What I meant. I thought you were with the transport. Excuse me I'm multitasking. Please speak, I'm sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am speaking on behalf of the transport, speaking on behalf of my district. I serve for the last 12, 15 years as vice chairman of the North Carolina eastern Region. Which is where its at consideration here this evening, I mean this morning. But what I wanted to say and I have Mr John Tafey here who is executive director of the North Carolina eastern regency. And he's been serving in that capacity for about 5 or 6 years. There is a couple of things we need to understand. I know that we think about the glocal transport and that seems to come out but what we're dealing with is the situation here. Its like a three legged stool I was trying to explain it to you. There are three components that make up the global transpor. That is the global transpor foundation, the economic development region and the north Carolina eastern region. So there are three separate parts and what I understand is being requested here by the gentlemen from Cramer county. Is that Cramer county be allowed to withdraw its membership from the North Carolina eastern region. And that is a piece of the fund development piece. Its like one of the seven regions that we have within the state of [SPEAKER CHANGES] Princeton Moffit. I apologize to representative Brand for interrupting your talk but the PSC actually keeps Cramen County in the region. And I wasn't sure if, ?? but its keeps them in the region. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ok let me pause here and let Mr Dontavin make some contact as much as he is the executive director of the North Carolina eastern region. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Allen did you have any direct questions at this time for mr Shayvil. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Basically I would like to know what impact this will have if they remove their money from the trust. Does this bill allow, first of all what impact this will have on the partnership. And I'll start with that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly will have a financial impact on us because if you look at our funding, mechanism,?? representative Hamilton, its a deal turn a lot of the regions from historical charge their members a membership fee on a annual basis. Each county elected to participate in our region in the very beginning and we have essentially a 5 year funding model. A license plate tax was enacted and those funds flew, flow through our nations. We helped 85% of those monies in trusts for other counties to be able to borrow for economic development programs at a relatively low rate of interest. So if you remove, so essentially its like 13 silo's and each one of those are an independent trust. An individual trust when its collective. Interested off the trust and we earn interested off the loans. And the way it's structured is that's what generates the revenue that we have to be able to operate as a regional economical development agency. So the impacts for us would be a financial one. In a sense, it would take away a portion of our regional funding. So it would be, in terms if you run it parallel to the urban partnerships it would be like allowing an individual county to be a member but not contributing to that organization or supporting that organizations regional mission. Does that help? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes it does and follow up to the bill sponsor. Or maybe the staff. This bill was allow counties in the reguon to pull out their funding as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's correct.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Further questions and comments for the committee? Representative Jones?[SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, thank you mr chairman I'd like to ask that the CO question if he's review. In our deliberations yesterday I think this particular fund was described as being approximately 14 million dollars I think. Could you just tell a portion, about how this particular fund has been used. Lets just over the last 2 to 3 year period. What has been the activity there as far as the balance of this fund or does it stop there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. Mr Chairman. Essentially the way the fund operates is basically on a county initiative. They wont undertake an economic development project whether thats like developing a business ?? or developing an industrial park. ?? Its about a capacity building. They'll come and endorse a county commissioner ..
