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.

Joint | July 9, 2014 | Chamber | Budget

Full MP3 Audio File

[0:00:00.0] If you all wanna talk more go ask that and we are gonna go and get started. We have Sergeant Arms here today, Bill Bass, who is Bill Bass? Mike Clampitt, ___Summers [00:17], Warren Hawkins, ___[00:24] and Bill Marsh. And we also have some Senate Sergeant Arms Steve Wilson, Henry Sherrill, Billy Fritcher, ___[00:42] and Kan Louis. Thank you all for your service. Today, this morning we have a little conversation about the lottery and I think we are gonna take that subject really briefly, does the house side have any comments they wanna make about the lottery system? Ipkiss Alassai__[01:07] I didn’t introduce you because your name is not on my list. And house will make comment about the lottery. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, with regard to this morning the discussions we have mentioned a couple of items and in that I will address the lottery, I think there were some questions about movement with regard to the various offers and I did want to clarify as we sort out that the differences between Senate Offer 4 and Senate Offer 5 were technical one and I think the nature of that was maybe $200,000. So, there was little difference between 4 and 5 and I know there were some questions raised with regard to how much difference there was in the House Offer is certainly wasn’t any less than what with the differences that were there and the technical corrections that were made in the Senate Offer on that particular point with respect to the lottery as we have talked about all of the way through the exploration that the house engaged in has noted and both sides agree I believe that we have made an additional dollars both recurring and non-recurring dollars to the good or the budget in that exploration. The question actually comes down to a particular piece of it and that’s the 29.5 million dollars that would accrue to recurring money that would accrue to the state if we had, if we move the advertising up to 2% and apply the analysis that has been given to us by Dr. Boardman with respect to the Honest Lottery Act. We believe that is still a good and very valid idea noted yesterday that there was certain division among some of the members about the advisability of the lottery as a whole and other saying that they were interested in the money without restrictions and then other saying as yourself Senator Hunt, you have concerns about the lottery period. So, there seem to be an inconsistency in the position there but in order to help move the process alone what the houses willing to do is to with respect to our future offers what we will do is we will not include that 29.5 million dollars and then if at some point of time later, folks want to come back and the Senate wants to come back and consider that in someway later on obviously the house would be open to that discussion but with regard to additional offers that the house will put forward will take that off the table further time being the 29.5 million dollars and not have that in… [0:04:59.3] [End of file…]

[0:00:00.0] So, I think that would allow us on both sides to move forward in that regard and not worrying about those ___[00:14] at the present time. Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, Representative Dollar are you saying that at this point we can move forward with the 116 number as far as trying to workout our differences on the budget? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. Having said that I appreciate the compromise and I think that’s a big sticking piece that we have been trying to settle for few days, I think we had a pretty good debate earlier today I think at this point because of that move I think the Senate is willing to go back and come out with what I think, we think would be a compromise plan somewhere in the middle and in the terms the house will do the same. And if you are willing to do that I think we are willing to leave this meeting and go to work on or what could be what I would think somewhere down in the middle or compromise to move this forward. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And Representative Dollar has that same. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, the point of clarification, do we wanna have some discussions or you wanting to work on your position and we work on our position? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I’m sure you and I have to talk soon, how about that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Very good. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, listening to the other members of the committee has a comment, Senator Burger. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman just one comment I know what Representative Dollar mention of the Senate Sub to previous offers and they are not being much of the difference. I think most people recognized that Senate Sub position change substantially with reference to tenure between those offers. And if the house does not consider that to be much of a change then we can go back to renegotiating that issue as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The ____[02:34] point is well made and what I intended to say was that in terms of the dollars, in terms of the dollars and we do fully recognize the Senate’s view with respect to tenure made and that is very much appreciated. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any other comments? Without further do we are adjourned. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman Marry Christmas. [0:03:05.4] [End of file…]