Madam Chair and other members of the committee for being provided this opportunity. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me, Madam Chair. What is Senator [SPEAKER CHANGES] He's making comments and then we will have [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm just, the reference to a committee substitute, I'm not sure which one are we. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There's a PCS that will be adopted in just a minute. We're just allowing the two bill's sponsors to make brief comments before we start. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will simply keep my comments extremely abbreviated. When this bill was originally filed, it was simply to allow the city of Durham an opportunity to use a designed Bill of to pursue a police headquarters project for the city. When it came over from the Senate, that's basically what it was about. It was initially put on an agenda in Finance. The night before that meeting I did see a proposed committee substitute that was dealing with its standing water and sewer to a project known as 751. When I noticed that that had been added to the bill, I approached Representative Moore - Tim Moore that is - and we decided that it would be pulled from the agenda and we proceeded to work together to come up with what would seem to be a good approach for the proposed committee substitute that was present at that time to move forward. We've worked on that probably for the last two weeks now, and it's my understanding that there will be a proposed committee substitute that deals with that. I know there was discussion about another potential proposed committee substitute, so I'm not quite sure which one is coming forward at this time, but I stand behind the type of approach that I and Representative Moore were able to come up with. It basically codified an agreement that was renegotiated between the mayor of the city of Durham and a developer while it is done within the scope of a statewide bill it is likely that there's probably only one project that would meet the requirements. That's what I would have to say. If there are any comments at appropriate time, once the committee substitute goes forward, I'd certainly welcome the opportunity to address them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Woodward [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madam Chair. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee, as primary sponsor of the bill and the senator whose project this district resides in, I do not support the language that is before you, the proposed draft that is before you. Madam Chair, after conferring with the Durham delegation, I have two requests. I respectfully request first, that you not hear this bill today, and secondly, I respectfully request that you refer this bill back to the Senate. She has the authority, yes. As chair of the committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, it would certainly be helpful if the two primary sponsors were singing off the same page. We have this bill before us because it does require - has an annexation provision in it which requires it to come into the Finance Committee and let me confer with our counsel over here and see what we need to do. Just hold up a minute. Senator Woodard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a minute. Come over here and let's talk.
Inaudible til 1:24 [Speaker changes.] Madame Chairwoman? [Speaker changes.] The Sargent-of-Arms will insure that the PCS is before the members....where the Senators can wrestle with it at that point. [Speaker changes.] Madame Chairwoman? [Speaker changes.] May I ask the members to ... is this the PCS?? Do we have the proper PCS out? [Speaker changes.] The easiest way to identify the PCS is by Jerry Cohen's??? drafting code?????????? Up here in the long list, you'll have LB85 as the ending series on that long line... [Speaker changes.] Does everybody LB85 on the line that says "proposed House Committee Substitute S315PC...S85248, LB85? Is that the version everybody has before them. If not, raise your hands. Please. I think all the members have the proper PCS before us. Senator McKissick, do you wanna' present the bill or do you...would you... [Speaker changes.] Sure. [Speaker changes.] You want the staff to handle it for you? [Speaker changes.] I'll just make some brief comments about it. And we certainly welcome the opportunity for staff to explain it in detail and clarity. This is a pretty narrowly drawn bill. It is a statewide bill... [Speaker changes.] Senator, I'm gonna hafta stop you just a minute. Representative Hager, you're recognized...to have the PCS before us...you move to have the PCS before us for the purpose of discussion without objection? Hearing none, you may proceed Senator. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Madame Chairman. This particular bill is narrowly drawn...it is a statewide bill. What it essentially would allow for is a sixty day window of time after the passage of the bill for a project that might have come before a municipality to submit a request for basically a voluntary annexation at some point in the future. In this case, we would be amending the City of Durham's charter...the City of Durham's charter basically allows three years for annexation to this time. The bill would in fact allow for ???? ten year window for that type of annexation to occur. There was some concern in the City of Durham in looking at a particular project, the 751 project which has been the focus of discussion, that that may not payback sufficient revenues up for perhaps seven or eight years so it could become a drain upon the city's resources. The Mayor of the City of Durham had worked with the developer...and of course, it was determined that a ten year window of time for an effective date for annexation would be appropriate. In addition, there was a water/sewer/utility agreement that was presented to city council..which the city council in fact rejected. And, I might add, this dilemma in Durham has been somewhat dividing for our community. This project is located in Durham county but not within the Durham city limits. When this project came before the Durham County Commissioners, they voted in favor of it and there were zoning categories that were attached to their approval as well as certain committed.... [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.]
