A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

Senate | May 14, 2015 | Committee Room | Finance

Full MP3 Audio File

Take your seats please. While we're preparing, we'll extend our gratitude to the Sergeant-at-Arms staff Larry Hancock, Dale Huff and Hal Roach. Good morning gentlemen welcome, we thank you for your assistance. Our Pages today are Elizabeth White from Deep Gap. Elizabeth, welcome. Deyonte Mckinney from Fayetteville. Quadarius McHirchen[sp?] welcome back again, you seem to be following me. Brandon Wallace from Nashville, Will Wheatington[sp?] from Raleigh and Makayla Littleton from Durham. Welcome to all of you, I hope you're having a good a week and we've certainly enjoyed having you and appreciate all the work you've done. We have two bills this morning to hear the first Bill is Senate Bill 160 it has safety incumbent report this is a PCS we will entertain the motion to hear the PCS from Senator Alexander thank you all those in favour of the motion please say aye oppose no motion case, Senator Brown good morning, thank you Mr. Chairman let the dredging begin let the dredging begin first of all I've got to thank everyone for working with us as we created our dredging fund in the past few or so as many of you know the federal govrernment has continued to pull the way in in federal dollars for dragging and I'm sure you've been able to read articles in the paper about organelle completely clossing for I guess about a month my inlet new river inlet they pulled the bull the new river inlet so basically their was no navigation through that inlet as well bill because Federal dollars has gone away, this will become more and more of initial for the cost and I can't tell you enough how important those things are to cameras on the coast from commercial facing to sport facing and how much is? How important is to the economy on the cost as well? Senator Cook, senator Ray myself and British senator all senator Ribbon and all those folks they are working on this issue for a while and trying to touch on what this bill does and I want senator Cook to help me with as well and senator Cook I'll jump to it and I will give you to add to it in case I could. Part one of the bill just to amend the share draft navigation, channel drainage and late maintenance funds in several ways it provides that a=in addition to other current sources the channel fund also contributed by a non-state entity designated for a particular dredging project or a group of projects. It also modifies the call share requirement [xx] to projects to be funded by revenue credited to the shallow draft fund. It authorises to wave or modify the nonstate toll share requirement for dredging projects that alleviate a navigational emergency represent an opportunity to supliment the leverage funding from the US army of engineers, and it also allows for return of money contributed by non-state entities upon written request if the contribution is not been spent or incumbert within two years of that receipt. Section 1B requires the transfer of $6 million fund from funds appropriated through the job catalyt fund, many of you might remember last year there was some dollars put in the job catalyst fund that got caught up in, 12.4 and that bill never passed so taking this dollars to help with several projects, 6 million I think it's 7 million totals coming out of this fund, but 6 million of it would be put to this particular fund and those monies would be spent in several ways. 4 million of it is for organizing dredging needs that are current needs now, 150, 000 to reimbursement of department of administration for scout associated explore an option for acquiring modern Island in the adjuration really properly. Somehow 50, 000 to reimburse apartment administration of scouts associated with the implementation of section 14.7 which requires the department of commerce condensation proceedings on how family owned property deemed necessary to manage existing and future trasportation quarters on the

outer banks in particularly Oregon Inlet and 250, 000 for Department of Environment Natural Resources to update the beach and inlet management plan. Section two of the bill 2A would create a new deep draft navigation channel dredging and maintenance fund draft fund would consists of general funds appropriations gifts or grants it could only be used for clause associated with projects providing say inefficient navigational access to state port in addition to section would require that state funds credit to the deep funds must be shared on a one on one basis but funds provided by the state ports authority, section 2B transfers one million to the deep fund and gain that's from the John Ceres money that I mentioned earlier. Part three bill would require the state ports authority to negotiate memorandum of agreement with the court to allow for non federal planning of dredging of related studies or for maintenance at the state port located at wellmelton[sp?] Morehead City, 3B requires thinner to negotiate with the court to allow non-federal funding of dredging at Oregon Inlet section four of the bill directs the department of administration on behave of the state to initiate negotiations private agency of the federal government, for an agreement to acquire the federally owned property necessary for management, a big draft navigation channel providing access to state port facilities at MooreHead City, from the federal government in exchange for state home real property. Section five one would ingnite provisions related to the new limit down, or the rocks which is a break boarder established by the core, back in the late 1800s, section six of the bill provides a decision about the secretary to wave or modify the state none state color share requirements for dredging projects, for the shell and be trade funds are exempt from the contested case provisions, under the administrative procedure Act and Section seven gets in to where we established a coastal waterways users identification number, and also establishes a fees schedule for boats under 24 feet or longer that are using our inlets, this should create an additional $2 million that would go to the shower draft fund those dollars it will also allow the wildlife resources commission to retain about 250, 000 to implement the for identification number that would put in place. Section 8 directs the coastal resources commission to amend its rules for the use of temporary roads and control of structures under certain conditions Section 9 would modify, they'll allow users for Dairy County Autopsy[sp?] Tax to provide that to the county and use up to $3 million of the nett proceed other tax for fiscal year for old ways in the county again and partake all our organenite[sp?] and Section 10 establishes organenite[sp?] as a transportation quarter. Section 11 adds other coastal counties to the list of local governments authorised to remove abandoned vessels inevitable waters will then make their jurisdictions. That's going through the bill pretty quick, a lot of work's been put on this bill what we'd been working on the whole session pretty much. I will try and answering questions or first Senator Clark anything you might add. Senator Clark would you like to add anything? Yes, thank you thank you, You went through the whole thing. God bless you. I just like to say that the Oregon Inlet up and till recently is closed, and all too often Oregon Inlet is closed because it's too shallow for vessels to transit. In fact it's been closed but 25% of the time in the last few years. Federal government had been doing this job and it looks like it's going to be up to us to provide for this child to be kept clean. May 2014, there was an economic study that indicated that the annual impact to keeping this Oregon Inlet open is about 4, 348 jobs, or $548 million of economic activity that the state would gain. That's a lot of tax dollars by the way. And in fact some folks in the study are a lot of talented we open 365 days a year on a consistent basis we could be looking at an economic impact of over a billion and a half dollars. I want to thank all the folks who have helped on this bill particularly my legislative assistant and also Jeff Warden.

my legislative assistant, Jordan Handerson has just been working night and day on this thing he's quite a gift to us, anyway, I ask for your support, we'll stand for questions. Thank you senator Cook. Senator Davis thank you question Sir. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator Brown or senator Cook could you tell me what funding obligations the relevant local governments have for these projects? In most cases senator Davis, pretty much all cases it's at least a 1-1 match to draw down any of these dollars. Follow up. Follow up. Thank you, and where do these monies come from, I'd noticed that part of it is from an occupancy tax which is really a tax to visitors so what does a local citizen, what obligation delay, what burden do they carry for this, further than the occupancy tax? Where does the local money come from? Well, if you ask them, that is their money and I proceed taxes to sources and just to add some of the coastal counties have a special tax for beach nourishment, those dollars that are particular in their county or coming from both dollars that will be normally used for beach nourishment. Senator Daniel. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I just had a question to the fine that will be equal to the fee that you're supposed to pay, where you would the fine go? Staff are here but I'm sure we go to the point as well but I won't be sure, now because I think that will be a bit to the county school okay, Senator Hise. Thank you Mr. Chairman, a little bit on the same lines as this, It was kind of asking about charging a fund to someone that why would you set the cost of the fund to be the same as the cost of compliance. So, if it's going to cost you $100 to buy the sticker or $100 if you get caught without it. What's the incentive there and especially looking the fact that those funds don't go to the purpose that getting the sticker would? Why wouldn't you make it an actual penalty just to make sure people comply when getting the sticker upfront and fully fund your fund? If I may. Yes Sir, please. Actually it's twice because you're fined the level of the fee that you would have been charged plus now you have to buy a fee and you have to buy a sticker as well. So you have to pay the fine and then you got to buy a sticker, so you're paying for something you could have gotten once twice. Follow up. I smell the sadness. But you had to buy the sticker before and you didn't, a nd you still have to buy the sticker, and you're hoping to get courage to just encourage you to do so. If you don't buy the sticker when you get got, you got to pay the fine which was the label of the sticker. Say $100 You got to buy a sticker. Another $100. Another $100, now you're looking at 200 bucks for which you could have got for 100 bucks Okay, Senator Ford. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and Thank you Senators for indulging that I found that I ever wanted to know about, maybe this is question for staff, what I'm trying to rap mine around is this to states, total commitment for dragging and what I want go back to is just whats being done this section and we did last session. What is the total balance amount look like? I can give you close. I think, I mean I won't be exact but I think I could give you close, the registration trace and both registration fee that we enacted last year, generated something like $6-7$million range for child draft immigration, and again those dollars have to be matched locally dollar for dollar and is also for the right to process state as well. Believe it or not those rights, so those to include those wipes, but again is a dollar to dollar match. This additional fee we hope willl generate about $2 million and

again it goes into the same part of money which will require dollar for dollar match, so it gets it up to about $9 million powers we hope. The other piece that's coming out of the Catlus[sp?] fund which is the seven is really to take care of the emergency peace that's going on on the coast today. We don't have When don't have the time, it's got something to got to happen pretty quick and again that's as you can see with their county they are having a much a lot of these hour and the locals again they got have to come up with matches so it's hopefully this get us to got enough money in the fund, we can start to manage it is a complex issue because of dredging seasons, you only got certain time that you can get it done it's really a lot more complicated and most can understand without spending a lot of time talking about it I guess, but that gives you an idea of the dollars I guess. Thank you Thank you Mr. Chair. Follow up. What then is the ongoing commitment from the state, I mean I know about the one time money, I'm just trying to and I guess Mr. Chairman I got two questions. One the continuation of the public finance obligation to the state for draging and then two, is this could be enough? Again the state has very low obligation because it's more of a user thing right now, despite with both the registration this and now is identification number three is going to be put in place. So, is paid through the users or both owners for the much if I'm incorrect please, but more or less the state is on the hope for $7 million for the emergency and that's pretty much it, that's pretty much it. This year and last. I got Alexandra but senator Mckissick, I have a couple of questions, in section two there is a get a summary and this section will negate the secretary's authority to wave and modify the non state culture requirement for dredging projects regards to fund reservoir Oregon inlet. What are we trying to get to there in terms of negating the secretary's authority? If you could be more specific as to what our goal is and what the implications are, we do not do that. We're trying to cover up emergency situations where you don't have time to go through a lot of beuro credit procedure, you want to make sure that you have the money as quickly as you can? A quick follow up, I'm trying to if we're doing it that quickly what safe guards do we have in place to make sure it gets done right, I mean I support your interest in trying to get the Oregon inlet at a point was inevitable we don't have problems and even transfer ownership simply, but what safeguards do we have? Senator McKissick you've got to go through the core for innovation dredging issues, so that's the safeguard, the core manages this stuff pretty tightly. And that brings me to I guess the second question here which is, there's a provision here in part three dealing with a memorandum of agreement, which the states ports authority needs to negotiate with the core dealing with the state court in Wilmington and Morehead city, have those negotiations already began because I'm trying to understand the interrelationship here, there's a similar provision about proceeding with the memorandum agreement between the department of water resources and the core. Most analysts do have a memorandum of agreement, some don't and some instances don't, and with that those agreements it just creates more time, you've got to have those agreements in place before you can do any dredging at all, so this tries get ahead of the curve I guess ve thank you. Okay then Senator McInnis. Thank you Mr chairman, I want to applaud senators for bringing  this legislation to the fore front for immediate consideration this is of the utmost importance. We have million's of dollars worth of boats and transportation operation at Oregon inlet that are [xx] that is very very dangerous and we've got a lot of commerce's being stopped there of cause stops us from creating the taxes and jobs and income. The part of more head citizen [xx]  are critical to our economic development in this

