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 | June 24, 2014 | Committee Room | Agriculture Finance Meeting

Full MP3 Audio File

Well, gentlemen, let's call the meeting to order. We're at Committee. We've got three bills on the calendar. There's some peanuts at your table, but don't eat them; they about choke you. Yeah, but anyway, these come from ??. Anyway, I think they got something other than salt on them. We're gonna hear House Bill 366. First . . . oh, yeah, that's great. Thank you, Maria. Okay, let me introduce the Pages. First, we got William Gaines from WIlmington. Thank you, William - Thom Goolsby, Harrison ?? from High Point. Harrison, good to have you here, and I'm sponsoring you; thanks for coming. And Chase Cranford from High Point. Chase, good to have you. I'm sponsoring Chase as well. Tony Garrett from Asheboro. Tony, where are you? Good to have you, Tony - Senator Tillman. Ron Burnett, Raleigh - Neal Hunt. Okay, good. Jake, I'm not sure how you pronounce your last name; Jake, are you here? Yeah, pronounce your last name for me . . . alright, sounds good. Thank you, sir. Walter Jackson from Warrenburg. Okay, Walter, good to have you here - Senator McLaurin. Noah Debois, Hendersonville, where are you? Okay. I might not have said your name properly, but . . . alright, thank you - Senator Apodaca. And Andrew Smith from Raleigh, Georgetown. Andrew, good to have you here, thanks. Okay, Sargeant-at-Arms, we got Giles Jeffries, Giles, where are you? Thank you, Giles. Matt Urban. Matt, thank you, good to have you here. Charles Marsalas, our professional musician. Thank you, Charles. Ernie Sherrill. Thank you, sir. Good to have you, Ernie, thanks for being here. And Canton Lucas. Well, I guess he's in the restroom. Oh, here he is. Okay, good. Okay, I think we're gonna have House Bill 366 in C-format 2014. This is a PCS. I need a motion for us to . . . center forward, thank you very much. We have a motion to hear the PCS. All those in favor, signify by saying, Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed? Okay, Senator Brock, I assume you and Chief is going to present this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just need to say something real quick. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. You want to do this now? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Just a second, Andrew. Jeff wants to respond to something. Go ahead, Jeff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just wanted to point out that the PCS that we've just passed out is different from the one we sent you last night, but only in one respect. We realized, after we'd sent it out, that the addition that the members will tell you about are the landscape licensure piece had fees in it. We realize that when we sent it to finance, so we needed to put the code it in to let the clerks know. Subsequently, everything is exactly the same, but if you look and just happen to notice there's a different code, that's why. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, if you gentlemen are ready, charge ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chair, members of the Committee. This bill, first in its history, we first started off in J-2 because of our time constraints and working on the coal ash last week, so we went ahead and ran it through J-2 to get through some of the legal parts of the legislation. If you start with the section one - I'm gonna handle the first half of the bill and Senator Jackson will handle the second half - the maintaining the confidentiality of the investigations for Ag operations fitted in J-2. We took the language from States Ethics Act that it will remain confidential until public. Section number two, the authority of governments to adopt ordinances relating to fertilizers. We've already voted on that in regular form. The regular form bill, that was where we had certain municipalities and counties, we're looking at adopting ordinances that would require individual labeling for fertilizers, which would be almost a nightmare for the providers.

Speaker: ?? Section 2,the section is the landscape contractors statue steed also with the part of the ripper form section 4 this was came out the ?? study commissions the anticipation in the commercial vehicle safety alliance in North Carolina standard inspection program.This allows a free flow of not a free flow we don't have a regulations are able to be stop by if you have a good vehicle and good safety record ?? ad this would help us cut down some of our time ,section 5 the terms in clarifies the meaning of the terms planting and harvesting seasons and planting and harvesting period in persons applied to the ?? regulations relate ?? earlier in the senate pass with a large majority.The section 6 is to mean the chairmanship of the ?? study commission ?? before it was destined to certain chairs of the ?? committee section 7 ?? law enforcement responsibilities f the department of the ?? and also in the commission record that will move hills law enforcement officials around the states and ?? changes in responsibilities or changes in times of it's need to move and sleep around, Speaker Changes:?? is the best of the department ?? life resource commission are both OK with this language and this language also passes ?? recently from the senate,section 9 adds agricultural facilities first degree trespassing of this one is provided in ?? last week ?? and agricultural facilities and reason why we are doing this because agricultural facilities ?? and more and more important ?? so we figured it be a good language there.section 10 requires written consent of altering vehicles and private property concerned the owners can be argued in many different ways ?? and clears it down this language i also voted in J2 last week ,Section 11 allows drainage ?? to maintain ditches and buffer zones general stature 165- 82.1 b states it ?? can maintain canals ?? allowing the canals and written ladders advising that buffer rules do not apply.The buffer rules ?? travel ways on one side of the surface water ?? access isn't allowable activity ,section 12 periodic inspections this is one of the provisions that is ?? J2 last week .There are three inspections that you can but ?? annual inspection and passes then they are examining in having government ?? inspecting their homes released in one year,security groves section no 13 is also voted in J2 last week currently if you have multiple access in your establishments currently certain Americans have security grills ,these grills also ?? from inside without a key they are allowed to have a commercial facility without security grills and all the access provided the key from the current requirement of opening without a key ,section 14 is the effect of date in the bill signed in the ?? and will be glad in attempt to answer questions on any section,

OK. Senator, go ahead. You had a question to start with. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rabin, Rabin, Senator Bingham, I dropped my nametag. I apologize. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was going to call you Senator Bill but go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s what I like. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a question for staff or for Senator Brock. It’s for my clarification on Section Four, the Commercial Vehicle Alliance, et cetera, et cetera. Does that in any way compromise or does it go along with Section Five with the ability to conform with the Federal Government and the MAP-21 Program should it go forward? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, did you have anyone in particular or just whoever can answer this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can attempt. I don’t know about the MAP-21 part Senator Rabin. But basically what Section Four does, in other states especially our Southeastern states around us you’ll see, for instance you own a tractor-trailer and it gets stopped and inspected today they will give you a sticker so that when you go through the next weigh station they know that you’ve already been inspected and they will not do it again, in other words kill another hour-and-a-half of your time. North Carolina has that program we just haven’t been really using it that well. So, we’re asking them to continue using that program but use it more useful than they have in the past. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I understand. That will be fine. I was just wondering. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, thank you for doing that. A lot of my logging friends are going to be very happy with that section. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We done it just for you Senator Bingham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, well you didn’t do it for me. I’m out of it now, but I’ve experienced it in the past and I’m sure a lot of other fellows have too. But anyway, thank you Senator Jackson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well it will apply not only to logging but also any other agricultural trucks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right. Good. OK, Senator Tucker, did you have a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. I’ve got a couple of questions. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I suppose this will be for Senator Jackson. Does this require people who are transporting agricultural products with a CDL license to have log books and all those kinds of things, and hours of operation that the Feds require? Here, if you’ve got a guy that drives back and forth transporting cucumbers 50 miles from your farm and he drives a tractor-trailer back and forth he’s got to have log books and everything like that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tucker we’ve not changed any of the federal regulations or state regulations pertaining to this particular provision. All we’ve done is ask them to start utilizing the program they have in place whereas if they are inspected that they at least get that sticker that gives them that out the next time they go through a weigh station or are stopped. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. One follow-up Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. Go ahead Senator Tucker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Who wants to handle this written consent to operate all-terrain vehicles on private property? I’ve got a question about it. You want me to go ahead and fire away? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Fire away. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson in J2 when this came through requested, or he, correct me if I’m wrong Senator Jackson, I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, this Senator Jackson, Jeff Jackson from Gaston County. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The one with hair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, the one with hair. The one with hair. Yes sir. He wanted, if I recall correctly, if someone gave someone written permission to ride an all-terrain vehicle on their property that they would be held liable if that individual got hurt on their property. I.e., meaning that the landowner would have to take the all-terrain vehicle guy out and show him where the ruts were, up on where a cliff is or whatever and he would have some liability for that. Does this language do that here as well or not? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tucker, from my understanding I was not in J2, but I was made aware of Senator Jackson’s question, which I thought was an excellent question. To my knowledge that has been corrected. Am I correct in that or not? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chris if you’d like to answer that for us please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. The language that’s in here now is the same as what was in J2. So the only duty would be the duty owed a trespasser which is just to not willfully or wantonly inflict harm upon the person riding the ATV. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tucker, I think Senator Davis, Jim Davis, brought it up. It should be the duty, the responsibility of the rider in that regard. What would happen if we start putting more and more conditions upon the property owner, they’re just going to shut it down completely from anyone traveling over the land with an ATV and then you’re just going to have more issues. But as Senator Davis brought up, someone who does ride trail bikes and everything else it is an issue to be…