...?? all of that information was incorporated into a water and sewer utility agreement that went before city council, which city council rejected recently on a 4-3 vote. Assuming that developer goes within that sixty-day window of time, all of those details that were contained in the water-sewer agreement become applicable and binding. They included, basically, about nine million dollars of transportation infrastructure improvements that would be made by the developer at no cost to the city of Durham and no cost to the state of North Carolina. In terms of other committed elements that were part of the original zoning approval, they would also remain binding upon the developer. That is essentially what you have here. There also are the original provisions within this bill that allowed for the city of Durham to use a design bill approach for pursuing construction of police headquarters. In addition, there was language added to allow the city...the county of Durham to proceed work on a water treatment plant, a waste-water treatment plant, also using design bill approach. For purposes of being concise, that is the essence of what you have before you. The project, which is being contemplated in Durham, that would potentially fall underneath this state-wide bill, would have a potential cost and build-out of about 450 million dollars. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Woodward. Sir, do you have any comments that you would like to make? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick summarized the bill. I would add that there were actually two votes for water and sewer extension on this. One about a year and a half ago that was a 7-0 vote before you all considered, those of you who were here last summer, considered a bill about this last summer and it was under the proposal of this bill that the city council, or specifically the mayor, began negotiating. But again, there have been two votes on the water and sewer extension. A 7-0 vote and then three weeks ago the 4-3 vote on that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I might simply add that the 4-3 vote... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, do you wish the floor again, sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Madame Chair. Excuse me, I apologize. The 4-3 vote occurred after discussions between the mayor of the city of Durham and the developer relating to many of these infrastructure improvements. And as I recall there was an additional two-million dollars of infrastructure improvements, which the developer agreed to make. But it was, as I say, a 3-4 vote before city council. So, that is what brings it here. Whatever this body chooses to do, it will be respected. And Durham as been divided on the issue, I might say. There's no simple answer for this one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madame Chair. Members, we had a good public hearing on this on Monday of week. It was about an hour and a half. There's been a good, healthy discussion of this bill, and I know that folks have heard from both sides. As I've said before, I view this as a property rights issue. The situation where the city denied access to water to private land owners that had the effect of stifling the landowners right to use that property. It's worth noting the county commission had approved this plan. This property lies outside the city limits. Durham already sells water to other folks outside the city limits on two conditions: one, provided the landowner pays for all the infrastructure, and that the landowner pays twice the city rate. This is a case where the landowner agreed to do that. The bill that is before you today, members is the result of a lot of discussions between the developer, the developer's representatives, the folks from the city, I know the mayor's been involved in the discussions, and also Senator McKissick and I have had discussions on this. I think this is a very fair compromise on the issue of the two sides. It has the utilities being provided to the developer at the full cost to the developer. It also gives the city the right to do the annexation. And this is a... this developer and the family members that founded Cree Lighting, which is a good company in this state, these are good stewards folks. These are good folks; they've lived in Durham for years; when you heard folks come testify at the public hearing, they said they wanted jobs. This project is going to bring 3,000 jobs to North Carolina. It's going to give our folks jobs; it's going to increase the tax base in Durham county. It's going to do a lot of good things, frankly, that go beyond the confines of Durham. It's going to help North Carolina. And the folks opposed to it, I would submit, it's a growth versus anti-growth. And this is good for the state. And I would add... [AUDIO ENDS].