state, and our economic advantages, and the only question I have is on about the [xx] there, how many counties have been impacted by that, I know we had a conversation about it, but I'm not sure and I just want if we're  going to be impacted over to PDU river in my county I just want to be able to know about it. This user fee will be for boats that are using the coastal waterways and that's going to primarily impact the coastal counties Sen. Alexander you are up. Thank you Mr. Chairman senator Brown is their a chance that the Feds will ever get back into help us with this again and are the feds cut off all states this are just North Carolina that's a good question Sen. Alexander we have been speaking to Rep. Jones, Sen. Terus[sp?], Sen. [xx] trying to get some of this dollars put in place but the federal government got their own problems with budgets write now and those dollars are just tough to get no their were some emergency money that we got from the Feds for Morehead City recently but again its kind of a one on one emergency tide issue to try and get those dollars at this point, Yes sir [xx] seems like this may be simple we are going to have to going forward on our own which I hate is their has been a study about some of the jetty's and and whatever else we may have to create because obviously you can dredge it today in a storm comes and it's build back in tomorrow. I agree with you I think the ultimate answer would be that, but in order to do that we will have to have ownership of the land around Oregon Inlet and to that end I think was the last session, we passed a bill that provided that the Department of Administration would negotiate with the Feds to try to get that ownership and it's going to be very difficult though, to get that ownership, and then ultimately be able to build some sort of hardened structure. For some reason North Carolina is in the situation where unlike other states on the coast, we can't build hardly any hardened structures. Thank you senator [xx] and this bill does touch on that a little bit as well. Senator [xx] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator Brown, I guess the explanation of this bill indicates that there's a transfer of 6 million dollars from Department of Commerce Job Catalyst Fund. Are those funds unencumbered, or were they going to revert. They are all unencumbered and sir they're just sitting in a reserve now because 1224 didn't pass. Let me ask you to take into account, I understand your urgency of this but since they were going to revert, there would be automatically $3 million to the R&R Fund and the Rainy Day Fund by statute. So I would ask that as you put together the budget generally that we remember that because the, I was reading somewhere that we might be $4 billion in the whole and what we need to be doing in capital improvements the buildings and that's why the repair and renovation fund was set up on that basis and automatically 25% go to both rainy day fund and the repair and renovations fund. And so anyhow when you get to that in another month, since this was urgent I'd ask you to keep that in mind. Senator Blue, I think You'd be impressed on what we're trying do with a rainy fund and RNO fund in this years budget. OK one final question, Mr. Chair. There's also the provision about it's part seven, section B on the coastal waterway users identification number does that apply to all of the boats coming down through the anti-coastal waterway and anything that happens to come over in the North Carolina over 24 feet had a totally new fee on my friends from Boston. We are trying to capture some of that to be quite honest and it's a new fee and it's for 24 filters and above the boats that take more draft in and out of those elements and we felt like that was important not to affect any of those smaller boats. Jeff might contest on that

better that I can but the intent is to try to capture some of those votes as well. One last follow up and then Jeff can come on it if you would but with respect to the boats that're based in North Carolina they already pay some kind of, they already registered in some sort, there's no additional fee on the boats that are chattered here, the yachts that are chattered here. No this is an additional fee for some of those larger boats because today the registration fee for a boat is $45 a year, that's how it is. You can imagine, when you see what the cost of this dredging is, that's why we've tried to look at these larger boats they're the ones that use the inlets so without lack we need to ask to state for those dollars when we had to make it a user type fee and that's why we look at these larger boats.  Senator [xx]. Thank you Mr. Chairman Senator Brown, wouldn't also, I remember when I used to run my yacht down around my way, didn't I have to pay personal property taxes on it each year if its registered North Carolina. when I had to present it. He's fully amnesty thank you, Senator Sanders. Thank you, Mr Chairman I'm trying I'm trying to get my arms around the fact that if Oregon inlet in our shallow draft inlets and all those folks involved create such an economic impact on our state, why are  we going back to this group of people again? again and asking them to finance what they are already creating its the folks that are on these boats, the commercial boats that once they go in and of Oregon inlet or the ones that go out through our shallow draft inlets, they are the ones that are creating the financial boom to this state, and yet we're going back to them and asking them again because if I'm not mistaken it was just last year that we significantly increased their registration fees which was supposed to take care of these shallow draft inlets, and here one year later we're going back and if my calculations are correct, if I've got a 32-foot sailboat it's going to cost me an additional $80. If I've got an 80-foot commercial fishing boat, I'm looking in at additional $800, and I just think it's mighty soon to be going back to that well again since those folks are the ones that are creating all of these tax revenues that the state of North