Funds from their trust fund from them and they undertake an economic development projects so blatant example of creating county could be barred $1,000,000 from trooper structure to the waters sure why the long view was 70 corridor until the stimulate economic development will never reach and 8560050000 dollars to build undertakings first official build it, and so that's the basic way to do with the trust fund operates from against the silence of those funds are held to 10 trawlers from the Cali to be able to use each family as an individual trust, that is reflective of the amount that was collected from their license tag fee for the five year period from vendors also state appropriation that actually equally distributed among each county muscle against basically gave a very moral small counties from an extra mile of cash to safely in the trust fund to look at the white cells can only come if you talk to their former county manager whose fate would be a good word for the eastern region and the funds have been made available to us to simply wouldn't be competing for new projects like yours today,(SPEAKER CHANGES) the November 4 to lead to we're certainly instrumental in helping them develop their adult report doing the sultans of certified site for helping them close the deal would be 20 employee company that might look a the mother to do so if there's a double quote from trash from one to generate operating funds for a field goal in an improvised three of 42 to the marketing order your workforce development work first no programs and leverage other great funds so far have we used our funding 420 from others via the convicted the role of military protest fours on boards than four workforce development grants to seven deliver services has to have a follow-up to the brink and I think would be best for a brief answer, and, with an idea that a couple of examples about creating county and I guess when I was trying at its worldwide as a recent examples additional funding package was established in mind is 50,013 to 500 is acting as if ever was safari seven counties excessive fines or the scraping can examples of recent examples of that word is historical issue back sure we're so the fund is still there are still active weekend counties to purchase about borrowing money to be very similar types of activities in all honesty or loan activity has been as high as it is about to pass along with the department and because of the stimulus funds and come out of the DC in terms of general interest loans ,(SPEAKER CHANGES) four from infrastructure projects like water and sewer facility at the $1.00 children would develop a business incubator of the only remedy for them and really deal would come to Washington to being able to structure the way we do which is a very favorable terms but we have a counties like people approached us about the ones most telling smothers brothers local initiative as chairman of the one file phone: three com I guess in the context of at the end, how critical business with $14.5 million fund to your overall mission if it's that is not as active as it once was coming happen for you saying that this particular fund is to your mission mode five say right now secured so most essential because it does provide the Balkan turned lower operating revenues for example if they were to discontinue allocating lunch money for the economic developers chips go for a city or are being sold for 2 to 5?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) continue operation, we because the interest rate for so long that you think about the 1., ring 4% owner trust fund monies into neighboring 1/2% the store loan program still very active are great program of were suspended simply because we just didn't have the funds and in terms of the ole control budget because we're bringing 18 fall we were five years ago to registration on that what you were just heard this is that the activity on the phone fund is minimal according to the craving counties into their own bouillabaisse in other cities where I stated purpose of the eastern region may from time to time the only inconsistent with the economic development goals of Sonoma counties whereas in September of representatives to use in region reported to us that use in reaching its suspended making grants until further notice when suspect was desirable ??....
