Good morning. We're winding down the session. You know that the things need to move along quickly, so if everyone would give their attention please so that we can get along and now we'll ask that if the Sergeant at Arms needs to allow people to sit on the back rows where they're already sitting and in other spots if we have overflow in the room, so if the Sergeant at Arms would do that, please. And our Sergeant at Arms staff today is Anderson Mettis, Steve McCaid, Guiles Jeffrey and Billy Fetcher, and thank you all for what you do. We're going to start with the House Bill 1114 this morning, Elk Park Deed Transferring Property, Senator Soucek, is he here to run? OK, thank you, sir, and you have the floor. Senator Soucek, I'm sorry. Members of the committee, this is a local bill for the town of Elk Park in Avery County. Senator Soucek and I share Avery County. We're both in agreement. Basically states that the registered deeds won't record a deed of property in the town of Elk Park unless the tax has been paid on that property. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Dobson. Any questions from the committee? Hearing none, we have a motion for a favorable report from Senator Tucker. All those in favor, please say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed like so. Motion carried. Thank you, Representative Dobson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Next, House Bill 1154, Moore County Schools Property Transfer, Senator Tillman, good morning. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good morning. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's good to see you at your age standing up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, this is a simple transfer of this school building to the town of Taylortown and it does need approval from the General Assembly. Nobody that I know in Moore County's opposed to this thing, so I ask your ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? Questions, we have a motion for a favorable report from Senator Cook. All those in favor, please say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oppose, like said. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion carried. Third bill, House Bill 1155, Pinehurst Annexation. Senator Tillman, you want to run that one too since you're on your feet today? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask staff to explain this bill just a little bit for me if they would. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And you have an amendment, would you like to do that now? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do have an amendment, and they can explain the amendment. It's technical in nature. Well, it just changes the date. June is past and it makes it a July date. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. Is staff going to? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator. OK. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gregory with the research division. What House 1155 does is it is a satellite annexation of about 65 lots and a cotswald subdivision near Pinehurst. It is a satellite annexation. The city had voted in favor of pursuing the legislation in addition to the annexation it is going to allow an assessment on the 65 lots to improve the roads. I talked to the city manager of Pinehurst and he said when it rains a lot the roads flood and it takes a long time to drain and so the deal between the city and the developer who still owns I think 14-65 lots, everyone kind of coalesced an arrangement where the city would take 1/3 of the cost and then 2/3 of the cost of redoing the roads so they don't flood is going to be assessed to the property owner, so 1155 does two things. It does the satellite annexation and it sets up the assessment regime and then as the Senator said, the amendment, the first edition of the bill just has a June effective date which was missed and this makes it a July 31st effective date. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Senator Hartsell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I'm not mistaken, property in a municipality can be assessed for roads now anyway, can it not? I mean, I'm just, how does this differ from that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think that's on a contiguous annexation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Im just, if it's in the municipality, you can assess, I'm just.
does this differ an any way from the- [SPEAKER CHANGES] It does differ. They did not, I'm not sure what aspect of the general law they could not meet but the regime that they wanted, this 2/3, 1/3 and assessments that were what was worked out couldn't be done on the general law so you're right. The general law allows this but this particular plan would not fit. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, and I assume besides the developer the other land owners have essentially agreed to this as well. Is that accurate or no? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tillman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, nearly all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay before we get any deeper into this there has been an amendment brought forward. Let's vote on the amendment and then we'll talk some more, okay? There has been an amendment brought forward so all of those, any discussion on the amendment? If not, those in favor of the amendment will please say aye. Opposed no. The amendment carries and now we will talk about the bill as amendment and finish discussion. Senator Hise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I know over the past couple of years we've done a lot of discussions here on annexations and I believe the conclusion was that the property owners had the right 7 by petition to hold a vote and the majority of the property owners living in the development would then have to agree to be annexed by the municipality. Is that protection's still in place for the residents who actually live in this annexed area? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tillman, do you have or staff? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. They've had public hearings and they've had the votes and the manager of the citizens that I have talked are, they believe they've got to have this bill to do this but they've met all of those requirements of the public hearing and, as far as I know, the votes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator Tucker. Questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tillman, would you consider this an involuntary annexation? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir, I wouldn't. Would you? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. If not all of the homeowners and folks involved are not on board with it it would be involuntary to the city of Pinehurst with the annex- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, Senator Tucker, you've got a great observation there so if two out of a hundred don't want it don't you think we ought to go ahead with it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are those the numbers? You said nearly all. Nearly isn't defined, you don't know. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't know, but the great majority. I've been told great majority. I didn't go to the public hearings but if you and I would pray that it never rains in Pinehurst we wouldn't need to do this. It only happens when the streets flood and it rains and they want the storm water fix. That's all they want, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion between you two? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not today, tonight. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, just the fact that the- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Lerner do you have anything to bring to light on that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you want me to answer the- [SPEAKER CHANGES] You may. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The city provided this document from the developer and so in the last vote, according to the development entity, there was 31 yes, 9 no, 11 no responses. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Thank you. Senator Tucker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does that answer your question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, it's involuntary. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Okay. Any further discussion or debate, Senator Stein? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Tillman, is this one of those donut holes or do those exist in Pinehurst? I remember a couple years ago there was a story about a number of donut holes in Pinehurst. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You may call this a donut hole. It doesn't resemble a donut but it is non-contiguous so we do need this action today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do those still exist or have those all been incorporated into Pinehurst? Do you know? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I understand there still a couple more. I know we fixed Foxfire just two weeks ago and this would take care of one more and I just try to take them one at a time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion? Okay, hearing none, the question before the committee is House Bill 1155 as amended. All of those in favor please say aye. Opposed no. Motion carried. Thank you, Senator Tillman. Our next is House Bill 1212, Senator Gunn. While that is coming forward I will recognize our senate pages for this morning. They are Carly Robertson from Cary, Weston Davis, or is that Davis Weston? From Raleigh.
?? We need to work on our penmanship some, pages. Mike ?? ?? from Yadkinville, Sophie Hennings, East Bend, Autumn Fulton, Pleasant Garden, and Ann Ray, from Raleigh. Welcome. Hope you all enjoy the morning. Senator Gunn, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Once every 60 years or so, cities should revise and consolidate their charter, whether they need to or not. Appreciate your support, and be glad to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, would you like a little better explanation? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would, I'd like to know how they change their charter, if you don't mind, Senator Gunn. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We got lines floating around everywhere, we got all kinds of issues. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair is in agreement with Senator Apodaca. Senator Gunn, would you care to expand? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If nothing else, we've got different lines, and we need to get those righted. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate? Senator Hartsell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does it establish Home Rule in Burlington? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You want to say that again? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the charter establish Home Rule for the city of Burlington? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could you give me a definition? I'm sure it does. It's 112 pages. Would you like Representative Ross to answer that question? He is the-- [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm just--it's legit. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ross, would you like to answer that question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We can't hear you. Hit your mike please, Representative Ross. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let's let staff answer that, if they could. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can staff help us? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. I do know that the revision of this charter does not add anything to the existing authority for the town of Burlington. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Question is answered. Senator Blue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In a serious vein-- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Gunn, does this charter rewrite--I take it the city council submitted it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, and it actually for them is time sensitive. They submitted it, passed it unanimously, it passed the House unanimously. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does it in any manner change the way the city council is elected or anything of that nature? Any elections-law changes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. We have a motion for a favorable report from Senator McKissick. Any further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before us is a favorable report for House Bill 1212, committee, it is a committee substitute, rather it is not--it is not a committee substitute, I apologize. All those in favor of the motion please say aye, opposed no, motion carried. The next bill is being presented by Senator Cook, Senate Bill 788, Town of Duck/Eminent Domain. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Cook. Welcome, Senator Cook. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Chairman. Currently the law allows certain coastal counties and municipalities eminent domain power as needed to address beach erosion control or flood and hurricane protection. These governmental entities can acquire needed property through condemnation proceedings known as quick take. This local bill simply adds the town of Duck to the long list of counties and municipalities that use quick-take condemnation to protect their beach. This bill has the support of the town council and community. I know of no opposition. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Questions by the committee. We have a motion for a favorable report from Senator Brock. All those in favor of the motion please say aye, opposed no, motion carried. Thank you, Senator Cook. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, members, thank you, Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I believe our final bill this morning is going to be House Bill 1145, Insurance Registration Required for Mopeds. Senator Apodaca. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe we have a PCS to approve. We took the controversial parts out of this bill, ?? and ?? down to the state health plan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. We have a motion to approve the PCS? Here? ?? Senator Curtis. All in favor of the
motion please say aye. Opposed. Motion carried for PCS is before the committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chairman, excuse me, I promoted you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He's General Rabin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Rabin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I won't say what you didn't call me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I won't say it in public either. This is our moped bill. Some of us that were here, what, five or six years ago remember this bill. It came forth and had some spirited debate on the floor. It was an incredible experience. I think it's one of the only bills I've ever seen lose on the floor of the Senate and Senator Rand and I were both happy because we were sponsoring it. So anyway, we're resurrecting this bill. Things haven't gotten any better in the last five or six years with mopeds on our roads and as we navigate our roads and try to avoid hitting these mopeds I think it's fair for them to have a little skin in the game when it comes to insurance. And what this bill does is basically two things. Number one, they have to register the moped and number two, they must have financial responsibility. That's what it does and I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator Apodaca, ladies and gentlemen we, Senator Stein. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think we need to worry about moped riders having skin in the game when they have accidents. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, that wasn't nice now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My question is, I don't have so much a problem with the registration as I have concerns about the insurance. Have we heard from the insurance industry what a policy like this would cost a moped person. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, thank you so much for asking that. Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes indeed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have someone from the Rate Bureau and then we have someone from the Department of Insurance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, if you gentlemen would please get to a microphone and identify yourselves. Front and center, that would a nice place. Yeah, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm Tim Lucas with the North Carolina Rate Bureau. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Tim, it might be easier if you use that one. Yeah, so you don't get a crick in your neck. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm Tim Lucas with the North Carolina Rate Bureau. Currently mopeds do come under the Rate Bureau's jurisdiction. The current price for a moped basic limit policy runs about $65. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir, $55 was our follow-up. Senator Stein. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Basic limit liability. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that annually? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further questions from the committee? Senator Michael Walters. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I'd like to ask the gentleman, that $65 rate, what kind of liability coverage do you have? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is 30-60-25 with liability only with uninsured motorist as required by statute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And Senator Curtis, question? You're good with that now? Thank you. We have one members, Mr. John Hill from the North Carolina Motorcycle Dealership Association who would like to address the group. Mr. Hill. Oh, excuse me, before we have public comment we'll finish with the members. Senator McKissick. Excuse me, Mr. Hill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, and this is a question for the gentleman from the Department of Insurance. The policies that are issued now, would they be for those that are licensed drivers? Because you don't have to be a licensed driver to operate a moped however with this new bill that we're about to move forward with there would be a lot of drivers that are not licensed drivers that would not have any driving history that would now require insurance and do we have any projections as to what that would cost for unlicensed drivers without a history because I'm assuming now the coverage available might be for those with a drivers' license. If I'm mistaken I certainly stand to be corrected. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The insurance today is not for licensed operators and you're not required to have a drivers' license to operate a moped and liability coverage is not required on a moped. So this would require the license. Also this would take mopeds out from under the Rate Bureau's jurisdiction and each individual company would price their own liability coverage. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Quick follow-up, if I could, on that issue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just, do we have, and maybe, Mr. Chair, you were about to hear from somebody from the industry but do we have any industry reps that could talk about what, based upon I guess their actuarial projections and other data. I mean what this insurance
