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 25, 2016 | Chamber | House Appropriations

Full MP3 Audio File

[BLANK_AUDIO] [SOUND] >> Committee have come to order. Members will take their seats, any extraneous conversation will be taken outside of the room. We want to welcome some House pages that we have with us. This morning, Maggie Chambers from Richman county sponsored by Representative Goodman, Cole Clarie of Cleveland County, sponsored by speaker Mo, Aron Brown of Mecklenburg County sponsored by representative Jonathan Jordan. Margo Lilly of Terrell County, sponsored by Representative Steinberg , we welcome them with us this morning. We're also being as always expertly served and assisted by our Sergeant at arms, Yang Bey, Mark Cohen, David Lithicum, Doug Harris, Bill Bass, Warren Hawkins, Russell Salsbury, Janice Cherry, Jim Moran, Joe Crook, David Layton, Will Crocker, Martha Gadison, Ray Cook and Barry Moore. The committee today will take up two bills, we will not take any amendments on either of these bills, the bills are here strictly for the purpose of examining their appropriation this morning so we will Confine ourselves to those issues and first up we'll have house bill 1050 offered by Representative Torbett. Representative Torbett you have the floor. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you members of the committee. Good morning. Ladies and gentlemen it was brought to my attention by pretty much folks that use alternative means of transport sometimes just for pleasure or for work or whatever. That being motorcycles. It began to, I guess, take attention that they were being prohibited from accessing some parking decks, garages and other stadium owned properties and so just pretty much thinking that shouldn't be the case, this bill simply does the following things. It prohibits the OT from taking any action that discriminates or has the effect of discriminating against motorcycles, it requires the OT, any other owner or operator of transportation facility funded and help in part by the state or local funds to make reasonable accommodations. For motorcycle parking and transportation, facilities, it provides that the bill does not supersede any state or federal law of course that prohibits or imposes requirement that applies on to a motorcycle and it also provides that the OT, 10,000 in non-recurring funds in 2016 2017 fiscal year to be used to fund costing [INAUDIBLE] at the department in implementing this act. Ladies and gentleman, that's the short of it so if you got any questions, I stand willing and able Mr. Chairman >> Representative Michaux. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman [COUGH] I've got a couple of questions and a statement on this. Do I understand that what this bill does it prohibits local operators like cities and counties that operate parking decks doe it apply to them also? >> Mr. Chairman? >> Gentleman is recognized. >> That would be correct. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Yes. >> So you're taking some authority away from cities and counties running parking decks the way they wanna run them, is that correct? >> No. Mr. Chairman, can I just say something about this bill? >> Yes sir. >> Thank you. It seems sort of ridiculous to me that you're passing a piece of legislation against discriminating against a motorcycle or cyclist and yet we have problems in other areas where discrimination is promoted. It just seems ridiculous to me that, re you gonna ask for a birth certificate just to find out whether or not that person is a motor cyclist or not, or what are you gonna do? [CROSSTALK] >> Representative Torbett you're not recognized. Seems ridiculous to me to try to do something like this, it's just out of my area, 40 years that I've been here, I ain't never seen nothing like this before. You can't discriminate against a motorcycle but you can discriminate human beings against human beings. >> Representative Pendleton. At the appropriate time, gentleman will hold that.

