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 | June 30, 2015 | Committee Room | Finance

Full MP3 Audio File

Senator Tillman if you'd approach the bench please, Thank you, thank you, life, okay now welcome ladies and gentlemen members to the committee today and getting we have one bill to hear today, and getting started we'll first recognize our pages, Coroner Brown, Lauren Harden, Lilly Rose May Alison Piage, James Barns, Simone Smith, Chloe Halyfield, Ryan Playster and Mathew Joiner  and I would to say that Chloe Halyfield, is from Philispine she visited in my home town a couple of years and she and I were on a water melon challenge day, and we challenged each other water melons seed spitting contest I lost and the victory goes in the back corner. Welcome all of you our  sergeant  of arms staff today thank you for your assistance, Tai Barnhart, Lay Hancok, Jane Hamilton and Dale have. So we're one bill to hear today, their is going to be a PCS and so we will take a motion to here the PCS by Sen. Tillman PCS on house bill 765 all those in favor of the motion please say aye oppose motion carries. Housekeeping before Sen, Wade starts Karen will explain please the difference. You moved?   I did Karen will explain the addition to PCS when that is done we will discuss the addition and we will discuss the finance art of the PCS only other than this addition, OK Ken if you would do that please and then Sen. Will take over with the bill Thank you Mr. Chair members of the committee the PCS that's before you differs only very sightly from the addition of the bill that was passed by the senate environment yesterday afternoon it includes one additional section which is found on the PCS on page five it is a section 2.1 that provision is added to the bill and that's the only addition to the bill from what was heard yesterday that provision essentially would amend the real estate licencing law to except owners, officers, managers and employees corporations partnerships limited liability companies or closely held business entities from the requirement of obtaining a real estate licence in order to act as a broker in connection with property that is owned or leased by that business the section defied at the clause we have business as a limited liability company or corporation with no more than two legal owners. The section also authorizes the officers managers and employees of a closely held business entity to essentially act in engage in acts and services of a broker without a license even if they are not the owners or leaser of the property so long as the business notifies the real estate commission in writing annually it's contact information and demonstrates that it has available assets of $50, 000 that's the only difference for yesterdays version of the bill. Thank you Mum senator Wade will now explain the finance portion of the bill the rest is taking let me reiterate and add yesterday once we complete that we would discuss section 2.1 in the finance portion. Senator Wade you have the floor Thank you Mr. Chairman and I will say we had a lively debate, and had yesterday, so Mr. Chair if we could just let staff run through the financial parts, that might be the easiest way to do it. Thank you, that was short and sweet. Mr. Chair. Thank you Jennifer. I will review two different provisions with the numbers that have an impact on finance related matters and if you turn to page 20 of your bill. No, if you turn to page 20 of your bill, lines 15 through 19, section 4.2 would repeal requirements for computer equipment and television manufacturers to recycle their products embedded in that legislation originally enacted in 2007 were several fees on the manufacturers, for the

