public Safety. And I'll send that to you after the committee.
>> Mr. Chair. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> We'll make sure Representative Hager/g has an answer on that before we present the bill on the floor, so we're happy to get that for you. >> Okay. Further discussion, further debate. Representative Warren. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. This is a question for staff Mr. Gettin/g I guess. >> That was recognized for a question. >> Thank you sir. I actually have a question, I think you were starting to answer. What is the exemption that's been removed for the other state companies that seek business through interstate commerce? >> Sure. Basically the Department of Public Safety's position on that is that it is causing certain companies to simply avoid being located in North Carolina. North Carolina is one of the few if not the only state that has this particular exemption from this provisions in the chapter, so what is causing is its giving some thought that companies are simply avoiding being in North Carolina by being outside the state and just doing business interstate through North Carolina as causing companies to leave North Carolina and we're forced to do that instead of being in North Carolina. But what- >> Thank you. Somethings a little unclear on that. What's specifically are they being exempted from that they will be held accountable to now and in my understanding you said that the exemption is actually the incentive for folks to leave the state order they avoiding if they did. >> Right well and as per [INAUDIBLE]. Yes it's known that from the department of revenue that they wanna this particular implementation because we're the only state that does this particular exemption. And all the surrounding states do require a licence for this activities. So there is a perception that North Carolina simply loosing companies because the other companies can simply go over the boarder and operate in North Carolina without a licence. >> You said the only thing that that's being exempted from is getting a licence [CROSSTALK] is not a [INAUDIBLE]. >> Right. >> Thank you. >> Further discussion further debate? Representative Warren. >> A motion at the appropriate time. >> Okay. Looks like it's time. >> I move for a favorable report for House Bill 299, the PCS for House Bill 299. >> Unfavorable to the original bill. Representative Warren moves favorable report to House Bill 299 unfavorable to the original bill. All in favor say aye? >> Aye. >> Opposed no? Thank you, Representative. HB1022, Town of Maxton de-annexation, Representative Pierce had communicated that he would like Representative Reeves to run that bill, Representative Reeves is recognized. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Good morning everybody, I'm not gonna use the words simple bill cuz I know how that turns up here sometimes, [LAUGH] but what I would say is it only has two sections. >> Chairman. >> The first is. >>Chaiman. >> Dealing with Representative Pierce's home counties, it's mainly Robeson County and the town of Maxton. They would like to de-annex three, parcels of property. Think you'll be able to see from the summary that the [UNKNOWN] are undeveloped light, a light with a mobile home and light with the house and the one of them is [UNKNOWN] action and the town has made this request. The individual property owner has made this request, there's no discussion about that. The second part of it is for Solar City in Chatham County, my representative area. And we're attempting to join 99 other jurisdictions in the ability to be able to annex more than our 10% as you see again, from the summary. That we would only be allowed an annexation statute. It's had a good run through sub committee this morning especially thank Representative Setzer for his help on that this morning and we just ask you if you would consider a good vote on this one. >> Representative Reeves, I had done you a disservices because this is actually a PCS motion from Representative Luebke seconded by Representative Moore the PCS be in front of us. All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed no. Representative Setzer's recognized to debate the bill. >> I'd like to make a motion at the appropriate time. >> Further discussion, further debate? The appropriate time has arrived. >> I move for a favorable report for the PCS for house bill 1022 unfavorable to the original bill. >> Representative Setzer moves favorable report to the PCS house bill 1022 town of Maxton de-annexation unfavorable to the original
bills, all in favor say I, opposed No, the motion caries the bill has passed. Yes sir house bill 1035 local government committee training for local government finance officers, Representative McNeil is recognized to present the bill, is this PCS, [BLANK_AUDIO] The gentleman is recognized. Representative [INAUDIBLE] also welcome to that. >> Thank you Mr chairman and committee for the opportunity to present this bill to you, as you all know the local government commission is housed within the treasury department an overseas local governments authority and financial to make sure that they are financially healthy in settling of debt and also over side of their financial auditing over the local governments. If the local government commission determines that a local government is in financial trouble, they have the ability to issue orders, what is called a letter of deficiency and so basically what this bill does is that it allows the local government commission when the local government is in