Pray and finance come to order. Welcome today. It's great new day. I am feeling good hopefully everyone else is as well. I've got I'd like to introduce our sergeant in arms, Regy Seal, Terry Paul, Page And our pagers if you'll stand when I call your name. We have Reese Maggie from Union county sponsored by Denote, we have Will Miller from Wake county sponsored by Mary and another one Good to see you member in action today you should present. We have Regan Wilba from Orange County sponsored by Fusco Shallot from Mandy Show county sponsored by Frank Aila, thank you, Andrew Steve from Wake county sponsored by Grey Martin, and Meg Streets from Chadom county Sponsored by Robert Reese. We have five bills before us today, and first you have t go Well here house bill 556 passed Representative Averlove, you have appointment appropriation as soon as we're done here so please present your bill. This is a PCS and Representative Hastings has a motion for us to hail PCS, all on favor say I, I! Representative [xx]. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee house bill 556 has a very appropriate acronym a-bill which stands for achieving a better life experience. What this bill does in a nutshell is have North Carolina set up a trust fund that would be through the tax code 529 and that you're familiar with because of North Carolina education savings plan through that same tax code. 529 abill plan would be a fund set up for people to out in savings for individuals with disabilities and this 529 as it's designated is going to be administered through the treasury office and is going to releave one of the most pressing concerns of parents of children who have disabilities and that's what I going to happen to my child after my death. Currently with the restrictions of asset eligibility and income limits with benefit both through private insurance as well as middle insurance through the government in medicate. We do not fully help people fund the cost of a child with disabilities going into an adult who is with a disability. It's been estimated that over a lifetime that could be as much as $2 million dollars, and what this fund will do, is not only he'll pay for current expenses that those same benefits don't cover but it will also allow the security of a future for these kids after their parents are gone, who will have their funds available then to continue with adequate care and caregivers in their laugh and it's compelling as that particular reason of the relief and the lack of stress on parents with disabilities is, I had another reason for becoming very strongly in favor of moving forward with this registration and it involves a woman by the name of Sarah Wolf from Moscow, Pennsylvania. Sarah has works in a law firm and she has volunteered at her local arc office. Many of you I know everybody in here knows our own North Carolina arc which does a phenomenal job in working with individuals with disabilities. Sarah has lobby congress, she literally hears, she's got 200, 000 signatures on the petition and I know what you're thinking, we've seen a lot of activists that come in with a passion for this but as Paul Harvey says, this is the rest of the story. Sarah has down syndrome and she gets benefits through supplemental security insurance, but because of the limit that we place on that, of $2000 she can't really work the way she'd like to work because of that and she'd loose her benefit. Many of the people, our citizens here in North Carolina with disabilities can work and they want to work but with the current system setup the way it is we distance synovis that desire, so what I'm asking from you today is to support house bill
556 allow our citizens with disabilities to work to their highest potential and become independent, productive citizens who can save for and pay for their own health insurance. Mr. Chairman, I'll be glad to answer any questions but I do have representatives from the advocacy side and the treasurers office any question Okay well let's see if, we have Rep. Collins so far. You're recognized Yes, Rep. [xx] I just had two questions as I read though this bill before coming to the meeting. The first one is on page two line 17 B5 there. It says an account holder may change the designated beneficiary of an account to an eligible individual who is a member of. I'm assuming an eligible individual means that the person you're designating is also qualified by disability. Is that correct? That's right. Okay. The other question I had, if I might Mr. Chair? Yes. I kept looking to find out why somebody would establish one of this account. I kept looking for the tax break the donor was going to get or whatever it was. I think I finally see it, and you mentioned this over in page five line 29 section D. Have I misread this bill or is the only real financial benefit that the people get out of this that this money is now, because I always thought why would we need this instead of just set up a private trust? But the real benefit for this if I understand it correct, and I want to make sure I do, is that this particular account will not count as asset towards keeping them from receiving other benefits, and that's really the only financial benefit we're giving them through this new trust. Is that correct? Two points I want to make here and one of them has to do with financial benefit to the people who are doing this. My personal preference would be a tax exemption for the contributions which I wouldn't have any problems with for the education either because it sensitizes people to avoid debt. What better incentive could we give? But in the other the means tested you're talking about the other option that parents have in setting up a trust, it's called special needs trust, very complex, complicated legal thing can cost as much as $10, 000 to set up. So it's a prohibitive for a lot of people to do that. Rep. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you give me a range of situations that this might cover you mentioned Down's Syndrome. Can you kind of give me a [xx]. I will defer on that to Mr. and I'm seeking hard work with all can change can give birth to much Speak up Mrs. Adams could you approach the microphone in the back and turn on identify yourself, you have two minutes to answer that question and Representative Adams I want you to repeat the questions so she knows exactly. What's, is going to have some kind of an understanding of what range this would cover, down syndrome was mentioned what other things could be a federal disease of some sort. Thank you so much sir. My name is Julia Adam Shriweck I am the lobbyist of pediatric of North Carolina and ill see the lobby with pediatric society of North Carolina your question sir, it actual has a wide range of disability that would fall into neath it needs to have a manifest to disability before the age of 26 that was actual negotiated when the federal law passed as a compromised registration as long as you meet federal disability guidelines which would with the long term disability you could have an individual who is injured in a car crush as a child who is now a qualify for this. People with down syndrome therefore propose this [xx]. Certain individuals with autism would also fall into this classification because it is a long term disability needing support and many of the individuals at the age of 18 do you qualify for medicaid or social security and [**]. So it is a very wide range, and the account was created that way to provide as many individual be covered under it as possible. Does that I answer your question Sir? Yes, thank you very much. Follow up. Follow up. How would this be? Who's this directed to? To the Bill sponsor. Okay. Just wondered it's extending this our further how would this affect adoption? There again, Mr Chair if I could? Absolutely. Maybe the advocacy, Miss Adam or the treasurer's office on that particular thing. Miss Adams could you address that question as well please, again for the record identify yourself [xx] North Carolina in the [xx] society can you repeat the question somebody just asked something. Just is curious is to how this might be treated in situation where adoptionocvurred. I did not have an
absolute answer to that search to be honest but I will assume that if the child was adopted that that child will still qualify . The account is to the individual who qualifies for the account regardless of their environment, if they are in foster care, if they are adopted if they are in a divorced situation with two sets of parents. The actual able account to 529 is to individuals who qualifies under the federal regulations. Thank you very much. representative Herger. Thank you Mr. Chairman I just wondered if you have a motion already? I do. representative Miller? Any other question? Representative Stam you are recognized. Yes this is the best bill of the session to make to make those for favorable report they have the motion before us for a favourable PCS on favor to the original, all in favor say aye all opposed motion carries thank you representative Gabo. We appreciate. Senator Hardson I see you you let the wire come up here let me rectify an error made earlier that I didn't recognize our staff without whom all those would look maybe not as good as we do all the time so thanks to staff for being here and support. [xx] has the floor to represent the bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the house, finance committee is always a pleasure to attend, for a long time actually, the bill is very simple it simply extend the sun set for five years for program that has really been able to get off the ground in terms of these types of projects, I understand that it has been one completed project in [xx] there is one in place if not there in Apex there is someone I think in [xx] and there maybe one other than I know. It was difficult to get this started because we're just creating the implementing rags on with The Local Government Commission. It's just a process whereby you may recall some of us are old as old as I'm, and there are a lot streets that were paved, and cities and towns across the state by the use of assessmentsof joining property, but you can only do that for about 10 years. This allows for other types of things to be done in that same fashion, but can get extend over as much as 30 years but it's all done by agreement of the folks in the District [xx] the owners of two thirds of the property by value agree on a project [xx] that's the jest of it, which is to say it's better than a bond the city or a town or county that adapts it does not have any liability it's all in the assessment or it's property. Essentially it's the trustee that holds funds or collect the funds. I'll be glad to try to answer any questions Represenative Catlin you're recognized Thank you Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill and a good move to extend this that has [xx] the appropriate time liked to be recognized for a motion. Alright, thank you mam. Representative Hager Thank you Mr. Chairman [xx] questions that I have for you, if it's OK with the chairman do not be unfamiliar with and not been here in 2008. Who can be assessed, who can receive this special assessment? What you create a district of sorts, you have property owners within the district. They address a plan for the assessment, for the creation of the project. They have to essentially approve that plan by two thirds vote, not a GO Bond, it's a two thirds vote in that, it's most likely to be used I suspect in strip it's in some cases in probably utilities, water sewer, it can be used in others. I might add that involving gas lines and it is a similar fashion to that what was in the first section in 332, it just, you assess who's there, they agree on it for the most part and you then implement it and the local unit collects it and pays it thank you Mr. Chairman yes. Alright, thank you. Is there a limit on the amount that can be accessed to a home owner? They agree on the actual assessment is part of