computer manufacturers that the annual fee ranges from $2, 500-15, 000 a year for television manufacturers it's $2, 500 a year, and then the next section is section 4.10 on page 26 lines 22 through 24. These repeal two outdated tax provisions, one imposed to tax on newspaper publishers $15 per ton for failure to remit recycled content requirement. And then 4.10 B places a tax on persons who transport, collect or recycle used oil. Again those would both be repealed. And now I'll let Miss [xx] describe a provision for you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. If you will turn to section 4.14 this is provision that provides for amendments and changes to the on-sight waste water statutes in particular what this provision will do just to give you a little bit of a background is to create an alternative process for the construction installation design of an on-sight waste water treatment system, this will allow for the use of a private option permit meaning that an owner could contract with professional engineer to do all the design construction operations management of an on-sight waste water system without the oversight approval of a local health department, implicit a provision is the determination of a fee, and you will find that on page 34 starting at line 27 of your PCS the health department would be able to access the fee of up to 10% of the fees that local health department has already established to charge for an improvement permit and authorization to construct a waste water system on operations permit within the health department system program it's already in place, so what this will go towards is to the use by staff of the local health department to conduct sites inspections to support their participation in any meetings that might be required during the process during which this system is being devised and discussed, and to archive the waste water system within the county's registrar of deeds or any other recondition process that the local department has in according any waste part of human systems under it's jurisdiction. I will also just point you to page 43 of the PCS just want to let you all know that there are that it might appear that there are changes to the fees there starting on line 30, but these are just conforming changes to addressing changes in the references to the types of waste water systems that discussed in the a fore mentioned statutes. So there are no changes to the fees here its just clarifying conforming there in subsection k on page 43 and I'll turn on to Mr Sunders. Senator Wade.   Mr. Chairman do you want to talk about the new provision 2.1 or would you like to have the questions on the financial part? Let's go to 2.1. OK. We got one more, OK sorry go ahead. Thank you Mr. Chairman, on page 52 section 4.36 entitled animal welfare hotline and court fee to support investigation of animal cruelty violations section 4.36A establishes a hotline for reporting allegations of animal cruelty or violations of animal welfare act within the attorney general's office, but the fact that one of this is in section 44.36b which creates a court fee in the total of $250 to be remated to the general fund of the local government you need the investigated violation of the animal cruelty laws or animal welfare act violations to be used for local animal control authorities, you done, you ready? okay tell her to go ahead  Mr. Chairman, I feel like to go through section 2.1, 2.1 [xx] Do you want me to just explain again, what that provision does?

She's been through any questions Joe excuse me send forward Thank you Mr. Chairman I'm trying to get some clarification here this 2.1 exempt a business from having to engage in real estate this either an agent or a broker to conduct the sale of business property. Would you like staff to answer that? Please. Sen. Ford, the law currently already includes an exemption for corporations themselves. If they are selling property that they own or lease, they essentially be exempt from the licensing requirement in transaction related to that property. This amendment expands that a little and clarifies it a little. It extends it to officers, managers, members and employees of those corporations, and it adds a new exemption for an entry that's described as a closely held business entity and it's defined in the section specifically. Thank you Miss [xx]. Sen. Stein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Why are we getting lid of the recycling requirement on computers and TVs when they contain toxic heavy metals another house bill in construction. Before we go there are we through with 2.1? Any more questions on 2.1 okay then it's off the table now we move on to the finance portion of the bill if you would address that one. Thank you Mr. Chair. Senator Sang I'm glad to answer that question. The fees that they are charging small businesses to do electronics are actually the a deterrent to them running their business when we have best bar who recycles these for a profit so now we are just moving to urge market force because of the components of the TVs and computers that they can recycle versus making it in government mandate. Follow up. Follow up on commission. So are you suggesting that we lead off the fees so that they don't have to pay the fee for doing it We can maintain the requirement that such recycling occur because the promise is putting this chemicals and metals in to solid waste facilities. Let me follow up   [xx] OK. Senator Stein I don't think they're going to go there considering if they can take any Best Buy for free then Best Buy can make money on it. The market is driving Best Buy to do this for free so that they can make the money on recycling this particular computers. Question on another session Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. The provision on the phone line for animal cruelty is there an appropriation or authorization for the attorney generals office to be able to fund this, do this work since it's a new responsibility? Senator Stein my understanding is the price of doing this is negligible because they have to just start a website, and they have phones coming in anyway. They just do a hotline and I guess at another time if we see that they're receiving 10, 000 calls a day or something we would know but my guess is they wont be receiving that many phone calls, any other members of the committee in questions we've had no one sign up from as members of the public, is there anyone here who cares to speak on the finance portion of this Bill section 2.1? okay hearing nothing from the gallery, okay Senator jackon Section 4.3 line 42 [xx] neither the commission of the department now we shall eliminate any federal elimination standards that are. My question is to whether or not this will jeopardise any federal funding he received for the purpose of four centuries, these regulations.   [xx] excuse me Senator Jackson that should or was taken up yesterday or should have been is not one of the finance issues has to deal with this portion of the bill that we are hearing today. Does someone from yesterday have