... upon the rider themselves, but if not, what’s going to happen is that the property owners are going to start shutting this down altogether, and then there won’t be any place to ride at all unless they’re doing it illegally. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, just one quick follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. Go ahead, Senator Tucker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brock, you are sure that the way this language is written here, that is in fact the scenario that will take place, the way that this language is written? [SPEAKER CHANGES] As Senator ?? would say, I’ve got my law degree up here through osmosis. I don’t know; we might want to ask Senator Jackson, the prosecutor, to ask him how you would handle it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tucker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Final question, final question. Somebody define “duty of care” for me and what that involves. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just one second, Senator Tucker. Can we have ?? respond to this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Tucker, there’s different degrees of duty of care for trespassers and invitees. The duty of care that’s owed a trespasser is just that the person who owns the property can’t willfully or wantonly effect harm on the person riding the ATV, so there’s no duty to warn or anything like that; they just can’t intentionally inflict harm on the person on the ATV basically. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So you can still shoot out the tires? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, you cannot. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m going to… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, can I comment one more? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly, go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tucker, you’ve raised a valid concern along with Senator Jackson, and I will get with staff, and if we do need to tighten this down, I’ll run an amendment on the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, did you want to comment? I’m sorry Senator Ford, but I’ll be right back to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I could just comment on this section, and the comment that I made in J2, just to catch everybody up, was about this and I appreciate you raising this issue. The concern here is that this actually lowers the standard of care that exists right now, and it might actually end up hurting people, and the situation is this: If a kid with a four-wheeler wants to ride on some farmer’s property, he goes up and asks the farmer for permission – “Can I ride on your property?” Right now if the farmer says yes, the farmer has to say “By the way, there’s a cliff,” or “There’s barbed wire and you should look out for it.” That’s the duty of care that’s owed right now, so what this does is on the one hand it raises the burden that the kid has to now get written consent, while lowering the burden that the farm owner has by having to not make the kid aware of any dangers on the property whatsoever, so the kid’s under the impression of “Well now I’ve got his consent, I can ride around.” There might be barbed wire out there, there might be a cliff out there. I understand we don’t want to encumber farm owners, we don’t want it to make it so that ATV owners can’t go anywhere and don’t have any recreational options, but on the other hand, if there’s barbed wire out there, we want people to feel like they need to tell people that. I think that’s something important. So that was my concern with this section. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator Jackson, but you’d think most people would realize at a farm that there’s going to be barbed wire somewhere. But anyway, let’s see. We had Senator Ford. You had a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a couple questions. First question I have is, is there a fiscal note for this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry, what was the question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there a fiscal note for this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t know. Staff, did we…? Did anyone request a fiscal…? Jeff, did you want to respond to that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t believe there is. I don’t know before the PCS that there was anything in the bill that would have had a fiscal note. The only thing I can think of now would be the landscape licensure piece, but again, this is going to have… As I mentioned at the beginning, it has a serial referral now to Finance, and so it should have a fiscal note in there I would assume. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly, Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think it’s important that we get that fiscal note associated with this bill, and I also thought that there was two creations of two commissions – two newly-created commissions. Does that not warrant some revenue associated with the creation of those two commissions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a second, Senator Ford. We’ll answer that question for you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, go ahead. Can you answer that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Ford, are you referring to the Landscape Commission? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Which sections are you referring to, one on the fiscal note and then your last statement? Which sections are you referring to? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, there’s a creation of a commission. I think on the landscape is one, and then… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Agriculture and Farm…

