OK members of outer core are present, and the colleague trying to get the committee to order. We have four dynamic pages with us today, we have Bella Devivo if you'll stand or wave your hand of Wake county Aurora Brown is the sponsor. Morgan Henton of Wake County. Rep. Suzy Hamilton's the sponsor is all from Wake county, this is correct, Kenny Luck of Wake county, representative Daren Jackson is the sponsor, Brittany Mcmanus or Mcmanus from Wake county, representative Bobby Richardson is a sponsor, thank you for being here trying to work too hard today, sergeants at Arms, Colton Adams, Joel Osteen, and Martha Gurderson. I believe some of them have been sergeant at arms three times I've been here for this committee. OK members we have a house bill 148 representative Shepard, Brown Adams, so you'll recognize representative Shepard, you're recognized to remind us what your bill is briefly and we'll take questions. Thank you Mr. Chair once again committee the moped bill involves insurance and safety inspections for mopeds, and with that being said, this week I also talked with the insurance agency, that is already insuring mopeds in other states, and they say they'll also insure them here in the state of North Carolina. The average it cost of these policies are $170 per policy, also with these was fine with you, I have Mr. Berger with The Chief Police Association, you'll have the right to speak in just a moment on the issues of more peers in the crime in our or binaries and synthes[sp?]. That's fine. Mr Barry, step to the locker form at the back, identify yourself and and your organization again for the record. Thank you Mr chairman, I am Fred Berger, council to the North Carolina Association of Chiefs of police. We strongly supported to pull away the requirements for registration of mopes because of their occupational use in criminal activity and they're impossible to trace without registration by this legislature's address there, and effected July 1, more pH will have to be registered with DMV, and we applaud that we do further support this new bill which would require safety inspections of mopeds. We know that safety inspections for more auto vehicles. Generally are good for public safety, they prevent injury and death, and we think the same principle should apply to these small vehicles mopeds. We also investigate many many auto mobile accidents involving mopes, and other accidents involving moped that create personal injury or property damage, and without liability insurance, financial responsibility the victims are not compensated as they are in other accidents involving motor vehicles which are insured, in short the association supports this bill. We thank you for your attention to it. Thank you sir. Representative Shepherd. Also I would like to respond to that. You know it's not my intent, or our intent to keep people from driving mopeds on the highways however in 34 states out of 35 states in the country I would like to repeat that if they have lost their drivers license due to a DWR or some other offence or criminal offence, they are allowed to drive them on the highways in 34 out of 35 states that is not our intent, our intent is to make these people responsible like any everyone else in this state is and they carry some liability insurance, and make sure those mopeds are safe to be on our highways because they endanger themselves as well as endanger others, and it's amazing that last Tuesday after I got home on Tuesday night. I got a beep on my phone and I usually get a beep if there is a news article or something comes from my local newspaper when I read the beep that came on my phone it says shooting suspects remains at large, what had happened a guy on a moped going to a convenience store and shot a man inside his vehicle, and killed him and left on the moped, and all I'm saying this to view is to say that not everyone that's driving a mopeds out there that they're doing the right things, there're a lot of criminal activity based on the testimony that we've heard from the police chiefs association, and also from the spokesman from Baptist hospital last week. So I think the least we can do is require them to be responsible, have some instruments to cover them if they get into an accident with someone else, so they're responsible like you, and I want everyone else that has insurance to drive on our highways, so we do appreciate your support for this bill, and I'm going to let representative Adams speak first.
