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 | June 4, 2015 | Committee Room | Finance

Full MP3 Audio File

Okay good morning. Thank you for coming in, I hope you all made it safe I know there was a lot of traffic issues this morning and I call the finance committee to order. First I would like to recognize our Sergeant at Arm who have done a great job for all our session Reggie [xx] David Laitin, Terry McClaw and Chris McLachlin, thank you. I'm also very fortunate to have some pages with us this morning when I call your name if you will please stand and give us a wave so we can recognize you [xx] Mason Roberts sponsor bill speaker Moore, Micheal Smith from Macklenburg also sponsored by speaker Moore [xx] from [xx] sponsored by [xx] sponsored by [xx] basketball [xx] from Wake sponsored by [xx] sponsored by [xx] Colin Winstad from Pearson sponsored by Rally Webrow thank you all for being with us. OK our first order of business will be to have Representative Ross report the bill from the Annexation deannexation sub committee. Thank you madam chair, is this working? The following bills are been reported to the full finance committee with favorable report from sub committee on annexation deannexations. House bill 266 favorable, house bill 400 favorable, house bill 426 favorable, house bill 493 favorable, house bill 526 favourable. Thank you this time I would like to refer the following additional bills To the annexation-de annexation sub committee. This is house bill 411, the town of Angelo de annexation house bill 412 this we have done annexation senator 141 rainfall annexation referendum senator 218 Frankline HTL satellite annexation and senate bill 256 do any voluntary annexation on the annexation streets and this time I move forward on the agenda and we will start on those who have come on the sub committee house bill 266 is representative Robinson here to present the bill?  Thank you for you are recognized. This Bill came to me from the lower city council and what they would like to do, there's property that they owned which was part of an old water shade area and as long as I can remember, it was known as the the lower dam and of course it's no longer there and what they would like to do is use this now for a recreational facility with some hiking trails, also some facilities for the Lano[sp?] Fire Department for training and the Police Department for a Firing Range which they have there now. No opposition to this piece of Legislation and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions from members? Simon would you like to make a motion, Representative [xx] say? I was going to say, motion inappropriate,  it looks like it may be appropriate. Be there any other questions it may sit directly with the sub committee representative [xx] recognized I know that, house bill, I believe this is 266 city of North Carolina annexation be given a favourable report. Thank you, members approve the motion all  in favor signify by saying aye and oppose no thank you representative Robinson member, today we're going to get a favourable report. House bill 400 representative Brawley. Thank you, Madam Chair and I did want to point out that representative Catlin is a co sponsor on this bill. This is a very complex and difficult bill and I'm sure it will take us a long time to explain, Are there any questions about this bill I get it, representative [xx]. I would like to know what the bill does. Now you missed the sub committee Certainly Sir, there were three subdivisions there who had been partially constructed but

been we changed the annexation roles has been completed, the residents want to be an extend the Mint Hill which is such inefficiently operating town and district 103 that their cost will actually go down by annexation because the county charges them more for fire protection, employees protection than the tax rate of the town of Mint Hill which will provide add both, will also give them garbage and add their loads to the town system and they will no longer rely on state mains. Okay now, who is making the motion? Representative Haigen has moved to a favorable report. Any other discussion? All in favor, signify by saying Aye. Any oppose thank you for that complex Phil. Okay. House Bill 426, Representative Ray. Thank you Madam Chair, and committee members, this is the deannexation, the property was annexed and they were doing it for housing development and the house and development did not come through, so his request from the town of Weldon, I have a resolution from the town and also for land owners, and there's no known opposition in our community, and they ask for your support. Thank you, are there any questions from members? Representative Guardar. Just filed a motion when appropriate Representative Wayne did you have something else? okay [xx] on appropriate time thank you madam chair just on favorable report house bill 426. Member we're going to issue on, all those in favor of the motion should slumber by saying Aye, and the opposed. Thank you thank you representative Lieh. Thank you madam chair for reading my motion Okay house bill 492 representative Haygon, you are recognized you to present your bill. We would not be accept what is within the town limit because there is its own regulations this were resolution from town council but it is resolution about referendum but the town council was split on a two two the mayor had to break to task so I choose to go with referendum of the people to decide to see a town councils quite. Representative Brawley Does this made a chance the former camper committee? I don't know no, I don't think so, I don't know that for sure. Alright, thank you.   