…Awareness. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And the Agriculture and Forestry Awareness. There’s two new commissions that are created. [SPEAKER CHANGES] They are both existing commissions currently, from what I understand. Now, the landscape one might be new, Senator Brock. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But Ag Awareness… [SPEAKER CHANGES] But Ag and Awareness is already there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just changing membership. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just changing membership on that one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. But on the landscape one it would be, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be appropriate to see what the financial implications are for that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. Go ahead Senator Ford. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Section Two regulates the local authority to regulate fertilizer. Either identical, Mr. Chairman, or similar sections in Senate Bill 38, which is to amend Environmental Laws of this year, 2014, that passed the House on Thursday and was sent back to the Senate for concurrence. There’s also a similar section in Senate Bill 493 of the Regulatory Reform Act that’s working its way through the House right now. For staff, what is the difference between these three different fertilizer sections in these bills? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chris, if you can respond. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator Ford, the only thing that would be different in this bill is that on page two, that underlined section on lines 41 to 43 it just clarifies that, “Nothing in the section shall prohibit a county or a city from using its ordinance-making power to regulate explosive, corrosive, inflammable or radioactive substances.” For example, if you had a barn and there was a large amount of fertilizer in there the local government could require signage to inform first responders in case of a fire that there’s explosive materials or something like that. But that’s going to go into effect only if Senate Bill 38 becomes law. If not then the whole section under 2B would become law. So, the only difference is just the fertilizer piece…I mean the corrosive and flammable and explosive materials piece. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Ford, did you have a follow-up question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. But I’m waiting unless Senator Jackson or Senator Brock want to respond to it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Ford, this will actually make the language that’s in this one right now the most up-to-date language we have to make sure we take care if there is explosive material that’s there. That being said, if 38 passes and this is not in we’ll use the best language in another piece available. Normally Technical Corrections will write the repealing language to repeal the one that does not have the best language. We just put it in different places because it’s before we get it straightened out. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Follow up. Last follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section Three relates to the landscape contractor license statutes. This section appears to be adding more regulation whereas Senate Bill 493 the intent was to be less regulation. For staff, what’s the difference between Section Three in the Senate Bill 493 and the Regulatory Reform Act? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The 493 that you referred to, is that a House bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] 493 is a Senate bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chris, or… [SPEAKER CHANGES] The challenge that I’m having here, Mr. Chairman, is that you’ve got similar language in… [SPEAKER CHANGES] The two bills. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, actually one is in three different bills but this one is in two different bills. I just want to make sure that we are one, not being redundant. But two, for me, not being overly regulatory in the regulation of this industry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, I understand. OK, Jeff who did you want to respond to this or do you want to come back to this in a minute or…? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I apologize. I didn’t hear all of the question. But I think I understand the concern. We as staff try to keep an eye on these multiple provisions and let the members know and advise them once one of them passes that the other should be removed from the other bills to avoid any potential conflict. Because if they get out of sync and one gets slightly changed and engrossed on top of the other one at a later date it can completely mess up the statute, so we try to keep an eye on that and let members know. But that is something to be concerned about and to watch out for, to avoid. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, could I address that? Senator Ford, I think this language is what the League of Municipalities and the Department of Ag and all of us agreed on originally. So I don’t know if that can help you or not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It does. I just want to make sure, though, in terms of a comparison of this language and Senate Bill 493. Again, the heart of the question is, one, I think 493 was intended to help deregulate and this appears to be more regulatory and I just want a balance between the two. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I understand. I understand. Good point and we’ll follow up on that, Senator Jackson and staff.

Senator Bryant, did you have a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. I have a question about the fertilizer section. And only because I’m just curious. I’m need the staff and the sponsors, how are we regulating fertilizer now, is my question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]?? Can you respond? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, my understanding is that there are not a lot of regulations on fertilizer right now, in the same way that pesticides or something like that might be regulated. I believe department of agriculture staff may be here. If they have any further input. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So are you aware of any existing local ordinances that we would be repealing by this, is what I’m curious about. Or is this just preventive, prospective or are we actually repealing something. That’s just my question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe this is more preventive. I’m not aware of any existing local ordinances. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, Senator Bryant. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The reason I ask is I have recently received some complaints from citizens about odors that they feel are related to fertilizer. Who would regulate that? Is that regulated by anybody? Is that by health or, and that’s manure and not fertilizer? It is fertilizer though, right? No? Okay. Staff, who regulates that and are we impacting that, the ability to regulate that if it can be regulated? I don’t know. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can tell you no, but anyway but we may have someone here from Ag that may want to respond to that, that would better suit you, I’m sure what process we’re getting a little off. Joy, you’re in the hot seat. If you would give us your name and I think you’ve got several questions but anyway. Do you understand the questions or would you like Senator Brock to repeat them? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, Joy Hicks, legislative liaison at the department of ag and fortunately I have a great team with me here today. I have our environmental policy person and I also have our director of plant industry. So your first question in regards to regulating fertilizer, the department is involved in that because we look at what’s on the label and what’s in terms of weight and content, and so we regulate fertilizer in that regard. When it comes to smell, that would be regulated by ?? and air quality, if it were a fertilizer concern. So if you have further questions I’d be happy to answer them or help, get help. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, Senator Bryant. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does this provision prevent anything we’re doing right now? Any existing ordinances or any existing activity that you or any other agency is doing? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, Senator Bryant, this provision first sprang from a concern that we had that we were hearing that local governments were beginning to look at regulating personal use of fertilizers and that begat a larger concern of going down the road of when and where personal home use and for commercial agricultural purposes when fertilizer could be applied. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And so my question is, are any existing ordinances, excuse me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you aware of any existing ordinances or rules or procedures that are currently in place, that are eliminated by this provision? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, Senator Bryant, we are not aware of any at this time, but nor do we want to with the number one industry in agriculture in this state, be regulated by that and so this is preemptive language along with that you’ve seen in other bills that would require us and ?? to report back to the ERC as we hear of more local ordinances that would impact our ability to work and to regulate with our own state regulations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Joy. We’ve got Senator Hartsell, you have a question? Okay, does anyone else have a question on the committee? Senator Wade. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to move for a favorable response. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, let me hold that for just a moment, see if there’s any other questions. If not seeing any, it seems to be the appropriate time. So all those in favor of the PCS as amended, signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed.

