The house will come to order. Members will take their seats. Visitors will retire from the chamber. The Sgt. at arms will close the doors. Members and visitors are asked to please silence all electronic devices. Today's prayer, will be offered by Representative Ford. Members and visitors in the gallery are asked to stand and also remain standing during the pledge of allegiance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let's pray. Father God, we thank you for this day. We thank you for this time together we pray that you'll guide and direct us as we make thoughts and decisions in this place. We pray that you'll bless our families at home, give us all safe travel and mercies today and tomorrow. We pray you'll bless our staff. Thank you, Lord, for all that you've done for us. Pray that you'll guide and direct everyone in Washington to help them to do the right thing. We pray, father, for troops protecting our freedoms around the world. Please keep them safe, Lord. We thank you so much for all that you do. For your grace, mercy, and love. In Jesus's name, amen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Harnett, Representative Lewis is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, the Journal for February 4th has been examined and found to be correct. I move it be approved as written. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Lewis moves that the journal for February 4th be approved as written, those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no? The ayes have it in the Journal is approved as written. Petitions, memorials, and papers addressed to the general house, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Dear Representative Tolbert. Pursuant to North Carolina statute 143B-350, I am pleased to appoint the following individuals to North Carolina Board of Transportation for review by the North Carolina general assembly's Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee. Mr. Hugh R. Overholt of Craven County Second Transportation Division, Mrs. Sandra G. Fountain of Onslow County 3rd Trasportation Division, Mr. Augustus H ?? of Nash County 4th Transportation Division, Mr. H. Terry Hutchens of Cumberland County 6th Transportation Division, Mr. Patrick D. Molamphy of Moore County 8th Trasportation Division, Mrs. Tracy F. Dobson of Mecklenberg County 10th Trasportation Division, Mr. Walter J. Debnam Jr. of Jackson County 14th Transportation Division, Mr. Andrew M. Perkins Jr. of Forsyth County at large member representing urban mass transit. Enclosed are the biographical information and disclosure statements on the above appointees. Please feel free to call my staff for any additional information. Sincerely, Pat McCrory, Governor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The document will be on file with the house principal courts office. Members, a couple of recognitions the chair would like to make. First off, on the motion of Rep. Lewis of Harnett County, the chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Bill Morris, who is chairman of the Harnett County Board of Education and police chief of Erwin and his wife Gina Morris who is chemistry teacher at Triton high school. If you all could please stand so we could all welcome you. Thank you for being here. Members, we're also honored to have a school group visiting with us today. You could see them on both sides of the gallery. These are students from Salem Elementary School in Apex. We're glad to have you all here today, welcome. Members, the nurse of the day is Marcy Shipwash from High Point North Carolina. Ms. Shipwash if you could stand, we thank you for being with us today. The lady from Mecklenburg, Representative Carney is recognized for a point of personal privilege. The chair would ask the house to please come to order. The lady has the floor for moments of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you members of the house. As a survivor of sudden cardiac death, I ask all of you to join me today in recognizing the importance of the ongoing fight against heart disease and stroke. In designating as we.
Nationally with the American Heart Association. Friday February 6 is national wear red day and just a few comments that I would like to make you and statistics to let you know how important this fight is not only for women, but for men in this chamber and and our state, but today my comments are about women. In 2003 the American Heart Association and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute took action against this disease that was claiming the lives of nearly 500,000 American women each year. A disease that women are not paying attention to, stemming from that action, National Wear Red day was born. It's always held on the first Friday in February every year to raise awareness of heart disease being the number one killer of women. Tomorrow marks the 12th anniversary of National Wear Red day, since that recognition started, nearly 90% of the women in the country have made at least one healthy change towards their heart. More than one-third have lost weight, more than 50% of women have increased their exercise, six out of ten women have changed their diets, more than 40% of women have checked cholesterol levels, and one-third are going to their doctors. Pretty empowering isn't it? 8286 women have died from heart disease in North Carolina since 2013, we're just at the beginning of 2015, that's 20% or one in five death among women, 2635 women have died from stroke in North Carolina alone since 2013, overall 11,000 women have died from cardiovascular disease in North Carolina in 2013. That's over one out of every four deaths among women, so I'm asking you today to stand with me, it's time for us to get stronger and I'm not speaking to just the women in this chamber and the women in the gallery that all the women that are listening, but I'm speaking to the men about the women in your lives and about your health and your heart. Get your numbers checked, ask your doctor to check your blood pressure and cholesterol, you can do that in the Walgreens, the Rite Aids, in the CVSes. I don't want to leave anybody out, but they all have those little benches you go in and check your blood pressure. And your lifestyle and stop smoking, lose weight, exercising, get healthy. Raise your voice and I'm asking you to do that today, that wearing red tomorrow. Advocate for more women related research and education. Educate your families and your selves. Don't be silent, tell everyone women you know that heart disease is the number one killer. Raise your voice with me today and help us all to recognize tomorrow as the kickoff for the month of February and it's go red day. I will tell you that with my journey over the last six years I have gone through a lifestyle change myself. the most important thing now from me, the journey I've been on is to recognize how blessed we are to just even be standing here today in this chamber all of us and the power we have among our-self collectively to raise this awareness issue. It is huge and I don't know that I paid attention to it until six years ago, I'm being brutally honest, but I'll tell you if any of you know me I will tell you to put down your salt shakers you all know that. Get rid of the sodium in your diet, cut it back as much as you can, but exercise. An important part is leave the stress behind, when you feel your shoulders becoming very heavy, that's not just a feeling that's a sign that your body is saying your heart is saying you're doing too much go to your office sit down. Walk over there to the Capitol grounds and sit in the park, look at the fountain. It's a lot you can do to relieve stress. So I ask you again and please join with me and thank you Mr. Speaker, thank you to our Roles Chair, representative Louis for allowing me today to take a little extra moment on this point of personal privilege. Thank you.
Introductions of bills and resolutions, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 43: Representatives Conrad, Lambeth, Hanes, and Terry, Winston-Salem parking meters. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bill is referred to the committee on local government. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 44: Representatives Conrad, Lambeth, Hanes, and Terry, cities overgrown vegetation notice. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bill is referred to the committee on local government, if favorable, regulatory reform. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 45: Representatives Saine, Horn, and Glazer, Child Advocacy Center funds. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bill is referred to the committee on appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 46: Representative Catlin, Senior tax deduction for medical expenses. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bill is referred to the committee on finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 47: Representatives Brody and Horn, Youth career connects. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Strike the initial referral, bill is referred to the committee on aging, if favorable finance. House Bill 47, the clerk just read, the bill is referred to the committee on education, community colleges. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Joint Resolution 48: Representatives Jones, Millis, Riddell, and Pendleton, Amendments approval convention of states. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill is referred to the committee on judiciary 1. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 49: Representatives Jeter, Howard, Michaux, and Tine, Independent ?? commission. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bill is referred to committee on elections, if favorable rules, calendar, and operations of the house. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 50: Representatives McNeill, Hurley, Bishop, and Stam, Amend mandatory retirement age, judges and magistrates. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bill is referred to the committee on pensions and retirements. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 51: Representatives Pittman, Speciale, and Ford, Justice for rural citizens act. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bill is referred to the committee on local government, if favorable Finance. Calendar, House Bill 3, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 3, by Representatives McGrady, Stam, Lewis, and Goodman, An act to amend the North Carolina Constitution to prohibit condemnation of private property except for public use to provide for the payment of just compensation with right of trial by jury in all condemnation cases, and to make similar statutory changes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Henderson, Representative McGrady, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, colleagues, House Bill 3 proposes a constitutional amendment to the North Carolina Constitution to prohibit the condemnation of private property, except for a public use. Requires the payment of just compensation for property taken and requires the compensation to be determined by jury trial if requested by any party. The bill also includes some statutory changes consistent with the constitutional amendment and Speaker Pro Tem, Representative, Stam, will be addressing those he speaks on the bill. For many of us, this bill probably seems very familiar. The reason for that is that a nearly identical bill passed 110-8 in 2013 and identical provisions were included in an omnibus bill, Senate Bill 636 last year, that passed 103-10. So this bill has been before us before in essentially the same form we see it today and it comes to the floor upon a unanimous vote of the Judiciary 2 Committee. I'd say that suggests that the bill has had rather consistent and broad bipartisan support. Section one of the bill is the heart of the bill, it provides for the constitutional amendment and I'll explain the details of that in a moment. Section two provides the amendment shall be submitted to the voters in the next state-wide election on May 3rd of 2016, that's in primaries. Section three explains how the amendment becomes effective upon certification by the secretary of state. Sections four and five are the statutory provisions, which Representative Stam will be disucssing
In section six provides the effective date. Now, this bill relates to eminent domain. In other words, the forced sale of land to the government. Most basically, the proposed constitutional amendment says that private property shall not be taken by eminent domain except for a public use. So what is a public use? Obviously roads, schools, sewers, courthouses, and it's also public utilities acquisition of rights of way. Even though they are owned by a private entity because a utility is by definition something to which the public has a right to attain service upon a payment of fee. Now, the concept of public use, that sounds simple. So, the question is, why do we need a constitutional amendment. Well, aside from the public use test, there are two other tests or phrases sometimes used when deciding whether a government can use the power of eminent domain. Sometimes courts have talked in terms of public purpose or public benefit and with time the test frankly has gotten rather fuzzy or has morphed. This became really clear when the U.S. Supreme court decided a case out of Connecticut, the so called kelo case. Surprisingly, in its very unpopular decision, the U.S. Supreme court said that a public purpose was sufficient under the U.S. Constitution so that a Connecticut town could force the sale of property by one private land owner to the town which in turn sold the property to another private land owner. In that case, a developer. Fortunately in kelo, the Supreme Court said that the States were free to restrict eminent domain more than that under their constitutions and that is precisely what we are trying to do with this bill. We are trying to clearly establish a constitutional standard under the North Carolina constitution. Now, I will tell you that I really don't view this standard as any different than what our current law is. We're not trying to make new law here. We're just trying to make sure that North Carolina law stays what it is and doesn't sort of morph back to a lower standard that has been established by the U.S. Supreme court. Now I guess we could debate the different between public use, public benefit, or public purpose but I don't think that is critical for you in thinking about this bill. What is critical for you to understand is what this bill would do, assuming North Carolina voters approve the proposed amendment. First, as already suggested, the bill will mean that a public use does not include the taking of property in order to convey an interest in that property for economic development. The use of eminent domain as approved in kelo will not be possible in North Carolina if we pass the bill and the voters approve this constitutional amendment. Second, it puts language in our constitution specifically saying, quote, just compensation shall be paid. Well, these five words have been determined by the North Carolina supreme court to have been implicit in our law of the land clause which I'm guessing dates back to the Magna Carta. We are one of the only states that doesn't actually have that in our constitution. Third, we are the only state that does not require in its constitution that the issue of damages and condemnation cases be decided by a jury. The sponsors of the legislation believe that a jury trial in eminent domain cases is so fundamental that it should be spelled out in our constitution, and forty nine other states do that. So, I recommend the bill to you. Obviously it is a bill that has had broad support in the house. I don't think it changes our law based on the case law that is out there. It does fix some language
in statutes and in court opinions that, as we saw on the kilo case, can sort of move in a direction other than where North Carolina has been and so I ask your support for the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Stam, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, members of the house, I'll address the statute toward changes in just a moment. I put on your desk an article from The Economist a few years ago that explains the nail households in China. If you Google nail households you'll see some really strange things, highways that split just to go around a house because the people in the house refused to move and so they go around them. Normally the way they take property in China is, when people are gone, they just bulldoze them down and if you look at the second page of this article, at the very last paragraph, they have an ill-defined public interest criteria which is very similar to the public purpose or public benefit test that we're trying to get rid of. The reason I put this out here, we're addressing a universal, world-wide desire that people have that their property, particularly their homes, but that their property not be taken from them forcibly by an improper purpose. I believe that if we put this before the people we will have overwhelming support. We have it at a May Primary Referendum so that nobody thinks he/she will get an advantage in a November election. Secondly, this bill is, after 26 years, hopefully finally coming to fruition and from the beginning it has always been bipartisan. I remember Senator Dan Blue, when he was a representative, was a primary sponsor. Representative Goodman is a sponsor this year, and one time we had 96 sponsors to try to get the then speaker to bring the thing out. Now, why do we want to make the statutory changes in this bill? We could have constructed a constitutional amendment that would have taken two pages to completely explain all the nuances of it but that's just not really appropriate for a constitution. Instead, by putting the statutory changes in the same piece of paper that you vote on, we are establishing irrevocably what the legislative intent is. Frankly, a lot of utility companies, cities, and counties were very