Members to support this bill and madame chair at the appropriate time would move for a favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES]There was mention of 2 votes, 170 and 143 were both of those votes against? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes both were against expending utilities to the solid [SPEAKER CHANGES]Madame chair for a comment [SPEAKER CHANGES]All up [SPEAKER CHANGES]This is a situation that faces us on alot of occasions and is a question of local control and local authority over regulating growth and planning and carrying out those plans, and needless to say that Durham as a municipality and county as well with their city county planning department plan growth and plan extension of services based on those projections. Now this is a matter where the city council has already made there voice known on it and indicated there preference. I think were overstepping our bounds if we are going to get involved in taking that authority away from them. I understand the developers intent, expressed intent to develop the area, of course he has no responsibility to follow through with those intentions, and certainly he is going to be a victim or beneficiary of whatever market forces there are. I would ask that the members of the committee honor the city councils position in this matter, and that is to not support this bill as written. Our delegation has taken action, this bill is not consistent with the final position our delegation took, so i would ask the members to respect the city of Durham and who has the ultimate responsibility for this, and suffer through or benefit from whatever happens on it [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Starnes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you madame chair, this is a local issue and i don't like to getg involved in local issues, but i am very much interested in the annexation laws of our state, and have been for as long as i have been in the general assembly, and i was very supportive of the rewrite of the annexation laws in the last session, so my question is for staff. Ive never seen a situation where usually the gist of the annexation reform is because of involuntary annexation, but this is a revers involuntary annexation where your forcing the city to annex an area, and ill ask MR Cohen, Tell me how this is out of compliance or how does this fit in with the current annexation laws, Im pretty sure its set in prescient, and what would be the implications i just don't want to start setting a bad prescient. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr Cohen [SPEAKER CHANGES]Sorry thank you, under our state constitution Legislature has the power to determine the boundaries of individual cities, it does so from time to time even on a differed basis, as in this bill,. So this is the same description of the area in the annexation ordinance presented to the city council on June 3rd, but the legislature has the ultimate power and it delegated the power to the city, but it can annex what it chooses by local act in the past the legislature has the next property with a well long deferred effect.For instance there was an annexation in Charlotte, the university researched park that was annexed with an effective date 7 years from the time legislature annexed it [SPEAKER CHANGES]Follow up then. Well i wasn't as concerned about moving the effective date from 3 years to 10 years but, Im not aware of any legislation that has required a city to annex, is this the first time we have done that [SPEAKER CHANGES]There are many times when the legislature annexes property, usually its at the request of the city because it might not comply with all the annexations standards, or because there is a need to expedite an annexation because of a public health concern, there have been various reasons so ultimately the legislature has the right to make one annex
Chooses [SPEAKER CHANGES]madam Chair mick if i don't know [SPEAKER CHANGES]the sullen in on this topic that expressing time to take ?? it was but i go head [SPEAKER CHANGES]requires to buy the city the developer the city asks for [SPEAKER CHANGES]that would be great [SPEAKER CHANGES]dollar [SPEAKER CHANGES]couple comments i am close buy the initial the subsequent development wording both side of the obviously with .and this development would existing which are very that's the case.We got a tremendous area that is basically in the parlance that carry would use at regional activity center so you bring in together jobs there are you got a tremendous amount of the project from the regional stand employing some one in the region that makes a tremendous amount of sense i think that's an excellent project that's gonna me a tremendous amount of job and i would encourage members support [SPEAKER CHANGES] representative ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] thank you madam ?? let me first say that this not about planning and zoning issues that we as a general assembly or in particular the house finance committee should be debating. Planning and zoning issues are the purview of council an the city council has taken a long look at this the senator William has said minutes ago he voted once couple of years ago that this project against providing the water through service .This is my district and this is not ?? but people my district have urged the city council to do and the city council that it but there's some confusion in it that this entire house delegation doesn't support this bill.this bill is medal ling .This bill is meddling into the issues people of dome has been debating for a long time ?? That he has been preparing to work on a bill before the house.That forced the city of dome impose upon the city of dome .the critical line is on critical phases on
Where it says the municiplaity must provude some municipal services. It is water and sewer that the developer is asking for. The municipal services that Moore said he wants to run and is running now with senator ??? is one to force durham to provide municipal services that the city chose twice not to do. Along those lines let me say then madame chair that I would like to be recognized to send forth an amendment. Rep ?? you are recognized to do that Members have copies of this amendment. We will ask the seargant at arms to send for the amendments. rustling papers No sir Madame chair... May I make an annoucenemtn for scheduling purposes you are recognized madame chair we have decided to push committee back to 4 to debate this. Thank you madame chair Members of the committee... its troubling to have to bring the issues of the durham delegation before the committee, but its important for you to hear the following. Yesterday afternoon our delegation met and decided that they wanted a bill a committee sub for senate bill 15 tht is my amendment. In other words, the amendment is what all six of us voted on unanimously. If you have doubts you can ask every member of the delegation. (lists names) we all agreed to it. That is what my amendment about. At this time I want a motion Madame Chair i am presenting my amendment It is before us now rep ?? Madame Chair Mdame chair Im gonna let your proceed Members I think we deserve a vote on this issue. Our delegation is asking you our entire house delegation in accord with the entire delegation position of yesterday, moved to have the bill as it is. It removes from the bill the forced provision of water and sewer and durham city that they voted twice not to provide.