Are there any other questions? Representative Wayne. Representative Hayward, so you got a deed to an extra the property, but the town is still going to collect the taxes on it, is that correct? They will for a certain amount of time I believe. OK. Follow up, just for a motion of public[sp?] timing. Are there any other questions? Representative Wayne, you're recognized for a motion I have a motion for a favorable report for House Bill 493. Members, all in favor signify by saying Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. House Bill 526 Representative Burr. Members, this is a proposed Committee Substitute, can I have a motion to have that properly before us? Thank you Representative Brawley as always[sp?] All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? OK, but properly before us, thank you Representative Burr. Yes Ma'am, thank you Madam Chairman. This deannexation will correct current law but is overtaxed in some resident who live on [xx] on the town Norwood for most residence who live on the lake in the Norwoods city limits the city limit and their actual property line which is a high water mark at the lake but for of the portion of the town resident sue a part of force annexation in 2004 the town annex the actual rate into the city limits going beyond the high water mark in an effort to tax some residents here and the land that they lease from Duke Energy in order to access the lake. When the forced annexation was rushed through in 2004 the county tax office did ask the town order not to go beyond the high water mark in order to keep the town's border at the lake consistent with where the existing town limit ends in every other circumstance. The legislation will create uniformity in where the town limit [xx] some like reducing any confusion for public safety essentials and task offers and we might choose that every citizen in the town is treated for they have by being taxed. Thank you, repeat the

questions just as representative Cliance This were motions. can we hold that for a moment, Representative Stam.  Representative Byrd, do all the property owners agree to this? what did they say? I've not had any property owner tell me that they oppose this, so they don't even want I've had property owners come to me asking for me to do this so that they can be treated and taxed in the same manner that most residents in the town are taxed.  Madam Chair?  Follow up.  I did have have a situation 10 years ago where actually it was to meet former Speaker Hackney [xx] was people being deannexed involuntarily because then they were not paying property taxes, nonprofit, but then they would have to pay more for water and sewer etc. You just double check to make sure there is no opposition land owners. Well I tell you it's been in the paper, is being discussed in the town they would not pay any more. Because all their homes, their actual land will continue to sit within the city limits. It's just ending that, ending the town border at the high water mark, because what's happening is they intentionally pulled in the lake so that they could tax their peers.   Representative Ross? what about the town of Northwood what's their position on it? Yes sir? and the town would opposes the registration they want to continue to be able to taxes small areas different rates than they tax most of the other residents in the town. You probably you were saying the ladder from them represents wars [xx] but the other saying from the town and I would mention thinking a couple[sp] of things about the ladde, r we very much disagree with mention additional tax there would be price on the residents safest bill passed on this tax what happen is that tax would be reduced so go from paying 40 cents on pear for it being the city paying 10 cents on that pear for being the county for the fire tax just right all the varsity of the city Norywood and the estimation they are concern about the tax support have in term the involvement change, you know there with the concern then I assume when I [xx] the excision persuade carried up on June 30th of 2004 they would of change the effective from when it becomes to a time further out to give the tax enough federal time to do that. So there didn't seem to be a concern at that point and I believe this bill will pass in advance to give them time to do that. So we simply disagree with it, it was not a unanimous resolution by the town of Norwood, but a majority the council opposes it. Representative [xx] for follow up. Follow up. Yeah, I just got the letter this morning, I didn't know anything about it until I got the letter. I think my biggest concern is they indicated they did't know anything about this. We were not contacted at all until this was filed they're correct in terms of they found out when the bill was filed. Which was the same time that the citizens found out they were being forced and extend the town. I don't think government is entitled to anything more than the people that they serve quite frankly, and the bill that they filed was introduced and passed into law in about 30 days. I introduced the bill and we sat on it for over a month to give time for people to look at it and give feedback before we even move forward with it. So now they've had ample time to do that and to certainly respond on at this point. Representative Luebke. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would say first to the membership of this committee that this is a highly controversial bill with local government. We had a long discussion about it, and on that day the Mayor was able to be here along with the other members of the council and my well, they said that all but one member of the town council opposed Representative Byrd's bill. So I wanted to, well first of all, you are confirming that you did not consult with the city council or the mayor before you introduced the bill? Correct. OK, was there a reason for that? Timing.