concerned with the original drafts of the constitutional amendment because they thought, incorrectly, but nevertheless they thought that it would stop the use of imminent domain for utilities and it's not designed to do that at all. But what it is designed to do is to make sure we're talking about public use and not benefit purpose or public interest. Now, there have been hundreds of years of cases from the appellate courts that have discussed this and frankly their conflicting, confusing, and some of them could be interpreted to mean that we are using the public benefit test. But, about 80 or 90 years ago, when that phrase was first put into the statutes, "Public use or benefit," the benefit was used as an additional restriction on condemnation by imminent domain. It was not an alternate test. They didn't have proper grammar lessons from their English teachers. They thought the subjunctive and conjunctive were the same thing. But it, in more recent years, has morphed into people, some courts in North Carolina, thinking that a benefit would be enough. So this makes clear that it's just the public use. Then we modernized some of the language about utilities. For example, instead of telegraph and telephone we used communication facilities. This, frankly, was at the request of a lot oft of the utilities. There was some discussion about the phrase, "distribution of natural gas," being included in here. Representative McGrady and I have tried to figure out why some people think this has something to do with fracking. It's our opinion it has nothing to do with fracking. This is the distribution of utility natural gas and there had already been a court of appeals decision in 2011 that said the distribution of natural gas
Is proper for condemnation. Now, I need to make one clarification that Representative Michaux asked me to make, and I'm happy to do it, because in terminology, there's an ambiguity. The word condemnation is used in two completely different ways. This bill talks about condemnation by imminent domain, that is the power of the state, which has been in English law for 7 or 800 years, I think. Doesn't go back to Magna Carta, Chuck. Little, little more recent than that. But that's the taking by the government of, of property upon payment of compensation. There's another usage of the term condemnation and that's under the police power. That is if Representative Cleveland here, and I'll use him as an example because I've been to his lovely home, and I know this is counterfactual. My explanation, but just suppose that all the building codes were violated in his house, and it was a, a site for, it was an eyesore and inspectors came along and said, you can't live here anymore, George. This is not safe. And they put up a condemnation sign. Do not enter. You have to fix it or we're gonna tear it down. That is not imminent domain. They give you an opportunity to fix it, usually. If you fix it, fine. If you don't, they can tear it down and charge the cost of tearing it down to you. It's a lien on the land, and you might lose your property because you don't pay the lien. That process would not be affected by this bill at all because that has nothing to do with imminent domain. I encourage you to vote for it. I'm very optimistic that this will come through to fruition after 26 years, and I really appreciate the hard work that Representative McGrady has put into this. Thank you mister Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Michaux arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That 26 years ago that Representative Stam referred to was probably when I was chair of judiciary committee and had the bill before us at that time, indicating that this question has been before this body and before this state for a long period of time. Condemnation, particularly of private property has always been a problem. After the Kelo case had come out from Connecticut, it gave the states an opportunity at that point to make clarification. And after all of the legal lease that you've heard on here, it's very simple. You cannot take something that has happened in the past, a lot of condemnations have resulted in the city or the utility or whatever taking private property under condemnation authority and then selling it back to a private developer. This has been a distinct problem, a distinct problem in this state. This bill in my, in my estimation clarifies that situation that they cannot do that at this time. The other thing, if you really wanna put it into perspective, it does not stop a city or county from declaring an area blighted. I asked Representative Stam to explain that to you simply because that is one of the fears that many citizens, counties may have is that they cannot go in and declare an area blighted, and under condemnation proceedings take that area. They can, they still, under the other procedure can do that, and cause you, and then that property can be taken because you don't pay the lien as a result of what they have done on that. Now, but we just wanted to clear up the fact that you just can't go in and take property and then sell it to a private developer for a lesser price so that they can make a profit. We need this. We need this for clarification, and I hope that you will support it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Cabarrus, Representative Pittman arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Stam a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, do you yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. For those folks like myself who might have a little bit of fear of ambiguity, never knowing how the courts are going to interpret something later on, what assurance do we have, as good as this is, and I do support the bill, but what assurance do we have that public use
Will be understood not to include taking property for the purpose of, of conveyance to a third party interest for economic development. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pittman, thank you for the question, and indeed in several past drafts of this bill in many other sessions, that was specifically added in. It's not here because it's not necessary because if it's for private development, by definition it is not a public use. That is my position and the position of all the sponsors which we hear state on the record. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston, Representative Torbett arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister Speaker. To ask the bill sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady, do you yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative. I have a few just for clarity's sake. Could a municipal or governing entity take a piece of property for public good to run a sewer line, let's say that was along a creek bed in the back of my property? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, mister Speaker. Could a, a governing entity in this county, county, state, take a piece of property, maybe around a creek bed on the back of my property to implement a walking trail, greenway, or something like? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, probably. A greenway is typically viewed as a park, and a park is public use. And potentially that's possible, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, mister Speaker. Representative, would, would it be available for a municipality or, or county government or state government to take a piece, a partial of land to, to erect a utility, but inevitably take more than is actually needed for that utility, thereby having more than needed property that would be in turn sold back to another entity? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I might, I can't really give you a yes or no to that, because I can think of two situations that would lead to different positions. The utility or the municipality could acquire property that it thought it needed for its public use, and it turn out to be more land than it needed. But at the point of time that it was acquiring it, say the train station was gonna have this footprint and then they redesigned the train station and it got smaller. And so yes, they could end up with additional property, but that situation is actually sort of what we're trying to avoid here. One of the things that had been suggested, whether it's in relationship to an airport or a train facility is that well, the municipality will obtain a large tract of land for airport purposes or for rail, and by the way, we're gonna add a little more land so that we can put in some nice restaurants and stores and other things. No, they, they're not in a position to acquire property for what is now has, is not a public use. And so again, I'm sorry to not be able to give you a good answer yes or no, and I suspect that if a municipality went, moved forward to condemn land for, truly for a public use, but under the guise of getting more land for nonpublic use, that would be challengable in a court. I think a court would see right through that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Another question, mister Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yield for a further question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do, mister Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can a city, county, or, or state governing entity acquire a piece of property with the intent in the future to apply a, a utility, or, or said, if so, what is their timeline for such a use? Thank you, mister Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Speaker, maybe I can refer that one to Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, do you yield to answer the question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would. The case I referred to earlier regarding distribution of natural gas, town of Midland versus Morris 2011 specifically, I think it's this case. It may be another case. Specifically said it can be used for a future use, but it has to be for a future use for the utility. It can't be a situation
where they buy it for one purpose with the present intent to use it for something else. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from New Hanover, Representative Catlin, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to ask Representative Stam a question if he would yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, this is a clarification for public use and private benefit, or benefit. If you are looking at properties that have limited public access, like state ports, or an airport, or a military base, would that still be considered public access for eminent domain acquisitions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh, yes. Yes. Now, I'll give you an example. A cartway, you all know what a cartway is, an involuntary way of getting into property to harvest some timber, that's been justified by our supreme court, upon payment of compensation, because theoretically the public can use that cartway even if it's just to a track of land in the wood. It doesn't mean that every single member of the public can necessarily use it but if public entities or public agencies or public ports can use it, certainly I would think that would be public use. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yield for a follow-up question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Clarification, so the ports can use eminent domain, an airport can use it if they want to expand a runway, or the military can use it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. Now, let me just, for information, elaborate and give a nuance because this bill is intended to affect a particular use that was used by an airport one time. Piedmont Triad Airport wanted to expand so that FedEx could have a particular location and they essentially took private property so that FedEx could own land but for the hub, the runways, the roads, yes, that's a public use. One more follow-up, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Another follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Who makes that decision? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, all cases like this ultimately would be decided by courts. This case, this bill gives tightened guidelines so that the courts are much less likely to find public use than if we did not pass the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Union, Representative Brody, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, could I ask Representative Stam a question please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, I wanted to just inquire about the extent of the definition of the word taking and in particular what I would call, it may not be a legal term, but what I would call temporary taking that would ultimately cause an adverse effect on the property. Would that be included and would just compensation be allowed under this provision to allow for temporary taking and if you want I can give you an example. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not just allowed but required. Under our current law, temporary takings of land require just compensation as much as if it's permanent. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Richmond, Representative Goodman, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative McGrady a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady, in reference to the questions that Representative Torbett asked about the creek bank and the sewer line and the greenway, can't government entities do that under current law? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This amendment doesn't change that in any regard, we're not trying to change the law at all. Governments have the ability to condemn for public use and all of those were public uses, and I might add thank you for your co-sponsorship of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One more question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does this bill, in any way, expand the government's ability to condemn property? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker.