Representative Horn. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, Representative Torbett, where are you getting the $10,000 that's in this bill. Is it in the budget bill that we passed out of the house? >> It's not in the budget bill Inside the house but I feel relatively sure that we can control that with internal DLT funding. >> Thank you. Representative Insko. >> Question for the bill sponsor, I'm curious about why you believe you need item B on line 18, it seems to me your intent is to deal with the issue that has to do with parking decks and parking facilities so that any action that discriminates is really broad. Does that apply to anything else other than motorcyclists being able to parking decks or parking lots. >> No ma'am. >> So would you be willing to remove that? >> I'm sorry? >> That's such a broad, any action, it seems that covers a lot more than parking decks, would be willing to eliminate just that one sentence? >> Not at this time, I'll be interested to hear your conversation but the term broad is also a definitive or non-definitive statement that one may assume is broad, and some assume is not broad. What we're trying to do is provide enough language in the law where there is no reason to come back to add on, to add on, or to add on. To cover all aspects of discrimination when it comes to parking and accessing facilities via a motorcycle >> Follow up. >> The lady is recognized. >> Thank you. So if you're really are limiting this to parking, I'm not sure why you don't say take any action that discriminate against parking. I mean you say any discrimination that's That's very broad that could cover things like helmets under certain circumstances, someone could interpret it as covering helmets so anyway let's talk about it. >> Representative Yarborough. >> Thank you I have a A question what exactly is the difference between a motorcycle parking spot and a automobile parking spot? >> I have an answer to that Mr Chairman [INAUDIBLE] The follow up. >> The gentleman is recognized and so we are going to require them to put in half size Parking spots and- >> Mr chairman now actually if the chairman would refer back to the bill. [BLANK_AUDIO] A reasonable accommodation starts On line 22 first page includes sectioning portions of an existing parking space for the size configuration of parking space does not meet building requirements or four full size motor cycles none of this substance shall be constricted as requiring the structural or technological modification of parking structures constructed Substantially completed on reports 91 2016. We are trying to make it as [INAUDIBLE] to the existing folks that are out there, you've probably been at somewhere you've gone in and seeing smaller areas because of just the structure of the building and the design of the building does not provide complete coverage by automobiles or smaller corners there is offset or post that don't allow, those are accessible parking areas for two wheeled, non four wheel vehicles. So we are just saying those things that could apply. I hope that answers your question. >> Representative Hall. >> Mr. Chairman point of order. >> Representative Horn, what's your point of order? >> You admonished us at the beginning that we were to only deal with the appropriations piece not the substance of the bill. I don't see how any of the questioning other than the one I asked Has to do with appropriations, it all has to do with the substance of the bill. That'S not our charge. >> Right, gentleman's point is well taken. We have allowed a little bit of latitude as we normally do. We'll take a question from Representative Hall and one from Representative Stevens. An then we'll move to the motion. Representative Hall. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, I think I have two questions and one of them initially is the $10000 that's being allocated here going to go for parking deck owners, whether they are cities, counties, private being notified of this in spite of this and educated us to it. >> That's the intent, yes sir.

>> Follow up Mr. Chairman. >> Follow up. >> Thank you. On the funding that this is cComing from, you say there's a funding source within DOT that's available, is this the maximum amount of funds available if more is needed? Is there more funding there to be drawn down for this? >> This is a suggested amount Representative, recommended amount [BLANK_AUDIO ] Representative Stevens >> A lot of my questions I guess was answered by Representative Holmes, question but there's $10,000 exactly what will it do? I mean is it gonna provide just education funds, is it gonna be some punishment for hacking Dexter don't do this, how will this functionally work with this money? >> Thank you Representative, pretty much just for notification, and getting the message out, I don't see anything punitive, I don;t see anything where litigation would be would be applied at this time so I on't wanna give lawyers another jobs bill. >>> Representative Penilton you're recognized for your motion. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve house bill 1015. >> Chairman moves for a favorable report for house bill 1050, all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed no? >> No. >> The ayes appear to have it, the ayes have it. >> Thank you Mr. chair, members of the committee. >> Our next bill is the house house committee substitute for senate bill 71, Chairman McGrady is recognized to present the bill to the committee. [BLANK_AUDIO] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just broadly, I'm not gonna get into all the details of the bill, we handled a lot of that in rules yesterday and we will have a full debate on sorts of provision that are in this Bill. The Bill, though broadly is designed to provide a permanent alternative water supply for land owners near coal ash basins and to reconstitute the coal ash management commission, the mining commission and the oil gas commission consistent with the decision in MCory v Berger/g. Then only one provision in the bill within the jurisdiction of the appropriations committee and if you turn to page 11, section 2G you will see that provision. and this is a non budget affecting provision, and the reason for that, if you remember, those of you were here in 2014 when we passed this, there was a formula by which Duke Energy had to put money into a fund pay for the Coal Ash Commission. and so that fund is still there, they have been collecting the money pursuant to the law, and there is roughly $400,000 in the fund right now, and what this provision does is allocate that money to the new Coal Ash Commission. It basically puts the money so that we get five receipt supported positions created at the division of emergency management in the department of public safety. Again without getting into a lot And a lot of the other details of the law is sorta a fail safe here if the coal ash management commission gets tied up in court. We've got the ability, if the court if it was to so find, we just substitute the environmental management commission for the Coal ash management commission and then the money again would flow to the environmental management commission so that they have the staffing they need to do what is required under the coal ash Management act that we passed in 2014 so again this is non budget affecting.

