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 | September 22, 2015 | Committee Room | Finance Committee

Full MP3 Audio File

Committee will  come to order please? Members will take their seats. Good afternoon. As we're preparing pages today Thomas Bar from Chuclkle, Whitney Senator Cook, Christian Dean from Wayne County senator Pate and present now Ashborough Senator Tillman. Max Forest from Riley Senetor Su Chen, Mazy Meredith Wake Forest, Senator Bafflett, Anna Grabley Ashboro, Senator Tillman Abigail Way Ahsborough, senator Tillman, Joshua May, probably Abigel Way [xx] from Ahsborough, Senator Tillman and Savannah from Dunn, Senator Jackson. We have two bills on the calendar and this is the way we're going to go about the calendar today. We're going to hear House Bill 730, then we are going to recess until three o'clock or right after session at that time we will come back and we will hear House Bill 943, PCS I assume. Okay, that's what we are going to do and this is a PCS that we were going to hear on House Bill 730. So, we will entertain the motion to hear the PCS by Senator Brent Jackson All those in favor please say Aye. Opposed motion K, Senator Bracken If you would present the Bill please, House Bill 730. Welcome. okay. Senator Brock, you have an amendment? I have an amendment to send forth. Thank you. We'll let the Sergeant at arms staff. Pass out the amendment.  You're going to explain the amendment? Okay [xx] Okay. Mr. Chairman I'll go ahead  and explain the amendment as it is been passed out. This is just to correct the definition I would say motor sports that is in the conference report for house bill 117. The position in that conference report and that the senate had, was to allow the sales tax preference that currently exist for that? Industry to exist for four more years. And in doing that, the version that we pulled into the conference report erroneously did not include the most recent word changes needed by the Department of Revenue. So this is substantively no different than you ever proved, but just correct that so that going will have the right watching the statute, the sunset dates are still there. Thank you, questions or debate from the committee? Senator Bekeneth[sp?]. Move for a favorable report at the appropriate time. Well thank you sir we're handling the amendment right now and them we will move on to the PCS as amended any no discussions, all those in favor of the amendment please say Aye? Aye. Opposed No. The Ayes have it the PCS as amended before us Senator Brock please. Thank you Mr. Chairman members of the committee this has been agreed to by all parties in our 9/11 system with the Peace app, we want to make sure that with the next generation come from board that we have enough money in reserves for it before the null{sp?] have in board the money was swept by previous administrations. What we're trying to do is, create a reserve to purchase the next generation equipment. Perfect example would have been in the outage that we had yesterday, where voice communication was shut down in this area and actually another process state as well. This would be able to make sure that communication is still to go through for 911 services so that would have been a. Yesterday was a perfect example I had nothing to do with it Hise did but other than that, that showed us an example of what happens when you don't have a back up system for the next generation. This is just to make those early preparations. Thank you Senator Brok, Senator Brown. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I know there's been some debate or discussion about how the local communities and military communities can work together on some of this, does this address some of those issues at all? Yes. A lot of it is working when we're trying to create national system our communication to make sure that we learn from the problems that we had at large or none however, within our communication between the agencies And this will

make sure on the [xx] with the if you look at the public safety answering point this is where they were able to respond and I know probably with interaction with the [xx] installations that we have with the military we know that they're part as well. Can I follow up?  Has that answered your question? Yes, a little follow up. I know there was some debate about how the communities were doing it different. now I know there were some negotiations in trying to come up with a compromise to what the [xx] the same, I don't know how those discussions have gone. I didn't know of this address is there or it's still kind of out there in limbo but I know the way Jacksmall and [xx] would do it and how Put Bergen and [xx] would do it are different. Does this settle that issue. Mr. Chairman I'll like to turn it over to our specialized staff that actually works in this area with our military.  Thank you Mr chair and members of the committee, I'm [xx] from fiscal research, it's my understanding that those discussions are still underway, they are trying to work out an arrangement that's agreeable to everyone but it's something they are working on.  Senator Mckinsick Senator Brock, maybe you can help to represent staff. And this is dealing with different provisions here in the bill, which saying is the standard approve that a plaintiff would need to file in a case dealing with a public safety telecommunicator [xx] it's changing it from clear and convincing evidence, to propond it to the evidence. So I'm trying to get some clarity as to why there is a need to there's part and approve in these type of cases, and there's a staff member who can help with why we're doing that. It looks as if there was some language is some prior bill, I'm not quiet sure why we're doing it in this particular at this time, because it does certainly raises the standard approve that are playing if we need to find if 911 dispatch here were in error, or did something improper. Is there's somebody who can help with that I? Can you answer that? Who want to tackle that? Yes sir you were same change that was made in senate bill 2015 71 earlier this year, this makes it specifically in statutes that provide limitation liability do the 911 dispatchers, but this is substantively the same change that was already enacted by the general assembly.  Quick comment, so there's no kink ever than that gives enact previously. The only change in this bill is it lists the actual, so it lists a piece ups which are the public safety answering points and it listed actual telecommunicators, to enlist the entities to which this will apply. And last quick follow-up, Certainly.   In the language that changed earlier, was there some court case are some compelling reason of justification for raising that pardon approve. I don't believe there was a Court Case, I will follow up with the staff that handle that bill I believe it was just an effort to try to limit the liability of 911 operators, and to just preacquire a greater standard of prove to prevail in the case against them. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions or comments from the committee? Do we have anyone from the public signed up for that. Again, if not we will entertain a motion to except the House Bill 7, the PCS on House Bill 730 as amended unfavorable to the original by Senator McCain is. All those in favor please say Aye, Aye. Oppose no. Motion carried. We will stand, and recess until 3pm. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.