To do what they’re doing to request this here because Craven County does not benefit from additional funds continuing to be allocated towards the Global TransPark. The bottom line is they don’t feel the Global TransPark is contributing anything to them. They’ve started their own economic development team. The option here is if this doesn’t pass, Craven County can still pull out of the region. They will lose the allocated tax dollars. The only thing is they won’t get their money out of the fund. This way, if this passes, they’ll get their money out of the fund, they can use it for their own economic development, but the region will still get whatever allocated tax dollars are for county because they’ll still be able to count Craven County as a member. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, can I provide a bit of clarity on that response? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. Briefly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s part of the confusion that exists is because our organization, the Global TransPark Authority and the Global TransPark Foundation, were all created about the same time, so we are not the GTP. That’s the most important thing to recognize is we are not the Global TransPark. That’s a state owned entity with an authority that governs it and there was a foundation created funded by private dollars to promote the development of the TransPark. We were created to promote the development of the 13 county region and that’s what we’ve been about. None of our money has ever gone to support the development of the Global TransPark. It all goes to support capacity building within our 13 counties of which Craven is one of them. They do benefit. If you went back and talked to some of the folks from Craven, now that hopefully they’ve got a better understanding of who we are and what we do. There might be a different attitude about us today than it was at that point in time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Speciale. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, you heard from the gentlemen in his own words that they want to hang on to this fund because if they don’t get the state tax dollars, they would use this fund for operating expenses. The whole thing has been a one-armed bandit since its exception. It’s been 20 years. Craven County would like to get their money and that’s where we’re at. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hamilton. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. I’m glad you gave that clarity on the fact that North Carolina’s eastern region is not the Global TransPark. The money was collected for the license plates. Correct me if I’m wrong, anybody jump in. The money was collected for the license plates in an effort to market Global TransPark. The money collected then went to North Carolina’s eastern region to be held in a fund to served for grants and loans to the 13 county region surrounding the area of the Global TransPark. That money, the $14.5 million, then the interest from that money is then divvied out every year, if I understand correctly, to the remaining partnerships in the state. If we start unraveling this fund and all the counties in that 13 county region start taking the money out of this fund, then the other partnerships lose that interest payment every year, and it’s to the tune of about 20 to $30,000 per partnership. It will affect every partnership in the state. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have a clarification from staff regarding some of this, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This trust contains the 14.8 and DMV funds that also contains one time appropriation from the General Assembly and $7.5 million. Those separate portions of money both generate interest. The interest on the 14.8, which Mr. Chaffey referred to goes back to the eastern region for operating expenses. The interest on the 7.5 is taken into account when all economic development regions receive their annual state appropriation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Correct. Thank you. Representative Jones. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. This question’s for the bill’s sponsor. The original bill that was before us basically allowed Craven County to, what exacts to, succeed from the Union, if you will. Get out of the partnership, take their money with them. This one, before us now, just says they’ll take the money, but they’ll still be in the partnership. My question to you is what do the Craven County commissioners want to do? What is their goal? What do they want? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I haven’t called them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Robert Brawley [SPEAKER CHANGES] About the changes to PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Robert Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I might comment on the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] By all means. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was leaning towards actually voting against this bill because I do tend to favor regionalism, but the comments I’m hearing is the Global TransPark maybe.