Money is already there, it's being collected by some form, on some form but the appropriations committee has jurisdiction and that's why the bill is here and I urge your Favorable report. >> Questions from the committee, Representative Fisher. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the bill sponsor. Representative McGrady, knowing that we have this money the hundred thousand for the commission. Have you, or has anyone looked at what the expense would be if we have to rewind the work of that commission. In other words the bill sort of implies that we're gonna be starting over again, and I want to know if that will run us into more expense, thank you. >> I asked a similar question. We do not anticipate based on the earlier commission and it's use of funds over it's short lifespan that this money Money would be inadequate to the task. Again we're anticipating five supported positions that would be hired with some part of the $400 million. >> Representative Stevens. >> Thank you and mine is not specifically Specifically on the $400 thousand but it has to do with money and i'm sure it's under each and every board but compensation, the members of the commission get the per diem and the necessary travelling and subsistence expenses. Is there a separate fund where all this comes form and i'm not just asking specifically about this board but every board. Where does This money from per diem come from. >> An appropriations share should know that but I don't so i'm gonna turn to staff, if they can answer that question. >> Staff's recognized. >> Timothy Bell, fiscal research. Just to add a little bit of clarity to what is going on here, so if you recall back Back when you set up the coal ash commission, a couple of years ago you set up that fee as Representative McGrady referred to over in DPS, it collects roughly $2.4 million on annual basis. In previous session laws, the general assembly has appropriated that 2.4 million on annual basis. $1.75 million goes to DEQ For their Collage expenses roughly 630,000 goes to BPS for the collage commission so representative Stevens for your question about how the collage commission is funded or what are the per DM and those kind of things would come from, there is that recurring 630,000 already in session law about that would support those expenses. Representative Horn/g >> Thank you Mr chairman I'd like to focus if I could rather on a collage commission on getting clean water to the folks in affected areas and what the potential cost Are to the state or what's the role of the state on this I'm looking on page four, section 18 that deals with provision of permanent water supply I see action being directed but no cost that we would incur in the will not incur any costs in ensuring that this folks get clean water? > If I may Mr. Chairman? First that provision is not before this committee at this time, but I'll answer your question and answer it again on the floor, if you ask me there. There are no costs to the state related to the provision of water here. These are costs related to the Coal Ash basins themselves and these costs will be borne by the owner of the coal ash basins, in other words Duke Energy. >> Representative McNeal. >> Thank you, i think part of my question was answered by Representative Stephens but I just wanna make sure I understood if you go to page 11, line 26 and eight, it basically says that The division of emerging management in the department of Public Safety share provides support to the commission until the staff or the commission is hired so I guess my question is this the decisions that are hired by the department of public safety are different Positions that [INAUDIBLE] high by the commission and this is what my question is I wanna make sure I understand the salaries for the people at department of Public Safety are coming out of the