Carolina are using. Senator Sanderson, I understand that concern, but I think that 80-foot boat understands how important that inlet is to him as well if that boat is sitting inside and you can't get it out, that boat is worthless. Basically to do what they're supposed to do, whether commercial fishing or, charter fishing or whatever it may be, and to ask the state to pay for this is a tough situation, I think it's got to be some type of user fee, also, we felt like if someone can afford to buy an 80 foot boat to be quite honest with you this fee is very minimal compared to what that costs to maintain and operate that boat is, and just imported so this ain't what start to him but that was a fatal process behind it. Follow up. Follow up. And I appreciate and understand the need for being able, for our boat owners to be able to use use, but we're talking also, especially in my district hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of boats that end up paying this fees and never use one of this shallow draft emails and it's all I can end with, so that really concerns me and also the fact that I still get emails about the last time we raised fees and we've still got a lot of folks that haven't gone back and re-registered their boats at a three year interval to know that their fees has gone up, and so before they even know that fees has gone up, we're getting ready to put another one on him and I don't think there's going to be a lot of happy folks in my district. Thank you Senator Stan, Senator Brock. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I just got back from pulling up Senator Blue's comment about the boats larger than 24 feet. Looking through the legislation it only looks like it's for recreation and commercial fishing not any pleasure like Senator Apodaca said was over 24 feet long, is that true?

That's correct it's where everybody, well there's a list of those folks in the bill that will have to pay these, and it's primarily recreational and commercial fishing boats. Follow up? Follow up senator Brown. Follow up. So all boats over 24 feet okay, I thought maybe Apodaca's yacht was exempted here. His is a 16 Boston wheeler. Well it would be a wheeler the, senator Apodaca can still leave forward the bill. You were recorder Senator Apodaca I remind you. All my bills were sessions so I can go home now, but talking about the tax issue on fuel even through that marina boat owners can ask for a refund of the tax they have on Gasoline engines. They can, the commercial boats can do that, what about on diesel? Follow up? Follow up. What about diesel?  No, diesel can ask. Yes I can. The money that could be used for dredging that transportation if you want to put parity into it like we pay tax on all gallons of diesel or gas we do on the road, there's sent money for the Anna coaster water way or in other areas to what that money could go to other stretch in other areas as well, if we can't get that. Senator Brook I think that only generates like $200-300, 000 a year, it's not as much money as you think. You're correct we looked at that in transportation, did that include diesel as well? That's the people that asked most of the boats, that's the toll of them. 200, 300000 is a good start.  And let me say this, 24 foot boat and above is 15% of all the boats sold, so you're exempting 85% of the boats that are out there, again it's I think some of you may have owned a boat, the saying is, the happiest day's in your life is when you buy one and sell it there is a lot of truth there cause this boats are expensive to operate but again those are the boats that will be used in the analix so that's why we felt like that was important Thank you senator Brown, member [xx] I think we've had fair debate we do have a member from cultural resources that would like to have a couple of minutes of our time before we move forward and that is either Keith Hardison or Mr. Mart Clooney, if either is present we'd like you to speak, we'll give you a couple minutes and then we are going to vote on this before along time, Mr. Chairman, just quick comment for senator Brook he really doesn't have a boat, he walks on water but he just wants to disguise that Mr. Chairman, senators, I'm Keith Hudson, Director state historic sites within the department of cultural resoures. Wanted to bring a couple of items to your consideration before you act on this bill. First of all in section five, that deals with point of rocks, the break water there. We are, we have a concern that the removal of that break water will cause additional additional erosion along the banks of The Cape Fear River we have Bronswick[sp?] Town state historic site on the west bank of the river, center to the core dredged channel, last we have seen severe erosion which is uncovering unique colonial walls but almost as quickly is uncovering them, those cultural resources are being washed down the river. We are already spending state dollars stabilize the erosion less large side for a large portion of it be lost to erosion and so it's projected overall to take about $4 million to stabilize the situation now. If we're talking about additional raging to that river and, or removal of the break water, we had even more potential consequences so what we would suggest in terms of section 5, is that rather than an action it be converted to studying the effects of the removal of that break water. Thank you Mr. Harrison, may I ask you this, Mr. Chair, do you have scientific data to back up your statements or It's empirical?