Well, I signed on this bill because this is an issue that is important in my district, I live in the foothills of North Carolina [xx] area, and what we see frequently as we see people riding the mopeds, more or less middle of the lane of a road, and we have a number of rural roads feeding rock community. Some years ago we were the number 1 in commuting per capital in the state, so we'll see people two up on a moped in a 45 55 mile an hour on unable to maintain anything like 35 miles an hour because you're going up and down hills and I hear a lot of complaints about this, I understand the people use mopeds to get to work, to get to school, and that sort of thing, but the data that I've read, the information that I've looked at points to a halo of irresponsibility on the part of these moped riders. And I think that if you don't introduce some tension into the lives of some people their misbehaving even worse, I think that these are pretty straight forward and call for measures to have the moped riders insured and I'm strongly supportive of this. If the risk is too great for an insurance company to take, it's too great for us to take. If the risk is that great, we need to act on it. We need to do the appropriate thing to protect the other people on the road who or sometimes are frustrated by these riders, and do things that they ordinarily would not do, passing in places where they shouldn't, and that sort of thing [xx] Brown. This weekend, a county commission are coming, we know how they like to council, you got to do something about this but France of Hiers[sp?] had simply forgotten to renew their car insurance, their liability insurance. Busy, no excuse pieces, they did it, they deserved the consequences. Guess what the consequences were. They got fined and they lost their tags for both cars, for 30 days another [xx] at the hospital They had to find another way to work. We demand that the majority of our citizens in this state be responsible, why are we permitting a subgroup to be irresponsible, and we've seen what it caused us. There's a that we've seen that there's a significant relationship between moped drivers and alcohol use, between moped riders and drivers and heiras[sp?] behaviors people of these state, and I hear this everywhere I go. I don;t know how many moped drivers there are in this state, but I know and I can tell you one thing, they are getting larger and the amount of complains that I get by property owners whose their cars were driven into by a moped, yet they're the ones responsible responsible or the repairs. You heard of hospital representative say, this is a growing concern for us because these people come with no insurance Now this won't address that, but it points to the irresponsible nature of this whole issue. They go went there, and what the hospital doesn't forgive, we pay for. So I just really, really want people to be responsible for what they do, and have consequences for the decisions they make in their lives without for once, passing it under the good citizens of this state, who play by the rules, try to do the right thing thank you very much. I think representative Brown had two comments, or three comments. The intention of the chair is to take a vote on this bill approximately 12:25 we've another controversial bill right after this. Secondly is we refer this bill to insurance committee, and also I just spoke 20 minutes ago to some doctors excuse me to some hospital people and they're very much in favor of something being done a long this line, kind of to be sure that they also wear their helmets, but thank you. And I've got a list of questioners, representative Blackwell, brief us first. Thanks Mr. Chairman. This question is for the sponsors if they can give me an answer, do we have any the data that suggest the frequency or actual number of accidents involving a moped and another vehicle or individual where the accident in some manner was attributable to a safety defect of the moped that would be discovered by the safety inspection that you're proposing. Rep. Shepard. Rep. Blackwell, I'm not sure that I have that now. Someone is here from DMV and
they did the study that we asked them to do in the oversight, and they may have some data on that. I don't remember reading that. Mr. Thomas is here. Do you have any data on that sir? Mr. Thomas, step to the microphone. Identify yourself and your organization for the record please. Kelly Thomas from DMV. In our data we did not analyze what safety and inspection criteria would have been attributed to the accident. We don't have that data on file. Okay answer question, representative McNeil? Thank you Mr. Chair, I just like to say that I thank the bill sponsors have done a great job in putting this bill together and presenting it, between them and those other people that have testified have made a compelling argument that this time has come for us to do something about the issues with mopeds, so at the appropriate time I'd like to be recognized for a motion. Okay, thank you. Representative Faircloth. Thank you Mr. Chairman, a question for Representative Shepherd, you mentioned insurance is available, and that the average is about 170 a year, is that correct? Yes, sure Representative Shepherd. Yes, Representative Faircloth, the agency that I spoke with said that they are already insuring mopeds to some extent now, and that the average is about $170 a year. Some of these are in conjunction with