the partition, I mean whatever it is, it's not necessarily home owners, essentially it's the adjacent land and you have to come up with a plan, like say two thirds that we agree on. Last question, Mr. Kim. Following. You talk about two thirds but this has to be taken which must be signed by majority of land owners. I think the two thirds you're talking about is the assess value, is that correct? It's the majority who own at least two thirds of the assess property. I'm sorry Mr. Chairman, last. Follow up. Thank you. So could we be creating issue where a land owner, a home owner business owner, whatever will not agree to the assessment but still have to be assessed. It is possible but then again if you do the same thing by your bond incurs about two-thirds regardless its not two-thirds it's actually everybody it's actually a really high requirement at the end of it and you don't have the municipality or county backstop, again this is just a matter of trustee arrangement. Just a comment Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. and I understand this has been there since 2008 and like you said I think most of us were not here in 2008, and the current majority wasn't here in 1008 it worries me a little bit that we could have folks in cities and counties that are assessed when they don't agree to be assessed for amount they don't agree to be assessed I can see 49% of the neighborhood being accessed for something they don't agree with, so this worries me a little bit but we are heading this and you going to call a taxi so as to come wherever they are so you have to pay more to rip a structure that you not have robed, so that worries me a little bit Representative Stan. Have asked to speak that just to be clear and the current lock this is not extended, proper yard can be accessed against the will but you going to pay back within ten years instead for 30 years, and this actually has a higher threshold of requirement, may I give an example of how this one would work, apex has a pending project that will involve one billion billion dollars worth of private investment with zero in circuits, that is a thousand acre multi-use, and it was delayed by the recession. Having in this case it would be 100% of the property owners because it would be the single group that is doing that. Have the town issue revenue bonds then they sell parcels for commercial residential of whatever, then the money is collected and can be as much as 30 years and extremely low interest rates and the town has to help enforce the assessment but it's a revenue bond not a general obligation bond. So in view of that the fact that the existing law is more [xx] on the none consenting land owner to a benefiting assessment. I thoroughly support this. Representative Collins Could I ask Representative Stam a question make sure I understand what he just said? Representative Stam do you yield? I do. You're saying that without these extensions The cities and counties still has the power to assess the same amount of money to the same people and they just can't stretch it out as long? Is that what you're saying? Correct. Any further questions? Mr. Chairman. Representative Brown. And this might be a question for staff and the way the bill has been described it's roads and sewer improvements there's a proposed project in Mecklenburg and Yodel county for a commuter rail system from Charlotte to Statesville that's well over a billion dollars in cost, assuming Norfolk Southern agrees to allow the use of the freight rails and if not then there's consideration of actually building parallel tracks and it's my understanding that a vehicle like this isn't there's a way to pay for that rail is this the bill that authorizes that project? Mr Salmon can you address that I'm not sure I've heard, couple of conversations going on I didn't hear the very end of your question under current law, under your current special assessment of counties and cities may use Representative
Salmon's correct you have it, you don't have a petition from the the people and the current summer pay would be 10, this one is different in that you do have to have the petition from the majority of there are more purposes to which the money can be used as well because we tie in to the project development financing purposes for which it ca be used. On the real whether the money can be used for that, I don't think that it could, I'll have to go back and look the purposes for project development fund I think of the used, and I don't believe that includes whatever, I will look and see it does include public transportation, I'm just not sure how broad that is, I will have to back and look at your project development financing. Follow. Not a follow up, but just a comment, I'm going to support the bill but I do want to express the concern at this. Could subject to some abuse, in particularly creating a project that would not be able to support revenue bonds but would actually become a consumer of additional financing in subsidies having said that, recognizing there's a worthwhile project for civic improvement in their Representative Stan's district and he needs this to go forward, I'm definitely going to support that worthwhile project and the speaker protends. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you representative Ball. Representative Stan. I just would mention that this does require local government commission approval and unlike the Randy part in theater, I think they tightened those They tightened up their scrutiny to make sure that there's a business plan that actually works. This is not tax increment financing, you're not relying on the additional taxes to pay it paid off, you are relying on the security of the property which has been benefited by the building of the infrastructure. Thank you, Representative Bishop. Thank you Mr. Chairman, question either for Representative Stam or Stan, is the other Senator Hartshill, is the other authority that exists for doing assessments so that involves the shorter time horizon, is the threshold for approval of the land owners the same or different? You don't Alright, who wants it? Representative Stan? It's lower, but I'll refer that to Miss Hager for details. It's not our understanding with special assessment that there's not a petition that goes forth, that is something that will be instituted by the governmental unit, they've to have a public hearing, and assessment roles, and people have the time to comment, but under the special assessments that for which we're talking about extending the sunset, that actually requires the initiative to come from the people that are going to be assessed. There's a petition process in place, that does not exist in your current law, so if the sunset goes away, and you've to come back to your regular law for special assessments, the difference is you're going be, one, it can be done without a petition, second the purposes for which it may be used are more narrow, and third the time period is much shorter. so in the other authority that exists for assessments there's no decision by any other land owners at all it's just imposed by a municipal authority? I may be corrected but that's, yes sir? It's simply adopting assessment role Are there any further questions? Representative Hastings. Senator Hauston it's an honor to have you here today. Didn't we stand the sunset in 2013?. It was extended temporarily, I think once before or the problem with this is it's been getting the rags and things in place so that it can be approved and reviewed by the local government commission took sometime, there were some projects that frankly were delayed because of the recession and they're now becoming more common. This is our call, this is a fairly successful and typical type transaction that occurs in our neighbor state to the south. Follow up?. So we did extend this in 2015? I believe we did, yes. Representative Hager. Thank you, the staff did a great job in explaining this to me a little better. The only question I had is, because I didn't have time to all comes here because you guys were bothering a while trying to talk to us, I don't understand why you all do that. The question I have is
this, sounds like this particularly would come from could come from the plot owners, the land owners around there and they would say this is a project we want to do, is that correct? That's correct. So not necessarily will be a project that the city would say we need to do, it would come maybe from the lot owners land or is that correct? May not be a project city, may have on their priority list will be more generally initiated by the property owners as opposed to the city in all likelihood so publish your comment. Follow. And I actually had to ask this question, so the way I look at this, could this increase the number of specialists assessments in the city since the city may not have this on their priority list, this may come from deal work or somewhere else. Hilarious says okay, we'd like to have special but at least 50% of our land owners have signed this. Does that make sense what I'm asking? I mean, it maybe Assessments are relatively uncommon now they used to be very common. In term particularly, in terms of streets this is simply another method initiated by the land owners as opposed to the city itself and in all honesty projects are more expensive now, and it extends the time period for the assessment beyond what we have currently, that's the ready advantage, more likely it's going to be a 20 year period that's a guess. So no further question, representative Connie, you recognized. Thank you Mr. Chairman and for many of the good reasons that have been stated this is again another option available and I would like to move for an approval favorable report for senate bill 284. We have motion before us, you heard it, all in favor say aye, all oppose. Motion passes, Senator Hassell, thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Chair and the members of the committee. I think that [xx]. Representative Jordan. House bill 874. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, house bill 874 was brought to me by as key result in my district called Beach Mountain, the majority of the town is vacant large but there is a water system that is in place throughout the entire town limits, they came to me and showed me that the county's currently have the power in chapter 153A, 284 to require connections to the water system in certain situations and they wanted the situation here where they could require that the vacant lights that are dramatically improved valued by having a water system directly available to them to at least pay the very minimal connection to the water system to help support that water system, and so we're taking that language from 153 284 and putting it into the cities so that cities has this connection, and the intention is only for properties that do not have their own system already, so if there's any concerns about that and I'm glad to address those but that's the genesis of the bill, and that's the result of the bill. Representative Collins question if I may. Go ahead. I'm just trying to get the bottom line since this and as I read this, tell me if I'm wrong, it sounds to me like if you improve the proper dela[sp?] that means you grade it now and it's ready for building but you don't have any building standing on it. If you've got water line running by your property the city can charge you whatever their minimum Water charges or sewer charges every month whether you got a building on the property or not, I'm I reading that correctly? Yes sir. Any further questions? Representative Adams. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have to say I look at this now, I'm scratching my head. Would the water line be in the right of way that's a portion of the property or would it simply be in the proximate location of the property? It doesn't have to be specifically in the right of way, but it's directly available, the property can connect immediately to it right now if the owner wish to. Follow up?