Motion carries. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. OK, we've got House Bill 379. I don't know whose. OK. PCS. OK. We have a motion for the PCS all those in favor signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, motion carries. Senator Wade, you've got it. What? We don't, oh, yeah, yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't realize they had it. We'll begin in just a moment. PCS being handed out, so once everyone gets a copy, we'll go from there. OK, Senator Wade, if you would, go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, actually Senator Rabin was going to present this, but I think I can probably get through it. Basically what it does is merely allowing the North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board to increase their fees, and I can't ever remember as a veterinarian any time when they have increased them, and certainly the cost for going and doing inspections now has increased and they can't do any more than 15% a year and they can't increase it any more than the maximum that's already in the law. Right now the fees are below the maximum that's in the law. If you have questions, I'll try to answer those. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, let's see if we have any questions from any committee members. It's good to have fees being raised to the veterinary group and the veterinarians are the ones here requesting it, so Senator Rabin do you want to move for a favorable report? OK, we have a motion for a favorable report for the PCS, all those in favor signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you Senator Wade, our local veterinarian. Thank you. OK, we have House Bill 1139. Representative Samuelson. We're going to close the committee and adjourn before she begins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No you're not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm just playing, go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh, that's what I was going to say. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, this is a bill that came out of the ERC. They used to run them almost every year or two, but they have not run one since 2009. According to the state constitution, in order for lands that have been acquired or modified in the natural and historic preservation, preserve, they have to be approved by a 2/3 votes of both the House and the Senate. We have not done this since 2009, and yet 17,000 acres have been added, and so this is an opportunity for us to actually comply with the constitution and make those additions and changes. I know of no opposition to the bill. I would be happy to answer questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're good, you know that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Ford, you move for a favorable report? OK, look how well you're treated in the Senate. I wish we could say the same, but anyway, we have a motion for a favorable report. All those in favor. Here I was packing on her, and I, certainly. Go ahead. No, I asked for questions, but I didn't see your hand, Senator Tucker. Go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson, how does a natural or historic property get deleted. Are any deleted in this bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, there are a few that are deleted, and same process when they're listed in here. Usually, though, the only reason they'd be deleted is if they had to do an easement for something. One of them in here is where a property had been resurveyed and the survey showed the boundary wasn't in the right place. They're generally considered minor adjustments and they work with everybody but they still have to go through this process per the constitution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So what you're saying. Follow up, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly, go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So what you're saying is is that once it's deemed a national or historic property it never gets deleted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, not that it never gets deleted. It can only get deleted if it comes back here and passes with a 2/3 vote. So what you have, there are one or two deletions in there, let's see, let me find, let's see, one of them was, like there was an exchange if you look at 13c with South Mountain State Park they're doing some exchanges, so one

?? adding ones deleting let's see. On fifteen concerning jockey ridge the statue to accept a twelve hundred square foot parcel of land for an easement for a waterline. So any additions or deletions come back here and go through this process. SPEAKER CHANGES: OK. Let's make sure no one else has any questions, I've got a motion on the floor. 'K all those in favor of the PCS as a mandate signifying with saying aye. Polls motion carries thank you representative Sampson your goals passing and I don't know of a serial referral. SPEAKER CHANGES: Thank you. SPEAKER CHANGES: OK. Thank you for being here. Senator forward. OK. If we haven't got any further business we do stand adjourned thank you ladies and gentlemen.