financial trouble it allows them to come in and require the finance officer of that local government to attend training and the reason is before the Finance Committee today, it got a favorable report last week in local government and the reason it's before you today is because it does allow the LGC to establish a fee for that training and that Mr. Chair Thank you, Representative. Are there any questions, Representative Jones. >> For a motion at the appropriate time. >> Further discussion, further debate? Representative Jones, the time is appropriate. >> Mr. Chair, I move favorable report for House Bill 1035. >> Representative Jones move favorable report for House Bill 1035. So many as favor the motion say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed no. Motion carries, the bill is passed. We are next to go to House Bill 1132, Glen Alpine deannexation. Representative Blackwell. This is a PCS, motion by Representative Martin seconded by Representative Connie that the PCS be before us, all in favor say aye? >> Aye. >> Opposed no? PCS is before us, the gentleman is recognized. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, as chair has indicated, This bill provides for the de-annexation of a 1.8 acre partial, located in the town of Glen Alpine in Burke county, it's a small town just west of the city limits of Morganton. My understanding is that some 10 or 12 years ago, this was a voluntarily annex because they thought it would be advantageous and we are going to use the parcel for a substation for the fire department. They subsequently have never done so and do not need it because the fire station has been built, elsewhere the towns requested this I know of no controversy and would ask the committee's approval. >> Representative Seitzer. >> Mr. Chairman I move for a favorable report house bill 1132, the proposed committee substitute unfavorable to the original bill. >> Further discussion, further debate? Representative Seitzer moves favorable report house bill 1132. >> This is the PCS. >> PCS unfavorable to the original bills. For many as favor to the motion say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed no. Motion passes. Senate Bill Set 575, North Carolina, South Carolina, Original Boundary Confirmation. Representative Davis [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. The State of North Carolina, and the State of South Carolina create a Joint Boundary Commission to relocate and re- establish their 334 -mile common boundary. The reason this was done is those of you who might be involved in real property work, know the love times in the old days things were described as so many feet to the big birch tree. And then so many feet to the big rock, and then so many feet to the little rock and then so many feet to the sweet gum tree. Well over the years a lot of these markers got destroyed and It became evident that they were portions between the North Carolina and South Carolina line. They were actually thought were in South Carolina that really were in North Carolina or thought to be in North Carolina that were really in South Carolina.
So this commission was originally formed, they begun its work in 1995. And actually completed the boundary line in 2013 and for once I think government did a very wise thing. And that is before that new boundary line was implemented. The study commission was further tasked with the duty to look at all the people that might be impacted by that boundary change and see if you could work out and help to mitigate the impacts that the change may make. That began and for the last three years, the efforts have been underway to reduce or eliminate those impacts on those people. Senator Tommy Tucker had previously been appointed by the Governor to that committee. I was appointed by the Governor to represent the House on that committee. And I can tell you, it was really fascinating to hear the history of how that boundary line was originally drawn, and how it was re-drawn using modern technological equipment. During these last three years, the commission has sent letters to 173 potentially impacted land owners and they ask for comments. These comments help shape the legislation. That was introduced not only in the state of South Carolina, but also the state of North Carolina. Because the war impacts that were done. There are 19 homes that are impacted by change in jurisdiction. All but three of those will the South Carolina coming into the North Carolina. The other will be North Carolina going into South Carolina. There were businesses that were changed jurisdictions but Actually went through some homes. Actually went through some businesses. Interestingly enough when it went through a home it was determined that whichever side the side the master bedroom was on would be the state that it would be in. That comes for some real property alarm. The hardest thing we dealt with was a business that is in South Carolina. It is a business that sells alcohol fireworks and gas. And by coming into North Carolina the gas was a little more expensive, fireworks would have been hindered, beer sales would have been hindered. So the decision was made that they would still be allowed to do those things. Even though they are now in Now In North Carolina, as long as the company remains with the owners that are currently present owning the business. If they decide at some point to transfer that ownership then that exclusion will go away. So I just wanted you to know that a lot of work has gone into this to try and to minimize the impact as much as possible. We