Follow up. I can only imagine the impact this would have was extending public utilities and the response that citizens would have to being accessed of a fee for simply having something close to their property I'm going have to vote against this further questions? Yes Representative Bradford. Thank you Mr Chair, Representative Jordan so for example if a developer owned a lot of land and had a lot of lots [xx] to build homes and it was maybe a phase one for example, maybe a three year plan, would this bill then give the power to the local sewer water provider to access a charge to every single loft for that builder annual basis for example? This would have to be within the municipal limits of the town because the county can already do what you are talking about and the water system will have to be directly available to every lot and only those lots have had that system directly available already would be so if a developer is taken vacant land and developed it there would not be a municipal system there it wouldn't apply at all. Follow up follow so for example after a neighborhood usually gets developed side walks curves are in right? There's water available along on, you know that right of way this has to tap in. So if a water line was going a long the easement to Representative Adams point, but the store had not actually been made meaning it's sitting on the right of way, it's not on actual property would that be an instance of where they could be accessed the charge? That would be correct. Representative Brown. I'd like to ask a corollary to Representative Bradford's question, on a lot of developments and some of the major metropolitant areas the lot developer is required to put in all of the infrastructure for water and sewer and make it available at no cost to the water utility. Would this also mean that in the case where the Oprah has paid all of the cost of constructing the availability of water and sewer that the utility operated by the city would still be able to charge an availability charge when they had incurred no cost that needed to be [xx]? I'd like to refer that to staff, but the intention and my interpretation here is it says the language to what the city has installed, water or sewer lines or a combination directly available to the property. So it will only be a city owned system that's directly accessible to the property would be the intention in my reading and I'd prefer the staff Is there someone on staff who can address him? Mr Chairman I don't know if I had anything to add to that that's my read of it as well Thank you. Follow up Chairman Riley[sp?] I guess the question I'm saying is would be a city owned system that owned the lands in front of this unoccupied lots but the system in front of the lots would have been built at no expense to the utility by the developer of the lot who would then be forced to convey it to utility so is it the ownership of the utility that triggers the availability charge, or the cost of constructing utility that triggers the availability charge Well let me refer that to staff you keep talking about Utility the intention here's specifically a city not any separate utility enterprise. Staff can you enlighten us. The bill speaks to where the city has actually performed the installation of the water are still align, that the city may then require payment of this availability fee. Continue last question. So the language is permissive, but not requiring and to the gentleman's point of the utility the one with which I've the most experience, is formally called Charlotte Macklenburg utilities now known as Charlotte Water. It's an enterprise fund wholly owned by the city of Charlotte so it's the city of Charlotte that's issuing the water bills, but the utility does require and the zoning ordinates requires that law development include the installation of all the infrastructure for water and sewer at no cost. To the utility system. So they're not spending any more and I was wondering if they would then be hit with the availability charge for the system that they were required to build. And I can't add further step but I would like to follow up and remind that the intention here is an existing system in our ski resort where the system
is already being maintained, and there dozens if not hundreds of making laws that are just not connected, that are just vastly improved in value because they could be connected any time. If we need, if the gentleman prefer some restrictive language, I'm glad to consider any at all such language. Representative Alexander. Thanks chair but I'm going to pass because representative Browley reading my mind and ask my question. Lets take Representative Bishop. Following up Caren Roleys question, if in fact the developer has to build the infrastructure and then he's then subject to availability charge, isn't that not something that sort of contradicts the bill we just passed yesterday about the increase assets value in carrying and having tax charges on that during the process of development? Is not the same as tax. I'm just saying to the extent the purpose of that law was in recognition in part of the unfairness to the property developer who's building, improving single family residential I think is how it turned out to be the recognition that until they realize that value they ought not to be charged that tax. But a possibility exist here that there's the availability charge would be carried even though the taxes were just removed yesterday? I guess that's a possibility. Would staff have any thoughts on that? Apparently not. Next question, Representative Hager thank you Mr. Chairman. It's more of a comment. I think what Rep. Jordan is trying to get at is something, and it may be a little bit broader than what I'm getting ready to say but we have been in