Let me call on Mr. Mark please. No sir, you've used your time but I'd caution the department, if you make statements, please be clear yes to bring forward scientic data. We have done studies on that yes Sir, on the erosion issue Senator Brown.  Just to touch on that, some of you may not know but the port of there's about a 25 mile gap that have to be dredged to keep that port open, this particular piece that we're talking about was the original inlet that dates back to 1800s, and back when blockade runners were, you know used to block that inlet strategically during a war. This is to open that inland up and it creates a city waste[sp?] instead of 25 miles, you reduce that dreading to about if that inlet would work it's ore as supporting the port, that's the thought process behind this. I know everybody is concerned and I and as we are, and we want to make sure it's done right but I think it's something that would save a lot of money, a lot of money in the long term. It's something you have to look at. Thank you. members we've chased this rabbit this morning, and then on a motion from Senator Alexander to accept the PCS as favorable or unfavorable to the original, all those in favor of that motion please say aye, aye motion cleared, thank you. A next one is senate bill 153, format  2015 we have a PCS, senate bill 515, and we do have a. Senate bill 513 and the PCS, a motion to accept the PCS from Senator Bahimgam all those in favor the motion please say aye, aye. Opposed no. Motion tends  Senator Jackson would you please explain senate bill 513. Thank you Mr. Chairman, good morning members. We are going to be talking about just the finance portions of this bill, and I'll start with one, revise the horse industry promotion aid, this basically increases the cut from $2 to $4, it increases the of the assessments for three years to 10 years this is a fully refundable programme if you won't commit back when you're buying horse feed you can ask section number two is conforming to our H2A withholding the federal standards with basically near  what federal law requires and there is an amendment Mr. Chairman I would like to get approval of obvious and basically just changing the date would move to amend the bill on page two to by rewriting the line to reach January the 1st 2015 in this will conform with our normal task. Did the members have a copy? I thought we have, I just thought thanks sir. Okay members understand what you mean. Changes in July. It has not being cancelled out, it's just changing the date till July 1 on page two our January won't miss term. Sorry? We're changing it from July to January.  Right. July one to January 0ne [xx] But January one  Conforms with our tax [xx] Let me get this straight since I'm not reading the bill, January one 2015 have passed. That's our tax, it's conforming to our taxable year.  Okay. the members of the committee understand that even though I don't. All right there's a motion to accept the amendment by Senator McHanna, all those in favor of the member say Aye! Aye! oppose No! Members Murphy Kays[sp?], member passes. we'll be back on the PCEA as amended,  Thank you Mr chairman, thank you members for passing that, Musindi thank you for bringing that to our attention. The next section, the deals with the finance committee, the section number 10 establishing notice requirement for [xx] there feed I go in this that is set up the database so that the power there are a left will have access to this database so they won't run to any towers which has

caused fertility in the mid west, that's the reason why that part of the bills in finance. The next session that deals with financial issues is section number 12, the present use volume modification this basically highlights uniform application of UPV laws across the state be fair and eclable[sp?] and written from the same book, which there is one printed by the North Clan department of revenue and they I'll get this book and follow these guidelines that have being set up, and so has PUV is present issue value, for those who have asked that question. Okay, you are welcome. It includes adding horse farms, we already believe that horse farms the're included in present value but this basically just plainly ends it to it. The other thing it does is that if you are qualifying and you found a mount for counties if you have qualified in one county for PUV you get the perception that you are automatically qualified in the next county, but that doesn't mean that next county is assessor can't ask for you to provide all the information, and we revolt that perception, so we've allowed for that to happen, but even if that second county does rebut and doesn't give you PUV and doesn't affect the original county assessors decision. And again as I said earlier, it requires the department have new