Started. Again, we’d like to thank our sergeant of arms, Reggie Sills, Marvin Lee and Mike Clampett for always being faithful and being with us. We have a host of pages with us this morning. And ladies and gentlemen if you would stand when your name. Hannah Landy from Wake County. Hannah, I see you. Anna Morodeaux? Am I saying that right? I’m so sorry. Thank you. And Anna is from Guilford. Griffin Matsou, help me. And Griffin also is from Wake. Then there’s Thomas Moore III from Orange, I can pronounce yours. We’re glad to have you, Thomas. Haley Nelson from Mecklenberg. Haley, we’re glad to have you. And Cammy Holland from Guilford. Cammy. And Riley Pierson from Wake. And Carter, help me. Thank you, Carter, from New Hanover. We appreciate all of you being here and you get to go home at 3:00 today so I know you’re ready. It’s been a [LAUGHTER] tiring week for you. We appreciate you being here. Members if you take your seat, we’re going to start on our agenda. Senator Tillman’s Senate Bill 105, clarify political sign ordinance. ?? Senator Tillman, welcome to the committee. Representative Brawley? Representative Brawley moves that we have the PCS before us for the purpose of discussion. All in favor will say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed will say no. Senator Tillman, we have a PCS. Would you like for staff to explain for that for you? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If the staff would run through it quickly, Madame Chair, thank you. And thank you for inviting me over here and for having me first today. I love you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We always are glad to have the Senate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The PCS presented for 105 section 1 of the bill clarifies that a municipal political sign ordinance may apply to state highways that are within the corporate limits, and the second part of the bill is what the PCS is, it adds a new provision unrelated to the first provision that would add the towns of Elizabethtown and Matthews to the state health plan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, are there questions for the staff? Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My question is on adding the towns to the state health plan. Maybe one of the bill sponsors would tell me what the background is on that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’d be me. Thank you for your question, Edgar. The request came from both towns. They’re small towns, and in the current excellent operation of the healthcare market, they’re having difficulty covering their employees. The way this will will work is actuarial notes are being prepared to ensure there’s no impact to the state whatsoever. The towns will be responsible for all the costs associated with putting their employees, and this is only employees. Retirees are nto included, on the state health plan. If additional coverage for dependents is added, the town will still be responsible for paying that. There’s also a provision in the bill that if they pay late, they pay a late fee of 1.5% per month on the overdue balance. So that the state will not have to pay anything for the towns, but will be insulated from any additional cost accruing to the state by the presence of the towns on the state health plan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Starnes, we have David Vanderweide here, I believe he can also address any of your questions. I can’t see him. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] David, sir, would you add to that conversation? [SPEAKER CHANGES] David Vanderweide from the fiscal research division. Yes, that is correct. We are preparing the fiscal committee actuarial health note on this. We have just received the data and haven’t had a chance to have the external actuaries process it. There would be no retirees. There is the potential, well the local governments will pay the premium, the employer premium into the state health plan, there is always the possibility that the analysis will show that their costs are in fact a bit higher than that premium. We just don’t know until we’ve done that analysis.