what purpose does the gentleman from Gilford, Representative Faircloth, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a question of Representative McGrady. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative McGrady, has there been any input from the local governments on this particular bill, and if so could you enlighten us on what it might have been? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To my knowledge neither the County Commissioner's Association or the League of Municipalities has formally taken position on the bill. There are municipalities that are concerned that this, in some way, restricts them from things they would like to do. That may be possible if they were thinking about using eminent domain for economic development purposes but, to my knowledge, none of the associations and none of the municipalities or anything have come out in opposition of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Floyd, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I want to know if the bill sponsor will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady, this is your bill and I think it's a very good bill and we've had a very lengthy discussion on it and so could you do the appropriate thing at this time please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Since this is the first day of the session and the first bill that we're taking up of a substantive nature and because it's a constitutional amendment, which makes it more important, I'm not going to do that inappropriate thing at this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bumgardner, do you have a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I still have the same question. I'd like to ask Representative Stam a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I still have the same issue with this bill. I support this 100% except it seems like on page two, line 6 we're saying, "Not less than 50 feet and not more than 100." We're saying if you're going to take somebody's property you have to take 50 feet, and if we're going to take property let's take as little as we need, and for any liquid purpose. So if you want a sewer line across somebody else's property to get to another piece of property, you don't need 50 feet, ten would be plenty, but I'm just, other than that I have no problem whatsoever with this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bumgardner, that's in a part of the statute that is not changing. Why 50 feet was there could have been for safety reasons, I don't know, but we were not trying to change the law in that section at all and there will be other bills later on on condemnation to which an amendment might be appropriate if you contact the relative utilities to see why that 50 foot was in there to start with. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further questions, further debate. If not, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will record the vote and close the machine. 106 in favor of the bill, five against the bill. The bill passes first reading. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Second reading, and will be read a third time without objection. Objection being raised, the bill will be carried over. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I'd like to be recorded as voting yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will be recorded as voting yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I would also like to be recorded voting yes, Richardson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will be recorded as voting yes. For what purpose does the lady from Forsyth, Representative Terry, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I'd like to be recorded as voting yes but the machine- [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will be recorded as having voted aye on the bill. For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford, Representative Johnson, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To be recorded for voting yes.