had this worked out, we thought, two years ago. And some questions were raised by the Real Estate community about certain issues. So it was put back on the back burner. I introduced the Bill and Senator Tucker introduced the Companion Bill. They both were sent to rules while these things were worked out. They were worked out Tommy Tucker prepared a PCS in the Senate. We decided to move forward with his Bill. It passed the Senate, came over here. It passed the Rules Committee when presented it there. We are now here before you today. I will tell you that after we, North Carolina introduced working on our Bill and started working on it. South Carolina introduced similar legislation is passed their house and senate and gone to their governor for signatories. So I hope that you all get us a favorable report so that we can get it to our floor to get it done get it to the governor so that both states would their legislation thank you be happy to answer any question. >> Thank you representative, Representative Jordan. >> Thank you Mr chairman to the bill sponsor, is there any truth to the rumor that this bill will give Charlotte to South Carolina and Myrtle Beach to us? >> Well, to be honest with you I thought of running an amendment putting Mecklenburg County and Charlotte in South Carolina, but they wouldn't accept it. >> [LAUGH] >> Does the representative have a follow up? Just as a comment, yeah I'm not going there. [LAUGH] Representative Hager. >> Mr. Chair for a motion at the appropriate time. >> Further discussion Representative Luebke. >> Mr. Chairman and this is for Representative Davis, I can see you worked very hard on this and I appreciated all you've done. I did see a newspaper account, and I don't know how the reporter got a hold of this and somehow wasn't drawn to the attention of the bill drafters, of a family in South Carolina that received, I believe disability benefits, and we're told that if there home goes into North Carolina, the family will receive fewer benefits for the family member. Would you be open to some kind of amendment that tried to protect those persons as well because it's consistent with the idea of protecting land owners.
These are people who probably are not land owners but are hurt by the difference in state disability benefits. >> Representative Davis. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the question Representative Luebke. I know great pains were taken when comments were given about things just like what you talked about we addressed in state tuition, what's gonna happen to that, what's gonna happen to foreclosure proceedings because of the change in law. And while I can't give you a definitive answer on your specific point, I do know that once again great pains were taken to try to help people who were in unique situations like you have talked about. >> Follow up. >> Is it possible that we could however have some kind of language that protected people like that? so that they, in that situation they are getting benefits because of a disability and their being hurt. Is there a line or two that's an amendment that chooses you can see can help them? >> I certainly don't, want to attempt to deny anybody of something they might be entitled to and I don't think anybody either in South Carolina or North Carolina will either. I would be hesitant, with all due respect to do any amendments simply because of the fact the senate has passed this, South Carolina looked at what was introduced there, they've done their legislation and at this late day I would hate to change anything. >> Well, thank you. >> Yes sir and thank you. >> Further discussion, further debate. Representative Davis. >> Yes sir. >> Sure does have a question. Currently the North Carolina, South Carolina border goes through the middle of Carolands, was there any plan to mess with that or will that part still be, divided between the two states? >> I did not hear anything specifically about Carolinas so I'm assuming that. >> Okay,good to know, thank you sir. Representative Hager is recognized for motion. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I move for a favorable for senate bill 575. >> Representative Hager moves for a favorable report for senate bill 575. So many as favor the motion say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposing, no. All right, thank you sir. Motion passes. House bill 1045 new bern charter revised and consolidated Representative Pashali Do all the members have a copy of this bill, this was distributed late. >> Thank you Mr Chairman. Ladies and Gentlemen, House Bill 1045 is a revision of New Bern Charter, the city Charter. The last time that they revised it was 59 years ago, it was about 60 or more pages, it was a pretty thick little bundle. They were able to get rid of a lot of things thanks to the General Assembly because over the last 59 years the General Assembly has covered a lot of ground that didn't used to be covered. And so they were able to take out a lot of things they had in there because we now have addressed it at some point. So if you'll notice it's down to six pages so it went very well. I don't know that there's anything in here of a financial nature but it is something that needs to go through and get your approval. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Further discussion, further debate? Representative Setzer >> I move for a favor report for House Bill 1045. >> Representative Setzer moves favorable report for House Bill 1045. So many as favor the motion say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed no?