West and North Carolina, and in this North Carolina especially also this town such as been there in North Carolina my district I have all the text emails they've gone out of business, and moved somewhere else. And the infrastructure, they just can't pay for the infrastructure anymore without doing this. We did this similar to [xx] last year, and it really helped them greatly maintain their infrastructure basically because they didn't have any revenue coming in from hardly any businesses this is only where they could keep their infrastructure up for everybody else. So that's what we've seen happen for tier one counties, this really helps tier one counties a lot. Thank you. Representative, that does analogous because here we have a ski resort that is entirely built within the town with lots, and the system is already in place, and all the lots are worth far more than they were, and in this town they are owned by individuals, there's not a developer that owns a whole bunch of them like an inventory system can we all suspend for just a minute? Rep. Hastings. I'm sorry Rep. Jordan. I might have missed this you narrowly, you're doing this narrowly just to focus on a city, and not for people like me who live way out in the country, and we've got Sanitary Districts, this is specifically for a city. Go ahead It is, yes sir, counties already have the authority, this is specifically within municipal city limits Follow up? Follow up. you said counties have the authority, but what about like Cleveland County Water which is not the county, it's a Sanitary District I guess this is a point of general interest do they have that situation? Rep. Jordan? I do not know, I just know that 153A gives counties that authority. Rep. Collins I'd just like to ask Representative Jordan one question. Is that your question? No that was not my question. Okay. Representative Jordan, would you be willing to make this a local bill for whatever municipality it is you're trying to help? Representative Jordan. Thank you for question that would be great, it's constitution not available it has to be at state right bill because it is water and the sewer system, but I am willing to tear it however needs to be. Representative Corner. Well that was going to be my question of how is their not any way, thank your Mr Chairman, any way that this could be addressed for example what Representative Hager was talking about for community, if we
did it for one I'm not sure how they did it why can't we do it for this community that perplexing to me and like that staff could have been there down a certain size city or something? Yes, you always run into the issue of if is so narrow tailored. Someone can certainly challenge that but certainly there is precedent and that we've done that in many other bills. Follow follow up so Representative Jordan would do you want an amendment or would you like to have this change that this they spoke about the population to make this? Representative George? Absolutely I will probably do that am glad to be a member of the floor to narrow it to whatever, I will make sure we did it, means multiple need but to make to smaller city is absolutely with there own systems or seek services. Okay Mr. Chairman. Well then, with that I might ask for a formation we still have Representative [xx] Okay Any other questions? Representative [xx] Pardon[sp?] Mr. Chair Just to the comment about what Representative Hughes said, we went through the same situation at home and small town whether it's been a lot of business that have gone out of business and the water systems start to cost, but she did answer while ago, the counties do have the authority do this because in the other district they can charge it goes by the house. I think it's a good idea really basically for the [xx] especially for the small towns that have been adversely affected by loss of industry and our other tenants. Chairman Brown. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Rep. Jordan I think I have created more of a problem for you than I wanted to, we We vet this bill we know what we are doing, but I'm not sure that I'm concerned about this enough to assume that the cities are going to automatically start guiding people. We know it's a potential problem and I know this sounds like herrasly, but I am not sure this is shallet would start doing this, and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt at least this time, let's see if that helps. Mr. Chairman I would like that on record please. I think it already is, I believe the recording of these meeting will be posted online so at this point we might discuss an amendment of perfecting amendment from the floor but I intend to support your bill today to go forward as it is and let's not try to do any more we've asked the questions we've got the theoretical on it and I think on this one let's just assume that people are not going to be stupid I have two more in the Que then we are going to take a vote Rep. Stam and then Rep. Robinson, so Rep. Stam you are recognized. Again this is not an opposition to it but I actually reread the bill the last few minutes instead of the summary and from the life of me I cannot figure that it actually does anything the first of sub section two the first stanza say if A then B, the second says if A plus LG YQ2 then B so I cant see where what you want to do is not included in the first of subsection two but I maybe covering missing it. Presenter Jones, do you respond? I don't know why the city couldn't do what it wanted to do anyway under existing law, but I am not opposing. I'm just... Miss Cliton, anything to add? The distinction that I see is that the current law addresses developed property and that the new language has a more limited ability when it comes to improve property. So in other words what the current law says is that the city can require the owner of the valued property either to connect to the water and sewer or in lieu of mandatory connection require them to periodic availability charge, and that speaks again to develop property whether it's something already constructed on it, and so the language being added speaks only to improve property and it has the two conditions that it would qualify for