I felt like we could introduce the bill and start those discussions at that point so that the public can be involved in the discussions as well not just the government aspect so the bill was introduced and there was time for the town to respond for and move forward with the bill. Follow up? Yes, follow up please. In the, well let me just say I think that's a bad way to proceed. I think you have a local government that's made considerable efforts to work on the whole issues of services to the area and so that seems odd to me that you wouldn't have consulted with the elected officials of the town in your district but let me ask, when a problem is raised by the town was that in the Mayors letter and also in the her testimony before the committee, was that they had made some capital investments into this area. But also this is stated very clearly in the letter that the residents were not consulted on this as you indicated. They're going to be having to pay the county fire tax, or fire tax from around the fire department they will lose their city service, and also that along those lines, that emergency services are really is threatened here because the town   has fire departments to cover this and now the volunteer fire department is needed to come in. This seems like a problem as well, and how would you address the issue of the Fire District, and having to go from city services to the voluntary fire department. Representative [xx] Thank you Madam Chairman first off there this is a fairly large lake. It's over 15 miles long. So what you're talking about that's right hold it up OK. Thank you Dina. What you're talking about on the lakes here, and I'm sorry if you can't see it. The red is the city limits here and then the lake runs north to south, but this area in orange is part an extend. So Representative Lucas if there's an accident on the lake and someone calls 911 anywhere else here, the Road[sp?] Fire Department and the Sheriff Department are going to go out. They have the equipment to go out on the lake to deal with an emergency there, that they are going to have to determine that if it's in this code that there's a different group of people that go out, and there's one code on a 15 mile long lake. So this ends and clears up any confusion. So that any accident that happens out there on the lake, it's the same group of individuals that go out. They have the equipment to do it, unlike the town. So it clears that up in terms of, thank you representative Dollar. In terms of services that you mentioned these folks, their properties are still with city limits the homes the residents in which they are making the investments to run water and sewer are still within city limits and none of that changes it's simply removing the right area some of the city limits, and the member of the city council that voted against they did so because she was on the right and she was in an area that her pea is taxed she doesn't think that's fair that she doesn't have to pay taxes on her here and that other people that reside in the city limits do, and why are people being treated differently? So we're simply trying to make consisting to expound of the where the town board is and as I said earlier when I did this, the town administrator asked them to the town border at the high water map to say it was clear where the city limits ended towards the town and all word as they decided not to make an amendment to correct that and move forward with the bill as it was, and now we're trying to fix that so that it's clear where the city limits end, and if there's an emergency on the lake we know who those are to respond to those emergencies. Representative Heger. Thank you. Madam Chair just a follow up. Representative MagNeil [xx] Thank you madam chair it just seems to me representative [xx] and the members that there ave very complicated situation part of the if they were homes so they are still in the lake is not a ex no consultation

with the town council I think this is very bad policy for us to move forward when the town council has not been in for negotiations with the member before the bill responds it is house bill 526 obviously was pretty of time to discuss this with the town council I can support the bill. Thank you representative. If I could add. Madam Chair. you know we did specific that to the town and I can address any concern there is one a restaurant that sits on the light that sits within the higher water mark that they so that [xx] it is a business that they wanted left within the city limits, so we work with them to leave that restaurant within the city limits to address those concerns. So we have worked together to try to do that. But beyond that I don't know how you negotiate, it's right or wrong. It's pretty clear there's nothing left to negotiate. Either you tax everyone in different ways. There's two tiers there, you treat everyone the I believe you should treat everyone the same. And that goes for the Government in terms of the notice, they did notice the people, government is not entitled to anything that the people are not entitled to in my opinion, and if they don't tell the people what they're doing why are they entitled being informed in advance any more than their own people they serve. Representative Heger. Thank you Madam Chairman a question comment on bill sponsor now the way I understand is the [xx] is owned mostly is owned by Duke energy the way I understand it, and the way I understand what's happening now and correct me if I'm wrong please is that the town has side annex part of that. This under water especially the high water mark and charge the lot owner adjacent to that for the taxes is that correct? That's