an answer for him? Finance staff [xx] Follow up [xx] You may follow up or question I don't know who is going to answer it since we are not going. [xx] to make sure that I understand it the question is intended for you to find out the question as they are offered financial implication of that section I just want to here from Kathy whether their could be an intended consequences causing this federal front as a result of the section. I disagree with you, I agree and disagree with you on the [xx] maybe there is a potential implication for the state there but there nothing in the bill that has to do with finance side of this bill. Senator McKissick and I guess this is of staff this section here dealing with and I'm referring to section 78304 on page 53 as it relates to assessment of cost in this animal welfare act. Are we basically empowering judges to impose this $20 in their discretion that would go towards this fund or how is this subsidy relief supposed to function and operate? Senator McKissik my understanding is that this court fees are generally assessed the point of conviction in the leading language to 78S304 for certain subdivisions it says only upon entry of a written order determining there is just calls the court may waive coat under the section or wave a reduce cost subdivisions 7, 8, 8, 811, 12 or 13 and so the court will have some discretion to wave that under little eye and the lead and language of 7 8 H 304 but not to reduce calls. [xx] and that simply is this the only source of that would be provided and we are specifically dealing with violation and for the laws and any criminal laws that could be committed the charge should hand a discretion to order this payment of this $250 towards this fund? I am just trying to get someone an idea of exactly the way this is going to operate and likewise how my kids seem anticipated would be derived from this, I guess on annual basis, I didn't see anything dealing with that physical impact. It would only be assessed upon conviction of of animal welfare act violations or animal cruelty violations article 47 chapter 14 is the animal cruelty criminal statutes as far as the amount of money that this would generate I do not know that information, any further Senator Messy,  I guess last coming I would hope there  be some indications of what it was anticipated it is going to be derived since we were obviously using this a source of funding for the hotline  that we are talking about creating in all of the reports that  I guess would be potentially generated I'll hope it have meaningful substitute of impact but I don't know what I is going to produce in case of a cash flow string may be Senator Wade can help with that sum, I know you're a veterinarian I think she. Thank you Senator Wade thank you Mr. Chairman, Senator McKissick there may be only two or three phone calls a week there may be one conviction a month Since we are not, we don't know because right know there's not that many convictions and this would be not to offset the hotline. It will be the offset the animal control officers are the local animal control people they go out and actually investigate. The hotline going in should be almost at no cost and the set up website wouldn't be that much and, so you might need one person that answers the phone to do it. I'm sure we can come back to it if there is like rush calls, but if there will be aliens I don't precede that there is going to be ten thousand calls a week or something.  Just a final comment and I'll let it go but I would hope that we wanted encourage the use of hotline. I hope we want to capture those centres involved greers activities involved with animal welfare, and I guess here it is being a very weak or mugger stream of money particularly when we're talking about two or three. $250 here and there you're picking up when you're talking about

the people in the field they're engaged in monitoring this it doesn't cover their cost nor recover any other cost centers significant but understanding that I appreciate this provision being apart of it. Thank you sir. Senator Ford, I call you by your proper name now senator Ford I apologize for the friendship call. That's alright Mr. Chairman I'm going to ask You may call me Bill if you want.  No sir, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask a little bit of indulgence from you though, I want to go back to section 4.3 and I want to be in continuous support of the legislation but in order for me to that, I think a little bit of information is needed as alleged to the financial impact of not enforcing these A quality rules as it relates to the federal standards if is that going to have a negative financial impact on the State as relates to federal funding with this particular provision? and I think it's reasonable for our staff to be able to answer that question. We will let them try if they're prepared.  It's reasonable. I don't think we're prepared to answer that question but if there're representatives of the department here they should be able to respond to that question. Is there somebody here from the Department? Yes, there's Mr. Tom Reader. Mr. Chairman, I'm Tom Reader with the department. My understanding is the question is about that languaging and I guess 4.3 as to whether that would impact our federal funding or not, is that the question? That is the question,. Yes sir, I don't see that impact in our federal funding we don't that much Federal money on the air quality side anyway to begin most of that is, most of that money actually comes from receipt and the fuel tax that we get now that I don't really see that, one or the other having a significant impact on funding the stream. Satisfied? Any other comments or questions form the members of the committee? Hearing none, you ask the motion for a favourable report PCS and favorable to the original and we have a motion from Senator Telmen unfavorable to the regional favorable to the PCS, for a house bill 765 all those in favor please say aye, opposed no, aye's have it, motion okay, reading adjourned. Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you committee.