Agreed yesterday as a delegation to do. Its consistent of my remarks of a few moments ago, that the city should be able to make its own decisions. I ask you not to think about whether you like the project, whether you do not like the project, but to the respect the views of the city of Durham and not to impose, not to meddle into the decisions of the city. I would ask you to support the amendment for those reasons. Thank you, members of the committee. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Moore, you're recognized to speak on the amendment [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the committee, Madam Chair I respectfully would ask you to vote down the amendment. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Durham would gut the bill, in a sense all of the things regarding the 751 project and respectfully ask you to vote no on the gentleman's amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Ross, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I have a question for Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGE] You're recognized. Representative Luebke, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Are there other entities or individuals to whom, who are located outside Durham city limit who Durham provides water and sewer services? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Research Triangle Park is one area which requested in the 1980s, from this General Assembly, the right not to be ?? to the city of Durham. Under those circumstances they pay double water and sewer. If the city could do it they would of annexed Research Triangle Park a long ago, because it is contiguous to the city of Durham. [SPEAKER CHANGE] All in favor of the amendment, other questions or comments on the amendment? Senator? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I do feel like its necessary to clarify one of the remarks made by Representative Luebke. That was dealing with the unanimity of the delegations support of this amendment that was presented. If you were take the original proposed committee substitute and analyzed it paragraph by paragraph, my position has never changed. The original proposed committee substitute that was presented by Representative Moore did not include all of the other things that were ultimately included in the subcommittee substitute you see today. It was only about water and sewer. Not about the road improvements, not about development plans, not about zoning. That's all in there today, it wasn't in there previously. When I confirmed with Representative Moore and we worked on this together, and we agreed that all of that could go in, that I would be supportive of it, I never relented in my statements as it relates to that. If you would analyze the proposed committee substitute paragraph by paragraph, then I think Representative Luebke is correct. These are only the paragraphs that we could agree upon. That doesn't mean that we only, that there was not decent among other provisions. Yeah, you can take anything paragraph by paragraph, and maybe certain paragraphs everybody can agree upon this particular amendment. I do want to correct that, since perhaps it created a misperception. I do believe that everything that was originally negotiated by the Mayor of the City of Durham, plus some other things that are there now, that are part of the original committee substitute. As we do, as members of this chamber when members work with you on bills, and they put a lot in there that otherwise wouldn't be there, you agree that you will support it as a person of principle and somebody who learned years ago that your word is your bond. I made that agreement with somebody I'm going to keep it and that's why I stand before you today. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Hanes. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes. A question for Senator McKissick about the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] On the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes. Senator McKissick I just need to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying. Was there unanimity on this or not, in the darn delegation? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Only to the extent to which if you reviewed the other committee substitute paragraph by paragraph. You can say that these are the ones that everybody agreed upon, that does not mean that I . . . I made it very clear during that meeting, and I might say that I really expect and really hope that when every delegation around here meets, that those discussions that are held are kept in the strictest of confidence. But, be that as it may, since that has not occurred, I can say that it was never a point in time during
[SPEAKER CHANGES] no ?? or conversations where I ever indicated that this was the only part. I always indicated even at the conclusion of our meeting that the original proposed can be substitute you see before you was one that I would stand behind. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar on the amendment, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair. Just a couple of quick comments. One, in terms of what Representative Luebke is arguing I would just also point out in this that it’s not simply the delegation it’s also the landowner, the parties involved that are to be taken into consideration. But more broadly cities are creatures of the state. They’re supposed to be there to provide us public safety, fire, the basic services. One of those being included is water and sewer. It seems to me you’ve got a property owner who’s willing to invest 10’s of millions of dollars, provide badly needed jobs for this state in an ideal location for that development with respect to our transit and transportation system, everything you would want,, is fully willing to comply with all the storm ?? rules and all the special conditions down to of course paying for the infrastructure. As well as double the [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar you are on the amendment aren’t you? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ma’am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ok. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ma’am. Thank you, madam chair. So it seems to me that the essence of what the amendment is, is to gut those things that I mentioned. So, I would respectfully add my voice to say vote no on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Wells are you on the amendment sir? On the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes madam chair, on the amendment. The amendment is like the bill in that it turns on the real key element in that. The key part of this is water and the amendment removes that water provision. This land is zoned. This land is planned. We’re not debating land use. We’re not debating whether we get into zoning issues at the local level. I would point out because the amendment removes the water, I would point out that this state has loaned Durham County some $15 million in clean water state revolving fund loans since in the last three years. We put $9 million in Durham County through the Rurals Center and Golden Leaf which are nominally at least supposed to help rural counties. So we’ve poured some $24 million into a county for development purposes. No we’ve got a county, a city in that county, the largest city in that county, saying we don’t want development, we don’t want to sell the water, which the Mayor told us Monday night they had excess capacity in water and sewer. We’ve heard the City Manager had analyzed this and this was a profitable venture for the city. So we’re telling a relatively small group of state, individuals in this state are saying we don’t want to continue the very things you’ve been funding us to do. The issue on the water is this, this is just flat a taking. The city of Durham is saying you will not develop this property because we will withhold the one thing that keeps you from developing this property, we’re not going to buy it, we want it to sit their empty at your expense. That is a taking. The Supreme Court addressed that on Monday. We weren’t paying much attention because they’ve done some other things this week that we found more interesting. In Koontz vs. Saint Johns River they made a pretty broad statement [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Wells on the amendment please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] On the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One more minute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] that local governments, local entities could not take property without compensation and that is exactly what this does. So a support of this amendment or opposition to this bill without the amendment would be endorsing a taking of the City of Durham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Kelly Alexander on the amendment, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madam Chairman. On the amendment, I find that the amendment seems to address the only thing that there’s any agreement on. And the agreement is that
the city should proceed with a design bill authority vis-a-vis the construction project. I must admit that the arguments about taking and what not kind of mystified me, in that what we seem to have is a duly constituted local government that has decided that it does not want to do a given thing with this enterprise. And, that we have, ever since eighteen sixty-something or another, allowed governments at that level to do a number of things under the theory that they are best representative of the people because they are closer to the people. I think it's a--it's a dangerous precedent that we've begun to fall into; to bypass that level of government and to run willy-nilly to Raleigh about all kinds of things. And because of that and because of the compelling argument within this amendment, that there is agreement, I would urge you to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, again, on the amendment, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just wanted--parliamentary request--I just wanted to request the ayes and nos at to the--on the amendment and as to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are there other questions? Sorry. Are there other questions from the committee with respect to the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madame Chair, just a comment on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madame Chair. And again, the amendment, even by Senator McKissick's admission, represents something that the whole delegation agreed to. So, setting other questions aside; once again, I'm making the same request that we support the amendment and support what all the delegation agrees on and stands before you today saying we agree on all the items in the amendment. And so, we would ask that you support the amendment, and again, let the City of Durham do their local planning--let them decide what their resources should be used for as they develop their city under their responsibilities as members of the city council duly elected by the citizens of their county and of their city. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley, on the amendment, ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, thank you-- [SPEAKER CHANGES] We [sic] not ever going to get to the bill, ya'll [laughter] Just keep [??] a little while longer. Representative Holley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My issue with the amendment is on the design bill piece. [laughter] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those of you know that I have issues with design bill. [laughter] The City of Durham is large enough that they can handle these projects without utilizing design bill, which is really good for small areas that can't handle--that don't have [??] that can handle it. My question is--is that we voted on recently a bill for rules to design bill. Would this fall into the category of the new rules for design bill--has that gone all the way through and been approved in the Senate side, or will this just be under the old design bill rules? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Jerry Cohen [??]. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, the design billed in Section 2 of the bill was taken out of the original language of Senate Bill 314, which passed the Senate and is in the House. If it is--a local act, it would prevail over any general rewrite of the design bill statutes. I don't know whether it's the same as the proposed rewrite or not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry of Mr. Cohens. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madame Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry, Mr. Moffitt. [SPEAKER CHANGES] [??] question to Mr. Cohen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You may. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madame Chair. Mr. Cohen, I believe that Representative Holley is referring to House Bill 857, [SPEAKER CHANGES] right-- [SPEAKER CHANGES] and wondering whether the design billed elements contained in that broader public bill would actually supplant this local bill [end of data]
Speaker: And what is current state is senate I'll tell you that senate does probably fond taking it up what year we are not sure yet i have an examine to see how this language compares but it is a local act it will control all over the general law whether it came before or after 857 ?? repel local acts, Speaker Changes: Representative Jordan, Speaker Changes: thank you madam chair, Speaker Changes:i believe this amendment ?? as a weapon against development i have a municipality ad I'm just using the same tactics ?? ad I'll be oppose to this gadding amendment , Speaker Changes: Representative ?? Speaker Changes: thank you madame chairman Speaker Changes: I'm just a low county boy and we do construction works and do lot of works with developers i will be interested in knowing the commitments before this language bared we were worked in the construction business for developer that didn't work out all these details fro about their property and bought the property before all the seating of the plans were made and now they are making the plans to do this is not taking but the developers certainly taking this manual and we are forcing the issue that something should be planned ahead of time when you buy land you know that you are going to do with it and if you change those plans you shouldn't expect to changes the rest of the world with you, Speaker Changes: ??, Speaker Changes: All these answer if these were commitments were met yes mam, Speaker Changes: Are the other questions concern from the committee on the amendment all in favor of this amendment will raise your hand and the clerk will count all oppose to this amendment will raise you hand please hold your hand up and keep it up so we can have this for the record the amendment fails from voter 7 to 25 we are back on the bill now are there question from the members of the committee Representative stone wished to be recognized sir on the bill ?? any other questions from the committee Representative warren, Speaker Changes: madame chair i may have missed it somewhere and if have apologized i really do with it i still i clarifies to why city doesn't want the development i think several counties here express their developments they take they take i mess somewhere why this city doesn't want this development sounds like a great deal is anybody that they can explain it to me, Speaker Changes: is there anyone that would like to answer that question, Speaker Changes: the explanations i have received is that some believe that the development would be too dense i have heard some concern about it's proximity to ?? but those of it's two reasons which i have heard, Speaker Changes: Representative millers I'm sorry senator Millers i did serve on the Durham city council during this project was proposed and i actually participated in the part ago Representative I'm sorry senator ?? some of the concerns secondly other services accentual i think chairman's idea was upside down i think it would about ten and the reason for the annexation please this would be about ten or eleven years ago which will be positive cash flow for he city of Durham it would cost the city money to have this project annex if it is annexed it would be a money looser for the it that would be one of the major,
reasons for that is well, ?? City was an issue, the proximity not Jordan Lake is one thing but the streams that flow into Jordan Lake was another concern distance from transportation that was mentioned earlier this is actually good ways off I-40 highway 54 that's why road improvements was a very critical issue here ?? cycles are a primary reason[SPEAKER CHANGES]follow-up[SPEAKER CHANGES]follow-up from Senator Warren[SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, I don't remember the details but it seem like the Mayor had mentioned something about a seven year or eight year exemption so that issue was addressed and the road widening I think isn't that part of the deal that the developer was going to pay for widening the road[SPEAKER CHANGES]Senator McKissick[SPEAKER CHANGES]that's correct it is a part of what you were looking at right now it wasn't originally a part of what was in the original amendment that Representative Martin brought forward it's purely water and sewer but know the water, the sewer the transportation improvements