right. So I find this crazy, I've been true I don't know why you deal with the town or when they do these kind of things when it's obviously not the people's property. The letter that Rep. Luebke they talked about having capital investments, certainly didn't have capital investments in that piece of hot water mark under the water, they can't do that. The houses are still charged if I'm not mistaken still charged for tax rate for the city and what was the other thing. I had one more thing? And the fact that you only have the peers only thing in the county that the county focus the other structurse are still serviced by the cities, is that correct? That's correct. I don't understand. I don't feel that this council wants to pay more taxes let her pay more taxes don't encumber the rest of clubs[sp?] this is just ludicrous! And I appreciate you bringing that forward, I wouldn't deal with the town of Norwood either! And Madam Chair if I could, I will add that the town of Norwood is sitting on a fund balance of over 103% so they made it sound as if they're struggling and don't have any funds and this is going to take an overwhelming amount of money from them, but that is simply not the case, and they have sufficient amount of money. Representative Collins. Are you ready for my motion? Obvious, you have a motion out. A few other folks are on the list, but I'll try to be quick. Hamilton, OK. Representative Jones. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to speak briefly in support of Representative Burr and his bill. Let's try to get beyond who is for it and who is against just a minute. We hear a lot about, Well what is the town council think? How can Representative Burr work this out with the town council? Representative state representative it's like everybody sits around table and his accountable to the voters of his district to do what they send him here to do when they tried to be fair, and I think what he's explained to us is a reasonable thing. He's probably like myself and many others, we represent many municipalities and as for myself, 3 1/3 of the voters in my district sent me here to serve, but there are certain municipalities where the majority of the town council probably disagree philosophical with a lot of things that I do and this legislature does. So, looking at the broader picture of Representative Burr's  accountable to the people who sent him here, and I think what he's explained to us is very reasonable, he's trying to write something that representing as an injustice, it's not fair to everybody, it's not treating everybody the same, and so I support his bill and I hope every member of the committee will as well. Thank you. Representative Stan. It's justified, I was going to make a motion, but I'll defer to Representative Conrad Ok, Representative Bradford I serve on the annexation/ de annexation committee, this sailed through yesterday, we were not aware of the politics this a common sense speaks of legislation. I have a district has a lake 760 line of the end of your property line. This is pretty fair pretty consistence, and if you remove the politics and

look at the policy this should sail through this committee and I encourage your support. OK Representative Robinson. Yes just a quick thought. Is there a companion bill to this or is your senator in favor of these? I think I heard he said his had discussion with everybody in the town. I don't want to speak for him at this point, but he's not said his opposed to it. Are there other questions prepare a thorough debate here. Representative Collins you are recognized for your mission. I would like to move that we give a favorable report to the proposed committee substitute for House Bill 526 unfavorable to the region. I'm move with the motion for favorable report all in favor. Madam chair I see Division please Ann there's a copy of division is that sustained.  Well [xx] No, I'm just [xx] wants the [xx] [xx] No sir Madam Chair I'm asking for division which is a show of hands. OK. but I am fine Phil. There we go. All in favor will indicate by raising their hands please hold them up so we can have a count you and Bowe received a favorable report 24 ayes on Ann Boness. Thank you mum. Thank you Representative Thank you Madam Chair for the vote You're welcome. Okay, I think that completes our annexation - de annexation portion, now I'm come back, maybe refocus, we're going to have Representative McNeal co me and present house bill 192, compliance quote cost. Representative McNeal your'e recognized Thank you Madam Chair, well, turned off thank you for the opportunity to present House Bill 192 compare school cost to this committee. This bill makes a $ 50 on cases that are dismissed, when the District Attorney believes a person has compiled with a violation if they come to the court in house person, also do actually LOS to come with an online process to handle the compliant court calls. Was completed dollar line compliance court calls will be only $10. This bill will enable 210, 000 people who come through our courts each year with compliance cases to do this, to handle their cases online, it will save the defendant a trip to the court house. The online system would be a complete report system which would also reduce the work, load of clerks is fully supported by A. O. C, the clerks, the district attorneys and was reported favorably through judiciary two. The $50 [xx] and person fee hopefully would be an incentive for them to do the online, once it is available. The money will go to the general fund but could be used to help A. O. C for the setup of the system and its upkeep. Two clerks offices in North Carolina, [xx] County and [xx] County are