the policy that, that owner may already have for a vehicle like, but the average is $170 a year Any further question? Representative Shepherd, do you have any idea whether or not, I know I've got a friend, he's got a Mercedes, and his insurance is about I don't know how much he has, it's a lot of money anyway, but he gets to make payments on hieras. Do you really know these people who are working at minimum wage, and ride a moped could spread that $170 a little bit. In response to that representative Faircloth, I didn't ask that question, but I'm sure that you probably could because most insurance agencies that I know of would let you spread it out over six months to pay your premiums. I'm sure it probably will. With interest of course. Okay, representative Bragman is next. Representative Blackwell actually asked the question I was going to ask. So, I'm good. would someone repeat whatever it was they just said, or do we finish with that first? Where were we? I just said representative Blackwell asked the question I was going to ask. So, I'm good on my question. Thank you representative Mcgraw. Brodman[sp?]. Thank both of you. Representative Arp[sp?] Mine fall along with representative Blackwell's question about just the need for safety inspection. Do you have to have the safety inspection, and what is it's governmental purpose? Absolutely. Representative Shaper[sp?] Representative Hart, to ensure that Moped is saved. I moved for instance in the area I live, and are able to pick the right Mopeds, and sometimes there are certain times of the night. Some of them have tail lights, some don't and they're hard enough to see as it is. So, if they're driving a Moped and almost dark, or is dark and they don't have a tail light that's working, they're putting their own selves in jeopardy so I feel it's incumbent upon us to require the same safety inspections that motorcycles have for their own benefit, as well as the people that are on the highway with them. Representative Adams. May I just add that a lot of people drive vehicles and have no clue how they function. In fact I wish through safety inspections they check the whole of my cars because it's just one those things, and truthfully a person going over a vehicle and examining the vehicle whether it's two wheeled or four wheeled, sometimes observes issues that the rider or the owner may not note. But tyres on the two wheels, brakes on two wheel vehicle, lighting systems on a two wheel vehicle are important, and they need to be functional in order for the vehicle to be safe. Thank you Representatives Speciale you're on deck coming with plate Representive Bumgardner. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the sponsors. You say you're going to have a requirement for
insurance, and it's going to be 150 to 170 dollars a year average, is that for a person with a clean driving record whose not going to be a moped? Representative Shepard Representative Baum, that we had before was that if you had a clean driving record, it could be as little as 90 dollars a year but if you had had a DWI or didn't have a clean driving record, it can be as much as like 380 dollars a year. What I gave was an average that was already being used that came from an insurance company. Thank you. Follow up? Follow up representative Baumgardner. And then here in section 10 it says moped shall be registered, and then under line 19 number B certificate of time not withstanding the owner or moped is not required to apply for and the division is not to issue a certificate of title, how are you going to buy an insurance on a vehicle that doesn't have a tittle? Mr. Chair? Representative Chem[sp?] I'm going to ask if DMV commissioner Kelly Thomas would come and address that, that was something that was worked out last year in the bill that was already passed, to require registration in place and Thank you commissioner Thomas I will remind you to let us know who you are and Thank you sir again, Kelly Thomas from DMV. The proof of ownership is through registration does not require the title and the intent we understood last year was not to add additional costs to the registration in titling of the moped, and therefore we're going with the registration only. That's 18 dollars, titling will be another 40 dollars. It is not required for insurance Follow up? Follow up representative Baumgardner I'm still having a little, excuse me, trouble understanding how we can register a vehicle with no title. Do we register automobiles or motocycles that do not have valid tittles? Representative Ship[sp?] I'm going to jump right in front of you and go right to the commissioner.commissioner Thomas do we have an answer to Representative BaumGardner's question? Thank you sir again. Kelly Thomas vehicles are registered with an affidavit or manufactures certificate of order, if you have a tittle you can also be, if it was a title, a new vehicle comes with a manufacturer's certificate not a title. Thank you. Representative [xx] I'm scratching my head that we are on this one Was that your question? No mopeds over 50cc, 50cc and over are already required to be registered, they're already required to be I'm sure they are already required to be licensed so we are talking about mopeds that are under 50cc that generally are not supposed to be able to do the modern 20 miles an hour that are used mostly by people who have lost their licence and this is how they get to work, what we're going to end up doing is, you know these things are treated right now as bicycles, they are treated just like a bicycle, I mean, that's how you're supposed to ride it, that's the way as supposed to be treated. We're going to force people on to bicycles, and then we're going to have bicycles running into cars like we already do, and then we're going to say we need to have these things inspected, and we need to have them insured. I think that we're trying to solve a problem a that doesn't exist here, and I'd recommend you said that people, it's got a bad driving history, they can pay as much as over 300 Dollars a year, that's probably going to be awesome, because most of the people that ride these little scooters and stuff are people who don't have insurance, who have lost their license, I just think we're trying to take something that doesn't exist and I would recommend we brought this thing down. Okay. We must find Represent Shek[sp?]. The response I have for that is, it's based on the survey we've all done, and the research that we've done. These are from mopeds that are 50 CCs and under, most of these are 50 CCs, and they can drive up to 35 Mph. It's the information we've back on level ground. Maybe not on the hill or mountain areas, but on level ground where I live. So, that's my response to that. The side is not an issue, or not a problem. I think it's totally iraneous, because I think that we've been inadidative[sp?] with accidents and all sorts of crime around mopeds, as I read this story about the incident that happened in my hometown. We're far from the Pre-chief Association, we're far from Babtist Hospital and
the information that we've all being given is very, very good information. That it substantiates us, putting insurance and some accountability on moped drivers. Representative Courtney just a question Mr. Chairman. With the insurance, if you don't have insurance on your moped after is this person? What is the penalty, what happens if you're not insured, and over there a tags in you're not in insure reports that you find. So what's far with these mopeds. Mr. Chair can she stand and answer that question. Yeah yes. She's right. If you were charged with driving without insurance is the class three mistermina[sp?], and you could also have your registration plate revoked just as you can with an auto mobile now. OK representative Blackwell. Black you had a moment. So we have Stare free the memo. Representative Barklamas[sp?] to main bill on page 3 and 30-40 eight, by deleting section eight and its entirety and by renumbering the sections and rewriting the title accordingly, and what that does is just takes out the section on the safe inspection. Jay Adams, come on in here. I won't take but a minute. I think the issue is obvious, it seems to me there is some reason to believe that Mopeds are involved in accidents that cause injuries to others that insurance maybe arguably a good thing and could help, but there's no evidence being presented to us other than maybe anecdotal that defective Mopeds are causing any kind of accidents, and in the absence of that, it's one more cost on these people who we have already described as being probably in financial strives to begin with, and it seems to me is just not at this point. If later there's data to suggest a connection between the condition of the moped and the accidents with other folks then maybe we can take another look at it. But with respect to a tail-light burning out, that's only a problem at a safety inspection if it happens to burn out before you get to the safety inspection. You still are subject to ticketing if you're operating without a required tail-light. So I think eliminating the safety inspection strengthens the bill in the sense that it's one cost that may be as a marginal value. A comment from the sponsors amendment. Yes Mr. Chairman. My remark of that is simply this, some of this is intuitive because the data is fairly sketchy. We don't have a whole lot of data because they're not inspected and they're not licensed. So I would suggest it's up to the committee, but I think that having a safety inspection is probably a prudent thing to do. These vehicles are not of extremely high quality construction in some cases because of the very nature of the vehicles, they're very little on the way of the requirements is to have the bill so, but a lot of community speak to that. Carry on. Questions debate on the amendment, representative Madlew[sp?]. Yeah I understand what representative Blackwell is going but I kind of disagree with him because if I were his insurance company, I don't think I would want to insure a map in that was running around in unsafe manner and I think if we moved the inspection part of it, it might affect the insurance rates to go up, I know if I were an insurance agent, or insurance company, I would definitely go up on the rates if I knew they weren't being inspected. Is it Marionette show attention strick can speak to that. That issue briefly. OK. And this does have to insurance after this by the way, Representative Yoga. I support the amendment because we're all fortunately have for personal responsibility and they will take away the personal responsibility by having the state inspect them. Overall I believe safety is are necessary cost of time and money for automobile owners too. Mr. Chair. Representative Shepard. I will conger with I feel colleagues here. Vote your conscious on this.
It's not something that we're going to dive, we hope not. But anyway well, if I see one tonight the tail-light is not working I'm going to call you representative Blackwell and remind you of it. But anyway we're fine with that. We'll remain on that. Okay, The motion for the adoption of the amendment by representative Blackwell, all in favor say I. I Oppose no? No. Representative Jade and then it passes. We are back on the bill. any more questions? Representative Magneto you're recognized. I'd like to move that house bill 148 receive a favorable report as a amended, with a serial referral to insurance and favorable to the original bill. \ Rollins on UPCS and serial referral to insurance. Yes. Thank you, you've heard a motion, all in favor say I? I. Oppose No.? NO. Opinion two does have it. Bill passes. For auto insurance. The next. Don't go away Representative Brown, next. Next bill is house bill 183, bill is map Act, the bill is seen before go on representative Brown to remind us briefly what the bill is about. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'll just repeat perhaps just a paragraph of what we heard last week. The map act was passed in 1987 and it's a law that allows DOT to establish official maps of future road quarters. Now we have built roads up until that day, that year we built roads with out a Map Act since 1915. We are one of only 13 states to have a Map Act statued. 37 states have managed their highway building without one. Official maps have been used or being used in at least two dozen projects statewide, Cleveland, Guilford, Forsyth, Wake, Peter, Pender, and Cumberland are just a few of the counties affected. I just want to tell you about my personal experience and I'll make it really really fast. It's not my district. It's [xx] but what goes on in Davidson is a concern for both of us, and two years ago, DOT did not file a map, but they let it be known that the were considering a new route for highway 109 which stretches from the North Eastern part of Davidson and Forsyth, and we started getting calls and this was before his tenure here but I started getting calls, because even without the map being filed the property, value of the property was so affected, but there is not much we can do about that, we have to build roads in the state. But now I look at Winston who had a map filled, and I wish every single one of you could have been on my visit as I went into toward those neighborhoods. Now I've never been to Beirut, and I told DOT this exactly, without the rubble this would have reminded me of the pictures I've seen of Beirut, it is horrendous what these neighborhoods and communities look like over decade of everything being halted. So what it's done, when you drive to these neighborhoods, on one side of the road you'll see nothing. DOT was mowing the day I was there, and the neighbor that was still there, trying to keep his arm up said that it had been up knee high before they'd even attempted to get the loan [xx] whatever the rubble dam. So, you can imagine if you you live in a home, and across from you is a piece of property that is maintained like that your concerns, here is a home owner, biggest investment of his life, he's elderly, he hopes to one day sell his property for what he thought it would be. He's unable to, he's not willing to take the price DOT offered as if they offered him anything at all. So, he assumed that they're trying to maintain a property in the neighborhood, where across the street there is nothing but weeds and next door there's a rhino-hymn. The rhino-hymn looks horrible. It is gone into dish repair because DOT doesn't do repairs. Some hymns they don't buy, they run it, and they make millions from running these properties. They don't have to pay property insurance, which cost our municipalities and our counties millions and millions of Dollars. They don't have to pay for fire insurance. When you don't have to do those things, you can rent your property, you can under cut the real estate more by a great deal.
So, you're not just impacting municipalities and counties, and private owners in theses affected neighborhoods, you are impacting businesses. It is one of the most abusive stat sheets on our books. I thought that for-static session was the worst that I had seen, the issue of the day, one of us came to the general assembly, it doesn't touch this. If you are not willing to take, if you are offered to buy it and you are not willing to take it then you sometimes will have to wait for decades to be able to have that property condemned, and then of course by then you're going to get fair market value, well that's the prayer, and you 're going to also use on of the, what is it that the, not the property evaluers[sp?], the up-raisers. They use one of the you are going to have to use one of their up-raisers, from their [xx] list for your appraisal. So, I just wish you could have seen what I say that day to know the effect. I just want to say one more thing, the state cannot save money on the backs of a few thousands of it's citizens on it's private property owners across this state, It can not make and save money, and make money off the banks, a private business or a local government because that's what they're doing. Thank you very much. Representative Brown, thank you. Just to a note to the committee We are referring this to finance after this. Also I have a representative from DOT that want to speak. I want to call him down this time from eight not to exceed three minutes. So, identify yourself and who you represent please? Yes, I'm Nick [xx] chief deputy the secretary of NC-DOT. This will not exceed three minutes because what I had to say is that we certainly appreciate the fact that included in this bill is a study of the method through which we should be acquiring property. We agree that that's an important thing to do, and we would hardly participate in that, but since a petition for discretionary review has been filed in this case to the North Carolina Supreme Court, the case referred to in the statute we're not really in a position to comment very much on that particular statute. So wanted to make that comment and certainly here to answer questions as I'm able. Thank you Mr. Tennyson. Any questions for Mr. Tennyson at this time? Okay, we may come back to you. I want to call on Representative [xx], I'm sorry. [xx] by his name tags. No problem. First, I want to apologize for not being here at the first hearing on the repeal, the map act bill, but I had to attend a family funeral back home. I do want to say that this is a very important bill. The map act cannot be tweaked or fixed. It needs to be completely repealed so that we can come up with a new plan, review the best practices in the other states, the other 49 states that do it a different way. The North Carolina does define where we can meet our transportation needs which are absolutely important but also have better balance and respect for private property rights. I'm from the Forsyth County, so we're the poster child for the abuse of the map act and I think representative Brown has sort of delineated that for you. This is the ruling from the North Carolina appellate court, and I know it's very lengthy and most of you probably haven't had time to review it, but I think it gives you a pretty accurate picture of what is wrong with the map act, and the fact that the GOT is appealing this ruling and the ruling basically stated that the [xx] were falling for inverse combination and also the unconstitutionality of the map act. That the DOT does not agree with the ruling that when you file the map, and for the Western Leg of the [xx] of County that was back in 1997. That it is not a taking. And I know one of the first bills we talked about for this general assembly was we're going to have potentially a referendum in 2016 to add a clause on eminent domain to the North Carolina constitution. So I'm assuming most of you believe in that concept that eminent domain is the process for public purpose, but that also has a second the part is that the private property owners are due just compensation. In here it states that the people in precise could be in limbo for 60 years as the different pieces pf the belt-weigh are completed. And the judge ruled that yes, when that map was filed it was a taking, and it was not sovereign police powers, if you're familiar with those. That's sort of how he DOT's been operating. If you're just regulating property, you don't owe the property owners any compensation. Look what the property owners have been through; They can't sell their home, if they rent
it they're going to get a depressed rate, if they have an extra they need an extra bedroom, they can't get a building permit to add it. I've known people in Forsyth county that have passed the waiting for some resolution after this. We need to re-appeal it, and come up with a better plan particularly be with the governor's plan of a lot of new transportation projects, we need to come up with a better, fair, and balanced plan and that respects the need for transportation and the rights of property owners. So I ask you to please get this out of this committee so that we can do the right thing for North Carolina. Okay, thank you I have a list of couple of folks, representative Dollar was first. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the last comments in that, we will need to figure something out, something to do here because the two representatives talked about situations, and that situation's in my district where we have 540, where people have lost full use of their land because they're waiting for roadway to come but I do think, it is obviously in over extended period of time, and then on the other hand and then you get prompts with the EPA warning you to explore other routes and that ridge issues, but there's another side to the coin and I'm glad that was acknowledged a moment ago and that is if we can't either address it by saying OK we need the pay people, purchase options for their land or we compensate them in some fair way while we're waiting for the final approval on this major projects, if we can't figure a way to do that there has to be someway to plan out the corridors, because the other thing that could happen is, we could say OK we're not going to do anything to protect corridors and people built in all these corridors, and then you have the problem of saying OK how much is it going to cost, the overall cost to acquire that land in the future is going to be far, far more and potentially more disruptive or maybe disruptive to the point that they don't have meaning. Subdivisions have been built. [xx] in certain area that makes it practically impossible to build the needed major highway project. So, I wish I had the magic answer to it myself, unfortunately I don't, but I do think that we got to figure some way to going forward in the future, and I'm assuming this bill to pass by one margin, but can't figure some way in a very close future is to how we're going to address, and protect co-doors particularly in the urban areas so that we don't end up creating different set up problems for ourselves down the road while we solve them. The senate problem has been eloquently discussed today. [xx] 14 tales and we have to get out here that point. presented in [xx] We the team, really the only practical where they answer these questions with the engineer and overpay time we're going to head to look more resources ahead of time to that position of properties. We can't impact these papers liaising when your hand this way. We can impact these lives for years, in decades. This is what's in us too. So, I we'll have to put some resources into acquiring property way ahead of time and that's about the only way that you can do it Okay, we have two folks still in the list, and I want to get to everybody. Rep. Bumgardner. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I support this bill I wanted to run a bill like this last session and didn't get to, but everybody here's probably got an issue like this in their district. I certainly have one in mine where people that lived in pretty nice houses that were in neighborhoods that were in the way of a certain road storms come through. One of them blew the roof off their house and they had to put a roof on it and their house was already in the corridor that was going to be taken for a road and so what do you do? And years have gone by, you already heard sometimes decades, and we have problem here that we're going to have to do something about. I'm full of support doing something about that be glad to work with you on that
but right now time's short and we need to pass this bill through and I'd like to make a motion at the appropriate time Mr. Chairman. Representative Shelley You've got to remember this is speculation on the part of the state, and this is why you end up with decades gone by and in some cases they end up not doing it. The solution is if you want to control my property you buy it from me. It's as simple as that. Anything short of that is taking my property and my liberty. So from a liberty perspective, we need to vote for this bill. Thank I believe all the sponsors have spoken Representative Lamaze did you want to say anything briefly, we also have a question from President Shepherd after this. The only thing I would add is that had the period of time which DOT would have bought the property that generated this suit. This probably would have not even come up as a suit it was the link that Thomas took that was really the issue and that caused us to even be here today Okay, Representative [xx] do you have a question possibly for DOT? Thank you Mr. Chair. I certainly realize this is a problem because we've dealt with it in our local community as well and other issues similar but I'd like if someone from DOT could probably respond to this question if it's permissible. What would we be looking at financially as what it would take out the department of transportation if this bill was to pass. Mr. Turnerson you want to handle that. I'm Nick Tennyson chief deputy secretary of the department of transportation. the [xx] that we have is, if we had to buy everything that's covered by the map Act today it would be over $600 million Thank you. Representative Brown. I'd like to respond to that as well. The low ball of what they will owe if the supreme court does not hear this court case. That means if they're going to live and they're in full agreement with the North Carolina court of appeals to low estimates of what they're going to own property owner, just in western [xx] just in [xx] county is $400 million this is what they're going this one section of this state now they can correct me if I'm wrong but that was my best testament that I've gotten from some of the experts, we're not talking about communities all over this state. So in terms of looking at what's it's cost us it's already cost this is appealed we are in whole world of trouble because it wasn't done right from the get go and 37 other states find a way, 37 other states haven't even met that, and I think it goes to representative [xx] point they don't do it until they have the money, you cannot put people's lives on hold to save money. No state can do that with a clear conscience. Senator Brown, I think that's in litigation. I'm not sure they have articulately responded to that because in the interest responding. We'll go take a vote in about two minutes. Nick Tennison, NCDOT. Just the challenge of valuing property is always a challenge for public and private entities. Our estimate in the Forsyth case would be about $200 million. Either way it's a lot of money. Thank you Secretary Tennyson for being here and seeing no further question I'll go to Rep. Bumgardner for a motion. I make a motion we give this favorable report to, where did you say it was going to finance. To finance. OK you heard the motion. All in favor say aye? Opposed no? Aye's have it. Bill is passed, no further business, we're adjourned.