Speaker Changes: ?? because the regional people don't care much about that's for that bill i gave favorite ?? appropriate time, Speaker Changes: thank you Representative brolly Representative stones, Speaker Changes: thank you ?? i think i can clear some of the senator are here if one understand if you are keep the funds of the five dollars ?? but we are gonna state part f the bill were we can so they can still gain your allocation of the funds that we got from the state so it's kind of a happy medium play so if they gonna continue to get their funds but you get your special portion of the funds ?? so at that time i thin its a great bill in the appropriate time Mr.Chair i lived to ?? a motion Speaker Changes:Representative ?? but thank you Representative stones Representative ?? and representative ?? Speaker Changes:thank you Mr.Chair i know that we have Representative George graham who is formally elected in that area i be interested to know what interaction the county had approximately county commission that he has with this benefits perceived from the debate thank you Representative hall Representative graham Speaker Changes:thank you Mr.Chair i would say to you and thank you for recognizing me to make a few comments the project has been extremely successful I'm not aware of any counties that's requesting funds out the information i received recently on ?? county ?? we created probably three or four hundred million dollars in terms of development there has been 2000 jobs there is highway construction rear construction the project is gone extremely well look at the secretary of comments yesterday and she said we are developing a prosperity zone those prosperity zones are when developed most similar to what we have what we have now and what we need to do is to date ?? I'd like to call something like that i don't know the property ?? that we are shit down June 30th i simply seen an organization this large needs more time to scale does a because their projects on land their state transactions ?? discussions all up with the other developers and come into area to shed down June 30th would be disastrous i would say at least would you extend the time to give the organization an opportunity to clarify Speaker Changes: follow up Speaker Changes: ?? Speaker Changes: follow up Representative ?? Speaker Changes: actually Mr.Chair i would like to just a refuse to the committee on the decision before us regarding the PCS there is no secret that there has been some broad discussions regarding the economic partnership and number of counties and certain partnership throughout the state solutions and regards to partnership actually work and these partnerships benefits i think most folks are aware of senator bill 137 which is send to the house house bill 356 which was companion bill to 357 if the every beginning we we are looking at step ?? that economic partnership just to make sure that the way that had constructed actually made of the counties have something in common from one end to other that actually made that economic partnership a viable economic partnership for that part of reason so whole is in flux i don't think we have to debate in this committee this morning this moment what is front of us we have Craven where apparently ?? dissolution's in the way of their membership where their economic region operated they want them to withdraw from that this P C S keeps them in their which pretty much maintains the appropriation whatever that's gonna be ?? and they would like to receive their proportion of the money their citizens their money page their special tax and have that ?? to them so they can use that for their economic development ?? so their county commissioners can take care of their folks ?? count with money that their folks paid
And the future of the economic partnership is actually in other people’s hands. And I think that that's kind of what we're faced with without debating the future viability of these economic partnerships. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Mott. Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentleman of the committee when the global trans-park was started it was with high hopes and great expectations that it would be a real economic engine and drive the economy in this area of the state. And it just hasn't happened, it hasn't panned out. You know if you make a bad investment at some point in time you have to realize it's a bad investment and you just cut your losses and you get out. And that's what Craven County's decided they wanna do. They just wanna take their money, cuz they feel that they can better utilize it on the local level as opposed to allowing the region to use the money. So there's nothing wrong with what he's wanting to do. It doesn’t' destroy the partnership, it doesn't disrupt their operations, it just gives Craven County the ability to manage their own resources. It's their contribution let em get it back. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Wells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For the folks at the eastern region either is there some risk, is there some threat to the eastern regions that if we pass the proposal before us it will put at risk, actually threaten the coalition that has held together the global trans-park all these years? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Great question. That's always possible, it's unknown. At this point in time no other county has petitioned to withdraw from the regional commission. It might set up a domino effect, we don't really know, based on the current ??. It's kind of the way the trust is done is essentially it's the glue that binds us together. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I'm not trying to cut you off but I've got to get to the committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I understand. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We've Representative's Ross, Hall, and then we're voting on this. Carney yes ma'am I'll add you to that list. Thank you. Representative Ross. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Yesterday we had heard that the Secretary of Agriculture had some plans for this area and I just wanted to know whether we ever got some feedback from the Department of Agriculture on this bill. I may have missed it since I came in a couple minutes late. Is there anybody here from Ag? Did the bill sponsor ever consult with Ag? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have a Representative from the Department of Agriculture. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Joy Hicks, legislative liaison for the Department of Agriculture. Commissioner Troxler has expressed an interest in the GTP as it is in the heart of agriculture country. And has expressed both to the commerce subcommittee on agriculture and military affairs, and to the transportation chairs in both the Senate and the House. That there is a desire to see more agriculture exported and moved and that he does see that GTP is a possibility for that. However there are a lot of infrastructure needs in place, or that would need to be put in place in order to make that happen. But he has expressed an interest this session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you ma'am. Representative Hall. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry I didn't finish last time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I apologize. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I guess the question I have. I've heard that the bill sponsor now says he hasn't talked to the folks in Craven County recently and I've heard a lot of discussion about Craven County wanting to be out of, or to take their funds out. And I haven't seen any information or hadn't heard anything from Craven County. And I guess the question is did the Craven County commissioners file a request for this? And if so is a copy of it available to us? And when was it done as regards to this PCS? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Speciale has a resolution from Craven County. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Carney. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I've tried to think through this, listened to all the discussion. I think the bill's sponsor and the chair is for fixing this a little better today. My concern yesterday was the pulling out of the partnership, and that would start an unraveling of partnerships. I think we really need to pull the global trans-park out of this discussion, because first though if you don't mind I'd like to ask staff a question. I know the answer but I just want them to answer it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ma'am.