Gentleman will be recorded as having voted aye. Is that the same for Representative Graham? Is it the same? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will also be recorded as having voted aye. For what purpose does the gentleman from Harnett, Representative Lewis rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Speaker I have a motion pertaining to the third reading of House bill three. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may, is recognized for his motion and then to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister Speaker. I would move that the third reading which would normally be held at the next House session which is February ninth instead be held February tenth. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. Members, for planning purposes and I'm glad Representative Lewis made that motion, the, the plan for Monday is is that we will have a no recorded vote session. As you know, we changed the rules on the resolutions and have allowed those to be done by voice vote now. There will be a resolution heard honoring the, the boy scouts, and we have a number of boy scouts here. I know Representative Jones is very active and involved in this process. The session will be at four o'clock on Monday. So if you can't be here then and you're worried about missing a recorded vote, you don't have to worry about that. There will be no recorded votes. We did try to see about moving it to a day later in the week but the, the logistics just wouldn't allow that to happen, so I just wanted to make sure that folks understood that session on Monday will be at four, but again it's not a recorded vote. But if you can be here and you are here, the chair would certainly encourage you to be present for that session. Members, we had, we had our pages with us this week. I would ask the pages to please come forward. Pages, on behalf of all the members of the House, we want to thank you all for being here this week. This is the beginning of session so there's not as much activity as there is probably in a, in a few weeks, but you've actually had the chance to observe a lot of operations and probably had a little time, hopefully, to have had a good time while you're here this week. We certainly hope so, and I certainly want to thank you for taking time away from your families and from school to be here. Members, if you would, please join me in thanking our pages this week. You all may return to your posts for what is hopefully going to be a very brief remainder of the session today. Members, for the record, the recorded vote which was previously done on House bill, House bill 3. The question was put before the second reading for the purpose of the journal. That vote was, I believe, what was the total of the vote, madam clerk? After the changes? I'll let the, I'll let the clerk finish her math over there, then we'll announce that for the record. Notices and announcements? For what purpose does the gentleman from Rowan, Representative Ford rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to speak for a moment of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister Speaker. On this day in 1885, General Johnston Jones introduced a bill before North Carolina's legislature that provided a new model for the state flag as we see it today. May 20, 1775, one of the dates on the flag, the Meck Dec. The others, April 12, 1776 and when North Carolina authorized delegates to the continental congress to vote for their independence from England, the Halifax Resolves. So today is the day that the bill was introduced in 1885 that gives us our current state flags. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wayne, Representative Bell rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to speak for a moment of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister Speaker. And members of the body, I wanted to thank everyone that participated in the sportsman's caucus reception and breakfast we had yesterday. I do not know who won the shootout on the lawns, so I'm gonna go ahead and claim victory for the House since the Senate delayed in getting us an answer. But I want to thank you for participating in that. It's not too late to join the sportsman caucus and I look forward to participating with you in that
throughout the year. Thank you [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, the vote on House Bill 3 with the adjustments on second reading was 111 in the affirmative and four in the negative. The clerk will note that on the minutes. Further notices and announcements? For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Hall, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Due to the change in the time in Monday's session, Democratic Caucus will not caucus on Monday an hour before session as normally done. So we will not be caucusing Monday. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the other gentleman from Durham, Representative Luebke, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry of the chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I'm interested in the schedule for the House Finance Committee next week, and I wondered to which of the chairs should I address my question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would defer to either Representative Saine or Representative Brawley, whichever one's quicker on their button, if the gentleman would like to direct his question to Representative Brawley, I'm just going to call on Representative Brawley. If the chair would like to direct his question to Representative Brawley, I think he'll yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley, can you tell us when the first meeting of the Finance Committee will be next week? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It has not yet been set, as you are aware the committee staff was not named as of yesterday so we have not been able to meet with the appropriate staff for the introductory sessions to educate the new members as to the duties, responsibilities, and scope for the committee on finance. That will be done as expeditiously as possible. I, like you, look forward to the exchange of ideas that we always enjoy on Tuesday mornings. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, I agree with that. I have a follow-up then. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you expect there will not be an Finance Committee meetings to take up bills next week? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We do not expect to take up bills next week at this time but I'm not aware of a bill that we may have to take up next week but that does not mean there will not be one. But at this time I'm aware of none we will need to take up next week. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, there is a possibility that an economic development bill may be sourced through the Finance Committee next week. It's still being drafted. We're still consulting with a number of folks on that but we frankly haven't determined. It's just a matter of trying to see where everybody is on it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. Further notices and announcements. If not, the gentleman from Harnett, Representative Lewis is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move that the house adjourn to reconvene Monday, February 9th at 4:00 P.M. Representative Lewis moves, seconded by Representative Setzer, that the house adjourn to reconvene Monday, February 9th, 2015 at 4:00 P.M. Those in favor will say aye, opposed no. The aye's have it, the house stands adjourned.