a building permit for construction and that construction hasn't happened yet, and the city has installed the water and the sewer lines. So I think it was trying to... I'm rolled. I think that's on the record too. I know you're going there. The last question so we can a vote. Representative Robinson? Well, just a question sitting listening to the discussion, residents of Hagar and representative Waddell, have said that their cities are doing it, how can they do it, and Beach mountain can? Representative John[sp?]? My good, I have no response. They can have special deals, their legislative delegations could be much more powerful than mine, I'm not sure. I say well this has been a full and sufficient debate. Everyone should know everything. So Representative Jordan moves that house bill 874 receive a favorable recommendation. All in favor say aye? Aye. All opposed. No. Now your bill passes, but apparently still has a little bit of work to do before it hits the floor. Thank you Mr Chairman, we will work on those issues and thank you. Thank you sir. Representative Jida? This is house bill 714 behavior analyst licensor. Sir you have the floor. Thank you Mr Chairman, thank you members of the committee. I will warn you I will be happy to answer any questions with my poor attempted humor. House bill 714 is an autism licence your bill, it passed health unanimously. There is a PCS before us. The PCS before us, all in favor say aye? Aye. Helpers? Thank you. Please continue. Thank you Mr Chairman. The PCS made technical changes after going through proof reading after help there were no substitute changes, all the stakeholders are in support. It's a likely show from behavior specialists of autism spectrum these orders, this is not getting into the health care mandate issue. It does have a fee which is Y-tier, but it's self funding through the licence board as any other licence your board is, I can answer the questions. Representative Waddel, I saw your hand first. Famous chair, I just want to make a motion and make a comment. Okay. You are recognized. the comment I'll make is the same comment I made during help when we heard this bill the first time. This representative Jitra think we need one of those your analysts on the floor of the house Mr Chairman if I can respond please don't you have a motion to make? Representative Wadell your motion Thank you Mr Chair I move for a unfavorable report for the house bill 714 unfavorable to the original We have a motion before us all in favor say aye, aye all opposed thank you Representative Jitra and our last bill of the morning is senate bill 88 which Representative Stan is going to represent that and this is a PCS. It's not PCS? OK, it's not if you do, in any event, Representative Stein. Yes sir, there is a committee substitute from the Public Utility thank you the reason this bill is here is because of section five so I'll address address section five You may have heard a lot about this bill although competing parties have agreed to this language, what was added by deleting the any occupation with the public staff Utilities Commission is a string. The main thing. Can you all not hear me? Okay, sorry the main thing the bill does is move these disputes from the business court to the should never been in business court, ever be setting rates, utility commission does that kind of thing, there's a possible fee of. $10, 000 per case that could be assessed and if the public staff is made a party at the discretion of the commission, and if the public staff needs expert witnesses then those expert witnesses could also be assessed. parties contenting parties were perfectly agreeable to this and I hope you all support the bill. Representative Collins we're coming. Yes please. I appreciate representative Stam bring this forward, let me say that he has worked on this, all the institute parties have met with the three Chairs of the public utilities committee for months,
they've met with Representative Stam for more months than that after much, much, much debate about every single word in this bill, they have now come to a wording that all party is agreed to so please let's vote this up or down, let's not add an amendment because if we do we're going back to the fun part. Good comment Representative Hager, you're next. For a motion at proper time Mr. Chairman. Any further questions, comments, Representative Jordan. Just very briefly comment, I would also echo representative Collins come as Mr. Stam has put tremendous work into this so if the chairman of the utilities committee, representative Arp, I one of the districts that probably has Every party involved in this in my district, I've got telcom, they got a electric care ups all the commercial entities and it was not a good situation because they are all friends and I was right of the middle of it and my telecommunication care up in the values of all the same members and we were shifting costs so I appreciate so much working on this and getting them all to agree instead of having to pick among them, thank you. Representative Hedger please read the appropriate time. Thank you Mr. Chairman am favorable for senate bill 838. Has the motion before us all in favor say aye aye all opposed motions carries congratulations. Now representative because current the sergeant at arms I hope you get recording that you requested and senate adjourned.