publish of PUV guard annually and maintains that the county's assessors comply with that guide so we have uniform coverage across the state the next section is section 17 it directs the marine fisheries and the department of environmental natural resource and the wildlife resource commissions to join and develop a palot American E yo operate plan for the harvest and agriculture of American E yos, this it is a pilot project will be limited to a maximum harvest of 200 Pound of the glass e yo as in refer to stage for American E yo for use and domestic I had to call few facilities, and section 23. Okay, lets, hold up brother. What do you do with eels? You actually, from what, I have just learned of this, this week senator Apadoca, and basically from what I understand this is some type of delicacy, over in other countries, and there's a company trying to harvest them here in North Carolina, and they need this permission to do so. [xx]. Okay, I prefer my fish fried but they [xx] how you want them. Okay the last part that I'm aware of for finance is section 23, and this is establishing the farm winery permit, we basically are putting in some language that if 75%, or more of North Carolina grown products are used in making your wine, you will actually get a reduced fee, you can put a label on there, saying it is a North Carolina Farm Winery and we changed the PCS  those Mr. Chairman after we've finished with this, but this is everything dealing with finance is and before I answer any question. Thank you sir. We have question for senator Tom. One comment about most filled, first of all it is a huge business and they do they can't see sales in their slept inside smoke those and $30 or pounds and for you are initiating you need to have ER to the next party. Secondly, this is a question. Senator Brown ask my question and then, the PUV. Yes sir. Varies from county to county plainly because you just said if you got it won you don't necessarily have rule against and you have contested everybody knew you might not pay it once you will be told it is now being department of revenue has published a guard on how to administer PUV across the state thanks most of the county are here for that [xx].  Follow up. What about an amendment to make that uniform across the county it is encoded in this. [xx]  Senator Brian.  Mr. Chair and and senator Jackson I was wondering, do we have information on the Cisco impact on the transfer of the [xx] performing wanted to agriculture for wildlife incur information about impact will be.  Good to my knowledge Mrs. Chairman about knowledge is no financial impact to the state on this. One of the question. Follow up just mum.  And the to provision for the hog farming changes which will affect

I think a certain number of of how farms that will be Grandfathered in under all regulations, will that have any impact on your force men or any kind of fiscal requirement? Mr chairman I don't mind answering Senator Bryant's questions but these are not pertaining to the finance committee, but no ma'am, it does not. Thank you, Senator Stan. Thank you Mr. Chairman, mine was on the same provision which I don't know if it's been reviewed in any committee, so that's probably opportunity have a question on section 60. How many farms will come under this new grand fathering language? Under sections Mr. Chairman, if I may? You may. Thank you. Senator Stan basically what this is doing is if you have had a hog operation that's been vacant for four years, all we're allowing in this unless I've gotten a statue. That's right. It's the same section. This particular one will allow you to go back under the old way of doing it, instead of having to compel or complete the new way of doing it, which nobody's been able to feasibly do that yet and make it an efficient operation. and how many is that going to affect? I do not now the numbers, but I don't see it being a lot. There is some in some areas but most livestock facilities are being used at this time. Mr. Chair, just a follow-up question, if staff can work on that as this bill moves, that'd be helpful to know. I'm trying to get you an answer on that. And then two questions and I know these aren't finance, but you can answer them quickly just because I went in the substance committees, did DOT have any concern about any of those earlier sections on the [xx]? And did [xx] have any concerns. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman point of order please. Thank you, you beat me to the point. Thank you. If Senator Stein wants to veer off the rules of this committee he needs to go through the Chair for permission. This is not open season to ask questions. Those were discussed in transportation yesterday, this is a triple landing bill has been heard and add transportation in a finance. Thank you Senator Apodaca, Senator McInnis has a question Senator Mckissick and we're going to be out of here in exactly four minutes and thirty seconds, so you better wrap it up. We've got two people who want to talk. Just a comment Chairman thank you for recognizing me on the PUV. It is very important because we've got farmers who are suffering throughout North Carolina because of a lack of clarity on their eligibility. This brings that to through Friday and gentlemen I appreciate that apology for bringing this legislation. Senator Mckisick[sp?] can you be brief sir? I'll try to be nice, I'll get up with Senator Jack[sp?] afterward Sir, that was rhetorical, on the overall provision. But on the present use valuation I want to make sure I'm clear on that because is it not possible that interpretations between counties might be very well be different for valid a person is doing in one county verses another in terms of their farming operations?  Yes Sir. If it's agricultural related they should be uniformed, they should be no variance in that what so ever the speed limit on inter state 40 might be said at 65 miles an hour that means it's 65 in more places than it is in another, one quick follow up so what you are saying it should be completely uniform so it would not depend upon the magnitude or use or whether it qualified as being farming in one location verses what's going on another location the think about when we have rural area. Verses sub rural well and I understand your question I think I do senator Makensy Mr. Chairman if I may ask and I apologize for not going through you I'm sorry. Thank you you can use up a minute better than Den Smith, go ahead. Basically you know if that operation is doing something totally different in another county then than they are to their home county they would not qualify under any circumstance or whatever, but if they are actually farming crops in one county and we're farming crops in another county, there're farming. So that will be there, but if they are farming in one county and they have a construction business in another county that does not apply, and I would be glad to get together afterwards, Thank you I would be glad to speak with you. Thank you. Members of the committee may be we have about two and a half three minutes we have three members of the public that would like to speak we are going to we have time probably to here from one I apologize I will take them in the order that they were given to me and that way I will try to be imperial Dr. Robert Brown I'll talk fast, and all your comments can thank you Mr Chairman, I'm here on behalf of North Carolina Wildlife federation this morning I understand that five counties

have now passed the resolutions to limit deer farming activities in their counties, there are another 10 more counties that are passing resolutions today and tomorrow. In 2003 of the wildlife resources commission spent $ 250, 000 of state funds to buy out deer farms there are now only 36 remaining farms plus two new ones who just committed only 21/2 over 50 deer as I understand that only six qualify as farm for tax purposes, they pay an annual fee of $50 a year which adds up to $1800 per year to pay for annual inspections, law enforcement and disease prevention. In 2013 the World life Resources Commission spent $72, 000 inspecting these facilities and $125, 000 testing for chronic wasting disease, the Wisconsin's chronic wasting disease was discovered in their pens, and farmed and wild deer herds in 2002 since then they spent $46 million to try and control the outbreak, I assume that potential burden now shifts from the wildlife resources commission to ag and consumer services, honey license sales in Wisconsin has decreased 10% since the outbreak the decline of licence sales, close or loss of Pitman Robertson and masking funds and loss of retails sales, economic output sales taxes and jobs now costs estates between $70 and $100 million per year fur into the future. In North North Carolina we have just 200, 000 deer hunters, they pend about $187 million per year on retail sales, don't tell my wife that, and they generate $322 million dollars in economic output $50 million in travel related expenses, they support 3400 jobs and produce $20 million in taxes. If we get CWD in this state and have a 10% reduction at honey license sales, they expect to lose between 35-54 million dollars per year. Is it really worth risking all that for support of a special interest group with less than half a dozen members. Thank you sir, members, we're completely out of time, so I'll entertain a motion from senator [xx] to approve the PCAS as amended on favorable to the original, all of those in favor please say A, oppose No, motion carried, like everyone will coming [xx] Darams. Thank you Mr Chairman. And the meeting he has adjourned.