which total about nine million dollars all the linkages and ties into the county zoning approval all the committed elements that were a part of that all the rules and regulations that would have to be addressed. It is anticipated to be a mixed youth development, so you're talking about residential being low, medium, high density residential as well as commercial and office space contained within about a hundred seventy acre track. So that's a I hope that answers your questions in terms of the Mayor's so the Mayor did in fact indicate that it was projected that it would be a seven to eight year payback period before the project will probably reach the critical mass where by it extending public service when I say public service I mean the full range of public service not just water and sewer but fire protection, police protection, solid waste collection you know recreational facility before it reach that point it will be seven or eight years out but if the annexation becomes effective ten years out there is no burden or hardship upon the city at that time and of course the city manager recommend for approval of the agreements when they came before counsel the last time when they got that three to four vote [SPEAKER CHANGES]Senator Woodard[SPEAKER CHANGES]Senator McKissick mentioned all committed elements there were other committed elements during the life of this project that have been discussed both county commissioner and city county members so to suggest all committed elements that have been discussed and proposed to the developer here is not correct. There's still some that have been discussed that were not part of this bill and to speak to those other services fire services, parks, schools were all a bit concern I think Representative Dollar mention this is a part that's grown considerably over the last ten to fifteen years so there were concerns about school population Southwest Elementary for instance, has half of its students in trailers now that was another concern so was the full range of services that will be provided both city and county government[SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Hall [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Madam Chair, I guess my question is for Senator Woodard since he was on the Durham city council at the time the matter was discussed Representative Woodard we heard a discussion that this project is suppose to generate somewhere between three hundred and thirty thousand jobs I heard the number up to thirty-thousand from people could you tell us if there is any written agreement that you know of or any written documentation obligating the creation of any jobs through this development[SPEAKER CHANGES]further questions Representative Brawley[SPEAKER CHANGES]I might ask a question of the developer[SPEAKER CHANGES]Is there a developer in the room Sir if you will come to the microphone and give us your name for the record[SPEAKER CHANGES]My name is Alex Mitchell[SPEAKER CHANGES]I'm sorry hold your button[SPEAKER CHANGES]I'm sorry Alex Mitchell[SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Mitchell a member would like to address a question to you please[SPEAKER CHANGES]sure[SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Mitchell when did you buy the land? [SPEAKER CHANGES]2008 January 2008[SPEAKER CHANGES]follow-up[SPEAKER CHANGES]follow-up Representative Brawley[SPEAKER CHANGES]and did you discuss this project with the city before you bought the land[SPEAKER CHANGES]we submitted the application in January 2008
To the city, Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Did you discuss the project with the city before you bought the land? [SPEAKER CHANGES] My attorneys probably have talked with the ?? apartment. We met all the UDOs, met all the ordinances. I guess I was not even up to think that if you follow all the rules, that things will work out, of all the rules following was ?? by the county. So, does that answer your question Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It does, I thank you for my comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sir, you may take a seat. Mr. Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am going to vote against this. I have got the same situation in the Iredelll county, the developer bought the land and then decided what we are gonna do with it. And they have been after the legislature to come in and force the city to do what they want to do so they can develop the property to their advantage. It's the same thing we have here, It's not taking of the land, the land was bought and the idea developed and the city didn't approve or do anything. Whenever you go to buy a land, it is a risky business. Making money is a risky business. Unless you got the right political connections as what we are saying when we pass this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam chair. The voting on the amendment suggests that people are going to vote on the bill and I just wanna comment on the fact that so many of us are playing the role of city counselors. Representative Brawley is right that city council is the one that engages with the developers on issues in terms of what happens in a project, what should happen, and makes judgement is to whether a project is in the best interest of the city. And twice the city has voted against and twice one of our colleagues whose district is 150 mile away from us has intervened and it just seems for example and I think Senator Woodard can confirm this, that if we are going to play city counselors we should note that the project is in the critical watershed of Jordan lake. It is, so this is one of the issues. The issue of what senator Mckissick was saying "Well, you got 7-8 years. It'll payback, the city will make it's money". Well that depends on the economy turning around so there can be