currently doing this on their own using their own software. This should be a state wide system, not a patch work of county clerk to doing it on their own. The fiscal note on this shows a 2.5 to 7.1 million positive impact, the general fund which decreases in subsequent years once the $10 fee kicks in. But there will be a tremendous saving to the clerks and the district attorneys in amount of time that they currently spend dealing with compliance cases. Section one of the Bill basically just sets up the compliance court calls and lists the grams or the infractions that it handles and Madam Chair if it's alright with you, there is a friendly amendment from Representative Jones. Now might be a good time to run that if it so pleases the Chair Thank you. [xx] do members have the amendment forum? No? some member do some do. We'll take most of them do. Representative Jones you're recognized to present your Thank you madam Chair, as the bill sponsor said this is a friendly amendment that we would like to see pass, what it does if you look at page two line six it deletes. That line simply says, child restraint violations. This is requested by the child fatality task force, they feel that the inclusion of

child restraint violations would send the wrong message concerning their work to encourage the use of child restraint on behalf of the bill sponsor, he can speak that we would ask that this amendment be passed. Any questions or comments on the amendment? I do Representative Stum I believe I support the amendment, but I'm of the child fatality task force, I don't remember that ever coming up. Did somebody hear from the child fatality the task force Representative [xx] I will let [xx] [xx] to speak to this since they contacted me Representative Glazier you are recognized Thank you Mr. Chair, thank you Representative Stum, the child Fatality Task Force Director and I guess staff member send a letter as I recall, after we passed [xx], and indicated that they had some concern, and attached some documents showing some issues with respect to similar provision I guess that had occurred in another state, and compliance issues over time, and sort of messaging issues and so they requested formally, I don't think it was ever a form or both, but they requested formally that the sponsors of the bill consider withdrawing this given its collateral applications and the sponsors agree.  Representative Sam follow up.  I support the amendment I go forward without saying therefore that test not next since the bill was introduced, I don't think we should use that as a reason. OK, any other question or comment on the amendment? OK, Representative Jones moves for adoption of the amendment, all in favor indicate by saying aye? Any opposed? The amendment is adopted Rebecca Mendel is here for the presentation with the questions Representative Reives. Thank you Madam Chair, I know you had a quick question that I think we went over in J2, but I just want to make sure I'm clarifying on the compliance issues, if somebody goes before courts that's where compliance peak kicks in, but if they get a dismissal in court then they still just get a flat dismissal with no compliance cost, is that correct? That is correct. Representative Jones. Madam Chair for a motion at the appropriate time. OK, I have Representative Paul indicate that already, are there any other questions before we move, Yes Representative Hastings. Let us just clarify what Representative Reives just passed, I'm sorry I haven't had time to really focus on the bill but. So if you move like we did recently, and let's say your wife goes on the DMV site to change the address, and she actually thinks she's changed it, I mean all indications are the address has been updated and then she asked me to go verify and try it, I go on and I verify that, and I go to the website and it looks like I've changed her address, and you go for a couple of days and she, or week or whatever, two weeks however long, and she does not receive the updated he drivers license so at that point I say, You might want to go to the DMV office just to make sure. And she goes, and she says, and they tell her that, Well no, actually your address has not been updated. Even though you think you're electronically updated, there was a malfunction. So at that point there is without putting a citizen to undue burden, there still is a way to get out of paying this $50 under that kind of circumstance, is that correct? Representative McNeil. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not sure I've 100% followed about what you're saying, but basically what Representative Rieves[sp?] is saying is if on the day of court if you're charged with one of these crimes that's listed here in the bill on the day of court if you go to court and prove to the district attorney that you have complied with the violation it will be dismissed. at no charge there will be no charge to them. However if they want to handle the case prior to that they will be a $50 convenience cost until the online system is developed by AOC which this bill directs them to do. Once that is you can set it home in the comfort of your home, and handle it through the internet for a $10 cost. So it will keep as a stated around 210,

000 out of people out of our court houses every year. Follow up. So if you're really busy have a heavy patient load workload whatever in that circumstance that we were under arose and we just wanted to call or go visit the DA and say hey you know we thought that this was updated, we felt like the was updated, could the DA at that point say, 'That's fine, you did the best you can do we're not going to charge you anything, you've got your address up [xx] now go back to [xx] and no calls from the government only if you go, by this bill, only if you go on the day of Representative Collins? Just a quick question, I just want to make sure, I think from what representative [xx] said I finally understood what [xx] is all about. You can still do things the old way but this gives you a new without going to court is that correct? That is correct. Representative [xx] But that follow up will cost money correct It would cost 50 dollars until the online system [xx] it will still cost 50 dollars eternally but also once the AOC gets the online system up then it will only be 10 dollars so Anticipate where they were the online system up withing probably less than a year so yes or no.   Any additional questions? Representative Barry recognized for motion.  Thank you mum, Chairman. I would like to move favorable to the new  PCS but the amendment role in to the election. I think I did that correct. Is this the PCS? No.     Okay so we are in the amendment into a new PCS I do for my right for change. Excellent, members we've made regulation, all in favor indicate by saying aye,   Aye!  Any congratulations we are favorable on House bill 192. Alright one more item on the agenda. House Bill 615 probation violation court cost and also Representative McNeil you're recognized to present your bill.  Thank you Madam committee for them trying to present House Bill 650 to you. The PCS will establish one term $50 cost of court charged against the probationer when found to be in violation of their probation. In North Carolina a person placed on probation must abide by many rules established by the courts and the law. Whenever a probationer is reported back to a court for a probation violation, it takes up valuable court time for the clerks, the judges, the district attorneys and the probation officers. Between 2010/11 and 13/14, there was an average of 48, 948 violations charged with an average of 69, 256 probation violations. I believe you can see from this average that the numbers of probation violations are huge and take up a lot of court time. To my knowledge the courts have never charged any of the costs of these proceedings to the defendant. Court costs are a routine part of the judicial system and charged on all other violations under North Carolina law unless waived by the court. The probationer is charged supervision fees to defray the cost of supervision, so the idea of their helping to pay for the violations of law is not uncommon. I believe it's time to make the probationers who violate conditions whose probation responsible for a small part of the cost of prosecuting and adjudicating these roughly 49 to $50000 number of violations every year. The fiscal notice establishes that this would raise approximately 2.5 million per year for the general fund. Thank you, I have a few people for questions, Representative Hager[sp]   Like the bill, [xx] proper time Thank you, Representative Jones, ok are there any other members with questions? Representative Carney[sp]. Well this is news, so what would happen if for instance they did not have the 50$ to pay? .  Well, and I think it's probably why you see the fiscal aid is so low with the current system a person on probation can basically only be reported back if they have abscond or re-commit. So what you see is a lot of times probationers do finish their probation without paying the original court cost, so this would just simply be the same thing. I don't think there's really anything the courts are going to do.

I think in some cases at in the end of their probationary period there may be, not necessarily allaying, but something filed like a civil action so that if they ever get a tax refund or something like that in the future, it could be paid. But nothing is, there is no method in here that's going to out and make them pay it, but that's true with their original court cost. Follow up. I'll just.   OK, Representative Collins.   Just this, I like the fact that these folks like everybody else the course [xx] this makes it uniform, also like the fact that it adds $21/2 million to our general fund, I just hope nobody has come up with a new touch credit to spend that new windsor[sp?] Thank you. Representative Reesee. Thank you mum chair with the Bills passive commissions I could add more bit to Representative Carney the question, Could you repeat that please? I was saying with the bill sponsors permission I could add a little bit that representative Conel was asking about if I understood it correctly. Why I would defer to the Chair on that. You may make a comment about the down here. Thanks what it is this is going to do is the same as it happens with any other causes it says that a violation time normally when I have these violations they have actual Attorneys fees things of that sort is going to be added down to the bill which is whether representative Magnill was referring to so wont be something that if they don't have $50 on the spot that they could ever get put in jail for only think that sort that's just going to be added to the new embeddedness and then at the end as he stated once everything is done if they haven't paid their cost the judge will have an option of all the things are done to change that to a civil judgement to be [xx]. Well, any other questions by members of the committee? At this point I recognize Representative Hager for a motion.  Thank you Madam Chair, I have be favorable in House Bill 615 and can members inhibit motion all those in favor signify by saying aye? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. They have to favor the part, and this committee may have an effort for the basis is adjourned.