Mankind this trust Cern that we're talking about his design lane take a stand back and say that the eastern region partnership is stacked high as one that says we're dealing NFL, my left that trust firm that kidnapping and calm, cool as many that was 10 and IE check arrived from the lessons of all this campaign's life and battery two status back to my knees said Ali (SPEAKER CHANGES) had discussed from frank and by the Kansas M. Stanley M. Mia and the bells tanks bank and have them an AS says nothing outstanding the fact that deadlines that they cannot take it out if there's money in this commitment from the trust fund this does not and have all the partnership in my opinion this disc and stays within the partnership this is an example of why I had that we will look closely at what represented not for bob Sullivan has dealt with the partnerships that we have the 70-Westlands Supply the partnerships and I think MSN to regional growth and development that dealt with the CSU anything that seconds that sounded into the seventh and place we should strengthen of anything L's M and let down and am department of commerce is looking at is affecting and conjunction with what we already have in place of partnerships that says La vista fame for this county many that's a good cast from the command so I can find where the bank and said I am as a trust fund that the bank adversaries in the bank and again Sunday and I am pleased that the mortgage M a NM 522 out and what they did this ballet SMILC Pippen said U2 data bank and taking the fifth 9:00 AM,(SPEAKER CHANGES) but they will not plan to partition at MMI is that we despise there in your response to the bank and MSN State will not be affected the partnership's money to keep this in Bali recognize for motion a move that would give the proposed new social 24 hospital was some fun with 400 of them to finish in the show for all in favor say, half of those still missing. Thank you to stay in the next up is the PCs for hospital to 67 yards in several cities have a PC is four for discussion on elevator say out, but those motion. Thank you for Russian politician that this can generally a simple bail, then the police continued to fall to the bill Foster controlled and labor force and Floyd writing down the throat, Fairmont State with the visitor either standpoint states is that existing interstate highways can only be told of the following authority can only tell existing in psychology three conditions are met the first one that it doesn't change anything of numbers two and 3:00 news that the number two by suggest a bill of this $5.00 state highways that we have a North Carolina mail that have not always have to maintain the same number of non toll Lanes phrase that's all for it also won a 95 article was one of 77155586 than it would be lying summer state 95 and they could be a steak knife out now generally from a sporty Lanes in each direction so we have to maintain 49 toll Lanes on the 95 if a five to be a tape was four new lines out there like Intel lows like about lying flat that statement of the 53 love to play the slot for North Carolina way from floor to go to New York one ever got to have to maintain the same number of nonviolence as true for all of the senior site of the opposition of delta on the street rod and bob before the transportation committee was a 34 subjects were four representation of the NT buyer of costly mistake by others also they only gave the city of nearby content and people would likely will miss the network owned and-stone between the positions to remove fulfill report any further questions to the committee that Intel's taken as chairman of this is a good bill (SPEAKER CHANGES) my question is technical in nature from where it says that the party continuously maintains it all from the same number of general purpose nine, winds percent say at least the same number of 99 toll Lanes is that not a good bet the company decided after the exactly the same number in wouldn't be clarifying the site leased to that number is. ??...........
Certainly have no objection to that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, it does mean you have to have the same number of lanes, the way it’s written now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would suggest, what if you have an odd number of lanes. That might be difficult to have two and a half lanes each way. Might be good to say at least. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would be fine with that technical wording change. Could I suggest that? Yes, I would suggest a floor amendment. If you look on line 13... [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you’ll get with staff attorneys so they can draft it for a moment [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think it’s just two words. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, proceed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think its the addition of two words. I think you can understand this. You can object if you say no. If you look at line 13… [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can understand it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ...the authority continuously maintains at all times, at least, in front of the word the -- at least the same number of general purpose non-total lanes. That simply we’re not mandating them to make the new lanes toll lanes if they don’t want to. If they want to add two new free lanes they can add two new free lanes. But if they want to make two new lanes and make them hot lanes and toll them, they can do that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move the amendment be adopted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’ve heard the motion on the floor regarding the amendment. Is there any further questions from the committee. If not, All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed? Amendment is adopted. Representative...any further questions from the committee? Representative Stone, you’re recognized for your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Favorable report for House Bill 267. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As amended. And the amendment be rolled into a PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, you’ve heard the motion on the floor. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed? Motion carried. Thank you, Representative Collins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Representative Jones, and thank you committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McManus. House Bill 365. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, ma’am? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Late last night...no, let me back up. Early this morning… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Early this morning, Dr. Luebke came to me on the floor and indicated with the Representative that this bill did need to meet crossover and it had...I don’t know all the details in the back, but I agreed that we would go ahead put it on this morning. Early this morning I had a call from the chairman of the board in Chatham County and also an email from the vice chair and a third call which I wasn’t able to take. They do not want the bill now. They indicated that the cost...they thought that there would be another issue on the ballot with a special election and that has not materialized so this would be a single issue on the ballot at a cost of about $50,000. I spoke with Representative McManus when I came in and asked her to do what she needed to, making calls or whatever. The commissioners had a originally, I’m trying to remember all of this so I can tell you correctly, had initially requested the resolution, but they have now changed their mind. She’s not back so I’m going to just say, let’s just drop it at this point. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There being no further business to come before this committee, we’re adjourned.