enough money in the community that people will be able to afford the housing that's there. We don't know at all whether the project is gonna build out as quickly as the developers are asserting. Some documentation that I have seen says it will be a 15 year point before the city of Durham breaks even on it's water and sewer investments. So I just cite that as an example of how if we want to play city counselors we can go back and forth on the data and there are plenty of people from our city council who can come and explain why they voted as they did. But that is not what's before us and I regret that we are really have gone into playing city council. I don't think we should be doing this is a body. I think we should particularly respect Durham's decision when the ?? for this really came from our colleague who lives 150 miles away from Durham. It is different think about as you wish about the controversies in Buncombe county over the water But representative Moffitt lives in Buncombe county. Representative Moffit does live in Buncombe county. Senator Rucho has a plan for Charlotte airport, he lives in the Mecklenburg county. The Mecklenburg delegation can talk about
that and decide what it wishes. But I do not think we as a body should be intervening in this, and in particular this is very very troubling for those of us in Durham who have worked very hard through all the different kinds of issues, twice voted no, and twice had intervention from a House colleague. It's wrong to intervene, it's wrong to meddle, and I know you voted one way as you did on the amendment, but I wish you'd consider the facts that the city made a decision based on all of this information and it's not the information necessarily presented to you today. The city really we could have brought forward city council members to be witnesses here, to show you why they came to the decision that they did. I didn't ask anyone to come from the council because this is not a zoning hearing. It's not a planning and zoning issue. So I ask you to respect the decision of our city council, and even though you didn't like the amendment, recognize that this bill goes too far in instructing the city what to do, and I urge you to vote no on the bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have no other names that haven't been recognized, the chairman of the Durham delegation, Rep. Michaux for final comments, and then we're going to vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair. Let me try to put this into a bit of perspective so that everyone can understand it. Sen. McKissick is wrong, we wrote it last night. You can parse it any way you want to to take out the 751 project and do, that's what we voted on last night Floyd, don't shake your head on that. What has happened, let me tell you this. The 7-0 vote that the city council did several years ago was because of the way the project was presented, the verdict was going to cost the city under the rules and regulations. So the city voted against running water and sewer out there, because recovery at that time was not going to be what it was. Last year, there was a problem and folks knew there was a problem, so they came to the legislature. They came to the legislature and got a powerful Chairman of the Rules committee to try to get the legislature to override what they had done on that 7-0 vote and run city water and sewer out there. And he followed that. But fortunately, it failed by one vote in the Senate. So it didn't get made. But then when the city council came to us and asked us by pushing the ?? with this thing, we told them that with a super-majority, they was now in this body that the possibility of, I want to say City Councilman Moore getting what he wanted, was upset because of the super-majority that you have here. So that's why we told the mayor that they're going to do it anyway because of that. There was a gun pointed to the mayor's head to start negotiating with the developer. And that gun was the fact that it was- so let's try to get out of this thing, as much as we can get out of it even though we don't like it. At that point, there were things made and then enters Sen. McKissick, who gets with Rep. Moore, without any indication to the Durham delegation what was happening at all. So, where we are today is the same place we were again. You've got the super-majority and you can do what you want to do with it, you can force this but the problem in Durham right now is not the project itself, it's the way that that is being forced upon the city. If Rep. Moore, I would dare say if Rep. Moore had kept his nose out of the business, it would have been done. But he had to stick his nose in there and try to force the city to do it. Now ladies and gentlemen, you're going to do this. I know you're going to do this. But let- and it applies once somebody wants to put a nuclear dump in your back yard,
You're going to do what you do anyway and you're going to force Durham to do it. I just wanted to say what you see before you was done with a gun at the man's head, because he knew there wasn't any other way except to get more out of it, and it still isn't settle either way. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Moore, you're recognized for your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Madam Chair, I move that the finance committee do give a favorable report to the Senate substitute for Senate Bill 315 unfavorable as to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGE] All in favor will raise your hand. All opposed will raise your hand. Eleven? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Eight. [SPEAKER CHANGE] How many? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Eight. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The bill passes on a vote of 24 to 8. This committee stands adjourned.