Collage Commission composed in residuals or Coming out of our budget and then where is the plans coming for the commission to hire the staff, I'm confused about the two different staffs there. >> Representative McNeall we refer two staff to answer that question. >> So Representative McNeal again Timothy Dale Fiscal Research so the way that this worked when the first First started a couple of years ago essentially what the language said back then and essentially what you see here it essentially directs existing staff at DPS so coming out of the public safety budget to support this commission until staff can be hired to support the commission so to answer your question the funding for this positions is currently coming Coming out of the public safety budget not the coal ash fee that's collected in here, the coal ash fee would only be used to support new staffs specifically dedicated to the Coal Ash Commission. >> Representative Tobit >> Pass Mr Chairman. >> Representative Eiler >> Thank you Mr Chair this is something that needs to happens on a timely basis I'd like to make the motion at the proper time. >> Alright we'll hold that, Representative Hall. >> Thank you Mr chairman and this question that can go to to the staff or to bill sponsor and it's about the, we are saying 400,000 for the Coal Ash Commission and I guess that's for annual operation expenses and we are saying we are generating about 630,000 I believe in fee contributions to the fund, does the difference revert somewhere? Is the balance maintained are there additional expenses available? >> Timothy is recognized. >> Timothy Dale/g Fiscal Research what this bill does that's in front of you so the 630,000 is already a base recurring about. What this bill does in section 2.G is essentially appropriate $400,000 of the existing cash balance to kind of accelerate the activities of the Coal Ash Commission. engaged and once it gets up and running again. So there's roughly about a $1 million in cash balance there since this fund is paid in arrears you need to keep roughly a quarter's worth of expenses in that fund so that's how we get to the $400, 000 amount. So it essentially appropriates that $ 400, 000 amount to the Coal Ash Commission to accelerate it's activities once it gets up and running again. >> Representative Daughtry. >> Thank you, this may have already have been answered. It says the Governor has five appointments and then the General Assembly has two. What if we set up the commission and the Governor doesn't appoint appoint anybody? >> Before you arrived here Representative Daughtry, the bill is only here for purposes of looking at section 2g which is the Appropriations Provision, we will make sure that I'm prepared to answer that question when the bill comes to the floor but it's not part of what the committee itself is handling at this point in time, but thank you for the question. >> Representative Hager. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm really up following up on Representative Horn's talking about the cost of extension, you say that the state is not going to bear that expense and I just want to hear you say that the local water system in all the ways that might cause them to extend this water system that Duke will cover those expenses and they would not be pushed by the local water authorities Again Representative Hager, that provision actually is not properly before this committee at this time but I will answer it in part and if my answer is insufficient I'll ask you to get on the floor or catch me in between. My understanding is that Duke will bear the cost of extending those water agreements, water extensions, the provision provides for an agreement process meaning Duke and the commission and whoever, probably a municipality will end up having an agreement about that, how much it's gonna cost, and who's gonna do what and when. And I will again stand in my place and tell you I'm working with the legal municipalities to make sure that they've got a comfort level because we do not wanna put the cost of extending water on anybody else. So Your concern is one I share. >> Very clear thank you. Representative Bumgardener. >> Thank you Mr chairman, I have a question representative McGrady

about the classification of didn't see you. >> I'm easy to miss I guess. >> [LAUGH] I heard you though. >> Okay, on the commission, the seven members of the commission, it seems to me and I had this idea yesterday that we're really putting a lot of requirements down on who has to be appointed. Is that gonna be a problem going forward? And I'm specifically on page six, line one and two, and three. Is there a reason why we specified that the speaker appoints somebody who sis a member of a non-governmental conservation interest? >> Again I'd remind the gentleman that that provision is not before the committee, at this time, this is just the appropriations provision. I will point out that all of the appointments that are in this bill though are actually currently law. Those were in the 2014 law. We took 9 slots and turned them into 7. And we tried to provide a diverse group of people and divided up the appointments, with no hidden agenda there. But if you will catch me after This meeting I'm certainly willing to talk to you about it and I'll likewise take your questions on the floor if you wanna raise. Just to refer the clarification represented by [INAUDIBLE], it is, there're probably not a whole lot of commissions, boards, authorities, that do not have [INAUDIBLE] qualifiers or categories, that's very standard I'd say for most of the dozens, and hundreds I guess boards and commissions that we have in the state. >> Representative Howl. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman and I just wanna come back to the $400,000 as I understand it and please correct me if I'm wrong representative McGrady or staff that this is a $400,000 one time expense to the commission and then the commission will draw its regular operating expenses in addition to this if necessary from from the fund that's generated annually. And if that's the case, are there other funds available for the commission or are they all coming from the coal combustion residuals management fund. >> [CROSSTALK] staff is recognized. >> Yes Representative Hall. Timothy Dale, fiscal research again. So all of the funding for the Coal Ash Commission comes out of the coal combustion residuals fund. There is that recurring amount at $630,000 and then essentially what this bill does on a non-recurring basis is it provides them an additional $400,000 from the cash balance that's in that fund. So the cash is there, it just simply needed to be appropriated. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Let me just add one other thing to what he has said. I was asked whether this provision was being added to the bill just to make it eligible. I would note that this is a House Substitute for a Senate Bill that's already passed. Frankly the appropriations provision here was recommendation of staff. We were trying to make sure we got the money there quickly. I view it frankly as really a technical thing particularly since it's not affect it in any way. I just wanna make sure that the commission like the former commission has money when it needs it as quickly as possible. >> Representative Owler/g is recognized for a motion. >> Thank you Mr. Chair, I move that the appropriations committee give a favorable report to house committee substitute for senate bill 71, unfavorable to the regional. >> You've heard the motion, all those in favor please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed no. >> No. >> The ayes have it and the bill is agreed to. And committee is adjourned.