I've, I've heard data from people that suggested it would be substantially higher than sixty five dollars. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Who, who was gonna answer that? Yes, please. Senator Apodaca. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, you are right, and I wanna clarify that. I think when, I think you were quoting a rate based on a clean record license driver with a moped, is that correct sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's my understanding, Senator McKissick, when we move to probably the likely person that will be driving or operating a moped is probably in the neighborhood of three hundred to four hundred dollars a year. Miss Williams, or someone from the industry can probably speak better to that, but I do wanna put that out there and be honest about Senator Stein. Rose, are you here? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Please identify yourself. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mister Chairman. Rose Vaughn Williams, I'm legislative counsel to the Department of Insurance. And what we did, Senator McKissick was just shocked like we were a person went through an agent and it does depend, just like all drivers, on your record, so we priced it for a licensed, person with a license and no record, and it was, I think, ninety two dollars a year. A person unlicensed and no record, it was a hundred dollars a year approximately, for this minimum coverage. And then, if you had a, had a license, and you had it fifteen years, but it had been suspended, with the same area of coverage the price for an annual policy was three hundred and eighty dollars, approximately. So it's like with your automobile, depends on your record and that kind of thing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Beautiful. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I want to point out, follow up Rose, here. I wanna ask you this, because there are people who lose their licenses for everything from driving while impaired to other things. What kind of cost would it be for that kind of driver, if you know? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, and yes sir, if I may mister chairman and Senator McKissick, because I think that last price would cover it. That was for a person with twelve STIP points. So that was a pretty hefty record, I guess. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Rose. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the Committee, Senator Wade. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, do you know if, since it's not required now for people to have insurance, if we required it, the pool would be much larger I would imagine, so that causes the price to drop, because there would be more people in the pool? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade, it possibly could, but I doubt it with the liability exposure there, I would think it would probably stay in that neighborhood. If I had to guess, I am definitely not an actuary but that would be my guess. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In the back of the room, sir, would you? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill not allow cession to the reinsurance facility for these mopeds. So the pool would not get any bigger. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Senator Hise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] My question on this bill has to do with the registration, and this may be for DMV, how confident are we that registration of the mopeds will allow us to eliminate out the motorcycles that are, as we say, masquerading as mopeds? Will part of that registration identify that this moped's engine is less than fifty CCs, which is kind of what the current law requires? And I know we've got a lot of them out there that will go fifty, sixty miles an hour in that, and so that may be a DMV question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do we have someone? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. And will you identify yourself please sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Tim [??] of North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As part of the registration process, they would be, a lot of them would be required, if their VIN did not perform, they would be required to go through an inspection by license and theft bureau inspector, to certify they have a federal safety decal on them, and to ensure that they do fit the moped definition. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Senator Hyde. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If they do not, they can then be registered as motorcycles? Is that what. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. Just as they are currently allowed to be. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Senator Rabon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a quick question, it seems like the issue really is should we have insurance or not, and we're off on a tangent of cost, is that about right, Senator Apodaca? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well not only cost, Senator, that and a registration issue. Yeah. Yeah, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, we've heard from the committee, we do have one number, Senator McKissick, you're back. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, and this was just to follow up on the registration, and I don't know if this gentleman who was at the podium can answer this or not. The thing I was curious about, because this provision in this bill we're talking about, this is applicable only for mopeds designed and manufactured for highway use, those are the only ones that can be registered. Of the fleet of mopeds that are
and out there today. What it would be, I mean, they're not being grandfathered in necessarily, I mean, are the ones that we currently see sold by vendors designed for highway use, and how many of them actually do have a serial number that is traceable, that's verifiable? Because I would assume that many of them, being manufactured abroad, and that this has not been required in the past, and is not commonly needed for any purpose, that they might have a date and a stamp as to when and where it was manufactured, but not necessarily the equivalent of a Vehicle Identification Number or serial number. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All of them that I've come in contact with do have some form of identification number on it, but they may not and do not always conform to the 17-digit standard set forth by federal code. So that is why we require a lot of times, when it doesn't conform to the 17-digit code, to verify that VIN number on the vehicle, to check it for theft and to check it to be sure it conforms to federal safety standards, and that it is in fact a moped and is not a pocket bike or some other form of motorized vehicle that do not adhere to the statute that defines a moped. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Quick follow up if I could, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So are you confident that the vast majority of mopeds that have already been manufactured and bought by individuals would be able to be registered in North Carolina as they are today, either by having a VIN or through some type of inspection program that would be required? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If it is truly a moped as set forth by statute, it would be able to be registered with the Division. If it's not a moped, if it falls outside of that definition, then it would have to be titled and licensed and it would require a licensed driver. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? sir. Members, we have one member of the audience who would like to speak, and as I recognized a few moments ago, Mr. John Hill of North Carolina Motorcycle Dealers Association. Mr. Hill, you have the floor. Welcome to the Senate. Is that mike on, Sergeant at Arms? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. There we go. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are we on now? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm here mainly as a small business owner and part of the Motorcycle Dealers Association. I can attest to you there are plenty of motorcycles being operated as mopeds illegally. I see it every day in my business. It irritates me. I'll see a newspaper story where they claim a moped was involved in an accident and it wasn't, it was some Internet-bought product that was running without a tag, and they were sliding under the radar as a moped, which it was not. And therefore the reports you're seeing are probably falsified to a large degree. People can go online, $600, bring 150cc scooter into their possession, begin operating it with no inspection, no registration, nothing. You're talking about they're being used for drugs and illicit activity? Those are capable of doing it. A true moped is limited to 30 miles an hour on a flat level ground. I live in Greensboro, where ??. We have a lot of university students can't afford the parking permits that's required to park on campus, they park these up near their dorm. The biggest thing is the business owner. We have to order in advance. I have a considerable amount of inventory now that it really will not sell if you put this insurance requirement. We are all for the registration requirement. It will eliminate these illicit and illegally operated vehicles. I live out in a rural area; I hear these things coming into town every morning, a true moped. I know because it takes forever for them to get down the road, but I know they're coming into town, they're going to work, there will bring their family income that night. And you're talking about insurance that is, it's--I have a friend in Wilson is a moped dealer. The average income of his client is $662 a month. That's how they're on that moped. They can't afford anything else. Nor is there a bus, they can't afford a car. And you're going to hit a dealer as myself. I'm going to have a $500 penalty per vehicle that I refuse that they ship. I have a manufacturer trying to ship me 25 right now. And I've been begging him to hold off 'til we see what happens here. I've got an inventory of over 45 right now that will not sell, and I'm not going to sell you one knowing in a year from now you're going to have to pay an exorbitant amount for insurance that you're not going to be able to get, number one, because you don't have a driver's license. I can't find an agent that will sell you liability insurance if you don't have a driver's license. Friends in Virginia went through the same thing, they put it to a study committee, they did pass a registration requirement, but they realized the insurance was not going to work. So they pulled that from it. As the Dealers Association, we were excited when we got this through the House, but when it got back before it got the insurance added, it's created a lot of restriction for us as businessmen. I brought my wife today and she can tell you we have employees who are talking losing employment
If this thing goes through they will not sell and I'm not going to sell you one knowing that you're going to be in a hardship a year from now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. OK, Senator Stine, one last comment or question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A question for Senator Apodaca. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] So we have the section A which is a study committee which is supposed to look at the number of mopeds involved in accidents, the types of injuries, the causes for the accidents, whether the moped was the cause or the automobile driver was the cause, does it not make sense, wouldn't it be prudent to let that issue be studied and come back and make a recommendation to us on the insurance piece? I mean it sounds like everyone thinks the registration's a good idea but we might be getting ahead of ourselves on the insurance piece. We haven't even completed the study yet. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stine, I appreciate that, but it seems like every 2 or 3 days there's something in the paper about a moped accident and many times it's not their fault, many times it is their fault, many times these are used by folks who have lost their license and a lot of them don't have jobs. I don't want to broad base characterization of who operates a moped and who doesn't, but if they're in there operating amongst us and cars and such I just feel like they should have some financial responsibility also, and I'm thinking of one of our former colleagues who voted against this and his son was hit by a drunk on a moped and the poor guy was hurt very badly and it pretty well messed this guy's truck up, his son's truck, and he had to pay for it all because it was not financial responsibility and they were even trying to get some medical costs for the moped driver and that person said they would've changed their votes if they had known that. I mean, it's just a problem and, you know, it's not one of my major issues. If it doesn't pass I'm not going to be upset, but I just think it makes common sense for them to have some financial responsibility. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, thank you Senator Apodaca. Members of the committee, the question before the committee and the motion before the committee by. Do we have a motion? By Senator Rabin, for a favorable report to the PCS of House Bill 1145, unfavorable to the original. All those in favor of that motion please say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Sergeant at Arms, thank you, pages, this meeting is adjourned.