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.

House | May 11, 2016 | Chamber | House Session

Full MP3 Audio File



[BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] We'll call this meeting to order local government. Welcome everyone and welcome staff and our sergeant of arms Warren Hawkins, Doug Harris, Malachi [UNKNOWN] Junior, Randy Wall, thank you all so much. We're gonna start today, the introduction of pages I don't think we have any no. Unless these two guys over here wanna volunteer okay. We're gonna start today with House Bill 964, Representative Conrad. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> I thank you Mr. Chairman. This is a bill that has been put in at the request of the city of Winston-Salem.

They are one of the few cities that has a separate Retirement fund I'm sorry. Separate retirement fund just for police officers back in 1977 they moved all the other employees when Winston Salem over to North Carolina local government employees Retirement system but left the current and retired police officers in a separate fund. It's very well managed, it's funded it's 87% which is a pretty good percentage. All this bill does as you notice it goes form a singular retiree to multiple retiree Retiree there were five members on the board that governs this retirement fund. Three of those are appointed by the city of Winston-Salem and they just the option to enhance the representation of retired police officers on the commission by having more than one and that's all that the bill does and would certainly like your support Representative Floyd >> At appropriate time >> Any questions? I think now is that time >> Move for a favor report, Mr. Chair, that have [INAUDIBLE] - >> Motion to provide house bill 964 favorable report and refer the bill to committee in pension and retirement. That was Representative Floyd's Motion. Any questions, yes sir. representative Warren. >> I'm just confused and maybe somebody help me out. I'm reading the bill and it doesn't say anything about, I don't see where it says about increasing the size of the - >> It just goes from retiree. If you look down in line 18, it goes that the commission would have a retiree or retirees so it's an option of having one or multiple. >> On line 18, house bill 964. >> Right but follow up. >> Plain just an option, an option for the city counsel. >> Okay. >> We have a motion on the floor any other questions? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose? >> [SOUND] >> Bill passes, 964, thank you. House bill 1017, Representative Bur. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] Let them hear you. Small percentage. [BLANK_AUDIO] You ready [INAUDIBLE] >> Yes sir. >> Go Ronnie/g. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. House Bill 1017, a couple of you already mentioned it probably looks very familiar to you it is very similar to a bill we heard last year. House bill 526 that bill and this bill are working to deannex the peers t if you look at the maps you can see deannex the peers and part of the like/g it should not have annexed into the town it was a part of a forced annexation build back in 2004. Last year the town was a little uncooperative in work into trying to get this resolved during the long session but since then they had some municipal elections which has changed the town board and they work this year with me to come up with the map Maps, the survey and we have support from the town, a resolution there and you'll also see several things are different. It's obvious that w have the legal description now that we are able to use thanks to the tons corporation and we are making sure we lead in. There's a pier there where there is a business, a mariner that wants to be left in the city so we work to do that and they're also annexing in a small portion of another restaurant there so they can run sewer to that property and hopefully reopen that restaurant sooner so there's $4 around for this deal and it would certainly appreciate your support. Happy to take any question Mr. chair. >> Representative Warren. >> Thank you Mr. chair. I'd like to be recognized for a motion appropriate time please. >> Any questions, representative Lukey. >> Thank you Mr. chairman and representative var as you've said this has a lot of time spent on it last year and I'm just wondering if you could explain to me, to us how this bill differs from the bill that you had last year. >> As I mentioned a while ago, the biggest difference is we have a legal description that we are able to use at the town, work with a survey or to come up with to make sure that we had the points right versus last year the language was a little different. Where it was deannexed in property owned by duke interview which is very similar to same thing we're doing here. Except it's a little more technically correct. Based on what staff has said and it also makes very clear the pers/g we're leaving in as well as you can see on the map there.

It's a little bit better of a description that's where the hold up was last year. If you look at the larger map Representative Luekey those appear been left in as we work to do that last year there was no legal description of those peers because they seat outside of those Those property lines right there that identify the 712, 708 and 706 and it provides a legal description to make sure that property that marina right there that restaurant that they are inside the city limits even though reduce property. >> Follow up >> So is it fair to say that unlike last year you have a greater consensus among public officials and private parties to support this bill? >> Well we had the support last year of the citizens there around the property owners the only folks that had a problem with it were the some of the town officials not all. But as I said there's been an election since then and the citizens took care of that problem. >> Follow. >> So what you're really saying is new members of the council and the new members support the bill? >> That's right. >> Thank you very much Representative Boels/g. >> Thank you just a friendly question that I asked earlier what is the economic impact. >> The property taxes for those appears around $12,000. >> Follow up. >> Follow up. >> The total budget? >> It's over, right at a million. Any other questions? Representative Warren. >> Yes. >> You had a motion. >> [LAUGH] >> I'd like to make a motion for a favor report for house bill 1017. >> And to refer bill to committee on finance. I see thank you sir. >> Yes sir. That's the motion on the floor any other questions? All those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. Chairman Davies has an announcement for 10 am Thursday, is that correct sir? In this same room 10 am Thursday for local government. Chairman Davies, will be chairing that. This meeting is adjourned. [SOUND] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO]