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.

House | June 18, 2014 | Committee Room | Regulation Reform

Full MP3 Audio File

Yea, pass out everything. There's always time. Is there another amendment that's already been passed down? Okay, let's take a couple of questions on the bill, lets not waste time. Are there any questions for staff or bill sponsors on the bill? Representative Hall, [Speaker] thank you Mr. chairman, I had a question on section 3 point 3 and if staff and bill sponsor can give us an explanation of what it is we're trying to achieve here and [Speaker] What page is that [Speaker] Think it's page 31, pharmacy benefits, management regulation. [Speaker] Yes, sir, I can start the conversation and there might be some folks in the audience that might be able to benefit as well [Speaker] We got staff present, Johnson's recognized. [Speaker] Thank you, if this creates a new article in chapter 58 and deals with pharmacy management companies and those are the folks that typically contracted the third party administers to administrate the benefits, the prescription drug benefits, the first section is just some definitions that takes up page 31 but in that you'll see the health benefits plans is specifically defined as well as the pharmacy benefits management. If you look at line 25 there is a whole list of things that involve pharmacy benefits management. Starting on line 45 is information about the maximum allowable cost price. The maximum allowable cost price is the premium amount the pharmacy management reimburses a pharmacy for the prescription drug that is excludes their dispensing fees and what not, it's the per unit amount for the drug and this section addresses what a pharmacy benefits manager does with regards to that maximum allowable cost price so first it cannot set a maximum allowable cost price if that prescription drug does not have three or more nationally available therapeutically drug substitutes. So a map price can't even be set if that doesn't exist. It also needs to remove the map price or modify it, add necessary for a prescription drug to remain consistent changes in the national market place so as the cost of the drug change so does the mack price as well. The bill directs these changes would take place every 7 business days and that any removal or modification needs to be done within 7 business days as well then the pharmacy management would disclose the mack prices to the pharmacy so this in essence is attempting to keep the mack prices up to date on a regular basis. On page 32 line thirteen this sets out an appeal so an pharmacy if it's given a price by a pharmacy benefits manager that it feels that is not appropriate it has an appeals process. Line 25 talks about disclosure of information that a pharmacy benefits manager can do with regards with the folks whose pharmacy benefits they manage and at the very end at the bottom of page 32 it indicates that a pharmacy benefits manager cannot take any action that would restrict or covers an individuals choice of pharmacy as well as not provide any incentive to a covered individual to use to particular pharmacy. And that would take place on January 1, 2015. [Speaker] Thank you, representative ?? is recognized. [Speaker] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm stepping into territory I'm not that familiar with but section A on line 46...

[Speaker] Page 31 when it talks about there being three nationally available equivalents what happens when you got there is no equivalent and it’s new and it’s one of a kind so to speak. [Speaker] Brand name medication are generally not there’s no maximum allowable cost for brand name medication. This maximum allowable cost, max only applies in situation where it’s a generic so this would make sure that there is at least three generics on the market place before a mack can be set. And that is consistent with my understanding of how medicare part d operates with centers for medicare and Medicaid services so most of the maximum allowable cost language you see, my understanding is consistent with CMS medicare part dealing is that your understand as well amy. [Speaker] that is [Speaker] Representative Hall, I would like to apologize to you sir. I should’ve returned to see if you had a follow up to your query. Before recognizing another representative. And I apologize for not doing that, do you have a follow-up [Speaker] I’ll come back in the queue, I’m working on the amendment. I’ll come back, I appreciate it [Speaker] Thank you sir. Are there any other questions about the bill generically? Have we got another amendment passed out and if so which one? [Speaker] I don’t have copies of any [Speaker] Rep. Hardister is recognized to send forth an amendment. That would S 493 dash ATK dash 119 version 4. [Speaker] Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, this amendment would clarify that beer companies can print retail or restaurant logo on malt beverage bottles. Currently wine companies can do this. They can print retail or restaurant logos on a wine bottle and the reason beer companies can’t do this is because the law is silent on this issue and the way ABC laws work is if it doesn’t say you can then you can’t. And this simply makes a technical clarification to provide clarity between wine and malt beverages, it’s a simple clarification measure and it’s Mr. chairman I move for adoption. [Speaker] Are there any questions for the gentleman on his amendment? Any discussion or debate. Hearing none, this motion is approval for Rep. Hardisters amendment. All in favor say aye, opposed, amendment carries. Rep. Whitmire. Rep. Whitmire this would be S 493 dash ATK dash 119 version 3. [Speaker] Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee this amendment in a couple of situations that has risen, clarifies and makes certain that municipalities have the authority to force flood plain ordinances and basically are flood plain insurance program, national flood plain insurance program this is essential item to make sure that we don’t run into the issues where multiple home owners would lose that coverage. We ask for your support and adoption of this exemption. Mr. Chairman. [Speaker] Rep. Stan [Speaker] Yes, before I can vote for this amendment I would have to know what subsection K is that we’re exempting from the amendment. Does someone have that information. [Speaker] I have it [Speaker] This is Whitmire’s amendment on enforcing municipal flood plain ordinance in ATJ and apparently there is an exemption from an exemption. [Speaker] Mr. Chairman I just got it, I withdraw my question. [Speaker] Would the gentleman like to share what hes learned. Rep. Whitmire is recognized to explain. [Speaker] Okay, thank you mr. chair the, I think it was 2011 and we had exemption for farms and ATJs and over the course of time, we had a couple of situations arrive around the state where there were certain situations for municipalities where we were not able to enforce the ordinances and their flood plain insurance was going to run amuck.

And with the, the Association of County Commissioners and the municipalities support this, and it’s very nearly tailored to address that one rough edge that goes back a couple years ago. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I have really looked hard, and I don’t think even with glasses I’ve been able to find on 25 anything that deals with flood plains. That’s healthcare. Am I reading something wrong here? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady’s correct. The report on mandated coverage requirements, starting on page 24 and continues on page 25. This amendment will be displaced. Representative Brody’s recognized to send forth an amendment, as for 93-AMH-88 version 6. Representative Brody’s recognized to explain the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What we’re attempting to do in this is to permit the Building Code Council to establish procedures to address alternative methods, designs and materials. We’re living in a highly changed, technologically changing world, and it’s happening in the building industry also, and what we want to do is be able to have a method to incorporate a lot of these new technological changes into our code. It establishes a process and it also directs the engineering division of the Department of Insurance to staff and support this, although because we don’t know the exact extent of the staffing requirements, we just ?? available funds to it, and next year if it requires a staffing change, we can address it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are there any questions for the amendment sponsor? Discussion and debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative… I was actually… Representative Brandon, but he’s hiding for me. I wanted to call him Representative Marcus but that’s not right. Representative Brandon’s recognized, followed by Representative Shepard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ve just got a quick question. Does this amendment… have you talked with the realtors and the home-builders and are they okay with this provision? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brody? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ve spoken with the Home Builders Association and they’re acceptable to this. I have not talked to the Realtors Association. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, Representative Brandon? Representative Shepard is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, my question to Representative Avila is I’m looking at, it says page 23, lines 4 and 5, and this has to do with autism health insurance on my package, and so I’m wondering if this is the wrong paperwork also. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brody, was your amendment passed on the bill that was in finance this morning? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This amendment on page… if you look at page 23 of the bill, I think you’re going to see several amendments that refer to page 23 between lines 4 and 5 because that’s the end of the state and local government section of the reg. reform bill, so there will be multiple amendments that add sections after the State and Local Government, so I think you’re going to see several amendments that have page 23, lines 4 and 5 on it, and so at the end of the committee, what the motion will likely state is that we give staff the authority to make technical corrections and change page numbers and do that kind of thing so that we make sure the cars on the train that get removed and the cars on the train that get added in this committee are all consistent so we can act on this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Murry. Mr. Brody, your amendment is in order. Further discussion, further debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry, which of the Brody amendments are we on? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We are on S 493 AMH-88 version 6. Moves to amend the bill on page 23, lines 4 and 5, by inserting the following, and the title is Building Code Alternate Methods Rule Making.