Speaker Changes: Mr ??, Speaker Changes: So you said and I'm looking for the ?? look like we got a handful of counties getting in here, Is this a trend then or just got basically everybody all the local government going into the state health plans because they cant get it onto the other market is this where we are going, Speaker Changes: David ?? Speaker Changes: ?? Representative ?? i can answer that question ?? this was a request from my local government what i will say is there are many town in the ?? over there years so we are adding ?? this is the minimal impact i have discussed about this with Representative Collins that it should be explored on a broader area ?? eventually every every town and if we are going to open it up ?? so the decision to do that is not being made now and i will have note that ?? in your hand before you have asked this to vote on the floor Speaker Changes: Madam chair, Speaker Changes: Hold up just a minute,David would like to answer this question are you seeing a trained was the question that member i ask, Speaker Changes: ?? this Bill is the only one this session yo add these two this PCS there is a bill house Bill 1213 that would allow any local government that wish to join to join the plan ?? the cost can be determined because we know that the local government would like to join under the provision, Speaker Changes: Representative Robert ?? Speaker Changes: When the state help plan was set up it as understood that may be some counties would not get health insurance because at the time making it state plans available to citizen counties as long as the make as actually ??so didn't called to taste anything but would ?? local government access to anything plan, Speaker Changes: Representative Holly, Speaker Changes: Thank you madam chair ?? in the ate health plan, Speaker Changes: Yes there are, Speaker Changes: Looking at the summary a think you'll see a lists of them, Speaker Changes: Follow up, Speaker Changes: Yes, Speaker Changes: With that ?? choose the overall health plan for the existing employees can that have an effect on the overall rates for existing employees ,David can you answer that sir, Speaker Changes: ?? it is possible these town are very small the total plans in and out the ?? roughly three billion dollars the total payments for these two towns are beyond one billion dollars so i mean i by ?? it is possible if again these due cause ?? would bump up the employee cost by state health plan by some infinite has found out Representative ??, Speaker Changes: Thank you Madam chair for the motion at the appropriate time , Speaker Changes: I'll take that motion and will continue to debate where everybody satisfies with their question Representative Luke ,thank you this would be a question for the staff i believe what about the 15 unit rule,15 government true that we have established for in certain cases as for as what a local bill is that's the question right, Speaker Changes: ?? the bill which you have before actually not written as a local act ,some of the local government were brought on as ?? becasue it's really not correct variation from a general law instead allowing governments allowing on a state wide program and so the bill before you is not a local act that's would a 15 would not come to play , Speaker Changes: ?? do you have anything to add that debate,
Ryan answered it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, let me get your names. Representative Jones. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madame Chair. I have a question regarding section 1, regarding the political sign ordinance. And I just wanted to ask are these state highways or within the corporate limits of a municipality and what we’re doing here is allowing the municipality to set the ordinance on the signs. And I don’t know if Senator Tillman’s still here or if staff would answer this, but I guess my question is who would ultimately be responsible for the enforcement? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff? I’m sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No you go ahead if you want to. Yeah, you speak with more authority. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’re on the original part of the bill, so Senator Tillman did have to step out. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So under the statute regulating signs, there’s a provision that says that municipalities can by ordinance either prohibit or regulate the placement of the signs, only on municipal streets. And if there’s no ordinance, then general law applies and basically I think DOT is responsible, general speaking, for the regulation of signs. And so what this provision does is say that they can as part of their city ordinance also regulate the placement of signs on the state highways that are within the municipal limits. So my understanding from when this bill was introduced last year was that part of the issue was that frankly the cities had more resources to deal with the signs than DOT. But we also have the league here who might be able to address that. But that’s my understanding that the cities would be able to enforce that ordinance within their city limits. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones, do you want to address any questions to the league? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, not unless someone has a different understanding, but I interpret that answer as saying that the municipalities themselves would enforce it and not the state. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Cohen is here this morning. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think one of the issues was that people didn’t quite understand that the city ordinance didn’t apply on state streets and in many cases the enforcement officers and the candidates had no idea what was a city street and what was a state street. So it’s very confusing for everyone involved. Where it’s more likely that people will know that an area is or isn’t in the city limits. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cochran? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madame Chair. Since we just got this, I haven’t been able to read the whole thing, but going back to corporate signs or things that are not political signs, if for a family function or houses, are they in this same clause as well or are we just talking about only political signs? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cochran, this only refers to political signs and there’s a definition in the statute that says a political sign is any sign that advocates for political action and the term does not include a commercial sign. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does that answer your question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] So just to follow up, just for understanding, so if volunteers put out campaign signs for any candidate and then they’re in the wrong place, campaigns can be fined by the city but other forms of speech will not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right, this provision is limited to political signs as defined by this statute. And so the cities can’t at least under this statute. I don’t know if there’s another provision that relates to commercial signs but the provision that this bill deals with is only the political signs. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ma’am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are there limits already in the law of the amount of funds that can be accrued by one campaign? Because we had a campaign in just our city that I believe was hit with $70,000 and my opponent was hit with 10,000. So I’m just kind of wondering about this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Cohen, can you? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, cities are generally authorized to levy if it’s classified as a misdemeanor, fines of up to $100 per occurrence, so a city could choose to treat every sign as an offense, or treat all the signs as one offense. So that would really be up to the city’s ordinances to whether it deemed each placement of each sign to be a separate misdemeanor or not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ma’am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Cohen, just to clarify, just political
Speaker: Science not other science, Speaker Changes: Right cities have central authority well what happened is that legislature carved out of special rule of political science I'm not sure exactly ?? whether cities have the right to regulate the commercial science state highways and in and out of the neither ways ,but the legislature up special rule for political science that treatment involves ?? within city limits of medical campaigns ?? what the authority has the ability to regulate commercial science, Speaker Changes: That would be great, Speaker Changes: Would you like to address the question somebody from the league, Speaker Changes:??, Speaker Changes: I believe there is someone can you come to the microphone and give us your full name in your position please, Speaker Changes: Thank you madam chair ?? i have conferred to the couple of colleagues we don't ensure to that would be happy to look and get back to yu Speaker Changes: Representative wells, Speaker Changes: Thank you Madam chair ?? Speaker Changes: Wells Speaker Changes: I'm in favor if this and appreciated ?? to bring it up ,a couple of years ago ?? by carving out that special exemptions for politicians .In hope we got a month before the primary i realize the attractive of the city in which i lived in turned into political science hell ,that would be helpful for the folks running the ?? it would be more helpful if the cities actually enforce those but generally what happened in the general statue 42.Everybody just put in two line you an put science ?? and if somebody takes them down ?? so it was absolutely uncontrolled ,this clears up all the confusions ,it's now illegal puts science ?? right away but the peoples on the campaigns don't understand it ,the city officials don't understand it and everybody scared to wait into it ,this makes us very clear that the cities can enforce city law beside the city limits,we need to do this thank you sir, Speaker Changes: ?? is coined to try to address road city ?? last question if we can get into it ,otherwise I'm gonna ask the league to please respond before the that would come to the floor, Speaker Changes: ?? I'm happy to follow up with you I'm getting more information ,but i just want to point out you in your summaries see the full statues and sub section a that follows with commercial science it basically says that ?? you know authorize ?? provisions at this statue and that is said out in sub section D which says basically how big the science have to be have close they could be to the worlds and then it states that anyone who violates the chromite ?? have the authority to remove the science and ?? sneaked out it doesn't seems to ?? under the cities of commercial that's what ?? independent authority you know something in 168 would allow them and regulate ?? but i just want to point you that there is provision about commercial science in this statue but this bill doesn't address any fact , Speaker Changes: I do not believe that the members question have been properly addressed so I'm gonna ask the league to please come with her before the bill comes to the floor , Speaker Changes: Representative Madam chair , Speaker Changes: I regret on the floor yesterday disagree with my friend representative wells and matter relating to ?? but i gotta absolutely agree with him as this list today the leaders are expected to lead by example exactly your point and this right sets up to do that ?, Speaker Changes: Thank you,
...we have a PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair. My hearings not really the best in the world sometimes. I move that we give Senate Bill 105 a favorable report for the PCS and unfavorable to the bridge. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, you've heard the motion. Is there any further discussion on the motion? We can't, we don't do that until the... Representative Waddell's motion is before you. Are there further questions or concerns? If not all in favor will say aye, all opposed will say no. Thank you. Senator Tillman and Representative Brawley, good work together this morning. Representative Hager, sir, you were first on the list. House Bill 1056, Lake Lure Official Map via Annexation. We have a PCS, Representative Setzer if recognized, that we have the PCS before us for the purpose of discussion. All in favor will say aye, all opposed no. Representative Hager, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Chairwoman. This bill is PCS because we removed the deannexations of it, it got to be a little controversial. So all this map is cleaning up the map for Lake Lure due to some old map issues. They've straightened those out and we have to come to the legislature to make sure it's OK. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, are there questions? Representative Samuelson. You are recognized for a motion, seeing no other hands. Representative Starnes. I almost got it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Almost. My question is do you time to enact to the General Assembly that to clean the map up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff, would you like to answer that question, please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, ma'am. In this particular... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Greg Rooney is recognized to address that question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is Greg Rooney with the research division and they had a reference, the General Assembly made a reference to a map that can't be found and so this is correcting that map reference. The General Assembly did it and the General Assembly is going to have to go in and fix it. It's just all driven by the fact that the map can't be found. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes, we broke it, we're hear to fix it. [laughter] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson, ma'am. Your recognized for a motion. We have a PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I move that we give a favorable to the PCS for 1056, unfavorable to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, you've heard the motion. Further questions? Seeing none, all in favor will say aye, all opposed no. I believe that's unanimous. Senator McKissick on Senate Bill 871, Raleigh Durham Deannexation/Annexation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a very, very simple bill. There is no opposition. What it effectively does is deannexes about one acre of land from the City of Raleigh and annexes to the City of Durham. There's no opposition. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Martin, you're recognized, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually, just a question for Senator McKissick and then a motion. Senator McKissick, this is exactly the same form that the City of Raleigh has no objection to? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is exactly correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madam Chair. Always careful when folks in Durham are trying to steal Raleigh's land but move for a favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Or vice versa. [laughter] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, sir. We have a motion before us to give Senate Bill 871 a favorable report. Are there other questions or concerns? Seeing no hands, all in favor will say aye, all opposed no. Thank you, sir. Who's going to handle the bill for you? Representative Luebke will handle the bill on the floor. Senator McLaurin, sir, are you in the room? This is Rockingham Deannexation. Anybody want to take a stab at this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll rise and talk. [laughs] We'll let staff explain or do you want to put... [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, that's OK. Senate Bill 767, in the absence of Senator McLaurin, Representative Brawley has volunteered to have the bill before us. Staff, you want to make a stab at 767 and let the House be generous and kind to the Senate in their absence. [laughter] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Or...
Maybe it won’t turn out that way [LAUGHTER], so Seth? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ma’am. What this bill does, is it de-annexes a piece of satellite property that was annexed. Last night I spoke to the town manager to try to get the background on this. And there was a steakhouse that wanted liquor by the drink, and so they did a satellite annexation for the steakhouse and the name of it was Little Bo’s Steakhouse. Well, the steakhouse has now went out of business. The building has actually been burned. So now [LAUGHTER] the city has a piece of satellite property there, that they’re supposed to provide services for and they’re only getting taxes for just a vacant piece of property. And so that was the situation so the property owner and the city would like to just erase the annexation and only the General Assembly can de-annex property. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. And my question was, was this the entire site lot or just a portion of it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] My understanding is that it’s the whole piece. I’ll have to say I didn’t specifically ask the town manager about that. He, the representation to me was that this was just this one, I asked him was it a donut hole and he said yes. Which is just this one thing that they did to just get the restaurant. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Warren, sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madame Chair. Question for the bill sponsor. [LAUGHTER] Representative Brawley, do you know of anyone opposed to this motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] He wouldn’t have a clue. [LAUGHTER] [SPEAKER CHANGES] The true answer is no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madame Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question for the bill sponsor. [LAUGHTER] Could you even point to Rockingham on the map? [LAUGHTER] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Actually, sir, I could. Because I was born in Richmond County. And I’ve been working with Senator McLauren on some other issues related to that area, and that’s why I’m doing him a favor because that way as the Sicilians say, I don’t do favors, I collect obligations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madame Chair. As the representative from Rockingham County which is two hours North from Rockingham, [LAUGHTER] I would be pleased to make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Tine has ?? on the motion. Representative Tine, sir, you’re recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion for a favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. Are there any other questions? If not, seeing no hands, all in favor will say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed no. A matter of cleanup. Representative Starnes moves that the minutes for the previous meeting be given a motion for favorable. All in favor will say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed will say no. With that we stand adjourned.