-ing section 2.21. Further discussion? Further debate? So many as favor the amendment, say "aye". Opposed? The amendment passes. Second amendment by Representative Brody, S493-AMH-89, Version 7. Clarify official misconduct for code officials. Once again, page 23, lines four and five. Representative Brody's recognized to explain his amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Apparently, we have some jurisdictions in the state inspection jurisdictions that attempt to enforce a code that is non-existent, and within the scope of these four areas, we are going to be requiring that the inspections jurisdictions review what they're actually inspecting as far as code goes, and they have to lock their October 1st to adjust what they're inspecting under the provisions of the code to correct that. I want to mention, though, that this has (?) worked with the Commissioner of Insurance and the Building Division, and they do not oppose this amendment. It's also supported very strongly by the industry itself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any questions for the amendment's sponsor? Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm very sympathetic to this, but I just have this question. You're defining willful misconduct, gross incompetence, but, if you read like, for example, sub-section four, if the inspection officers is wrong, that might be negligence, it might be incompetence, but is it gross? Is it willful, is it a disciplinary issue, or a legal issue that you appeal to the Board of Adjustment? And I just wonder if Representative Brody could clarify how this is intended to be used. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brody? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, thank you for the question. Everything will be initiated by a complaint from someone who is out in the field, generally a contractor of some sorts, that'll go before the Qualifications Board and will be determined to what extent it's negligence or it's gross negligence, for example. On these particular four provisions, we're requiring the jurisdictions to actually go back and review their codes and what they're enforcing. So, hopefully, we won't have this problem, or be very minimal. Yes, a person can make a mistake, but I think the Qualifications Board will take that into account, versus somebody who's literally trying to reinvent the code. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Was there someone else who wanted to be addre-- yes, Representative Holley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I'm trying to follow this, and V. 6 and V. 7 look identical, except at line 22. Am I correct at that? Line 22, where it says section 2.22 and the other one has number-sign, number-sign B. I'm just trying to see, because mine read the same way. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You were comparing this to dash-88? [SPEAKER CHANGES] (Eighty-?)nine V. 6 and 89 V. 7. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Eighty-nine V. 7 supersedes 89 V. 6, I believe. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that the one we're on? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Eighty-nine V. 7. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, the one we just did, was 89 V. 6? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh, 88. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Eighty-eight. [SPEAKER CHANGES] 'Cause I don't have a 88. I got two 89s. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Further discussion? Further debate on the clarified official misconduct for code officials? Hearing none, the motion before the committee by Representative Brody, all in favor say "aye". [group responds] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, no. [slience] Motion carried. I want to return to Representative Whitmire, with a correction on his amendment, which is S493ATK119, Version 3, correcting page 25 to page 23. That amendment would be in order, it's being added in the same place as the others. One-sentence re-explanation so people [SPEAKER CHANGES]

Speaker: Thank you Mr.Chair.thank you Representative ?? this simply address the situation where municipalities need clarification authentication to enforce ?? and are where previously cannot and simply put if we are simply ?? honors to ?? under the national insurance hope line program Speaker Changes: Further discussion further debate Speaker Changes: Question Mr ?? Speaker Changes: Yeah Representative Elmore, Speaker Changes: With the farms we are referring to is wanna fact that build those ares such that such about operations ?? that's sort of things.The ?? implemented on them , Speaker Changes: Representative Elmore I'm sorry I'm being interrupted, Speaker Changes: I apologize that this wasn't acting ?? these farms are referring to build up ares.They would have available to bill there check it out ?? etc, Speaker Changes: one more time please Speaker Changes: The way this is were reading if this is inactive currently farms are exempt with ?? is this gonna affect the build up area farms for farmer's structures such as ?? check it houses thanks that's we are nature Speaker Changes: Think that we take a little bit of reflection i believe the en tempt was to allow to clarify who could enforce the ?? so if you don't mind would take a few minutes Speaker Changes: Think we have two different copies of this bill so we be around so we don't have the position of one being taking up just want to displace this when they saw this out Representative Jordan you still have the command that you need, Speaker Changes: ??, Speaker Changes: Let's displace it temporarily representative ?? is send forth to clear the mi mid, Speaker Changes: Thank you Mr.Chairman this mi mid speaks to page 117 to 42 has to do with service of process and the mi mid will simply delete line 7 to 24 and remove this from the bill this has to do service of process to system the share of cross states firmly oppose turning into a private process it's an important part of the authority as far as the chair is always i know that no evidence that ?? cannot dissolve this someone's own time and the currently system works accurately and fairly serving that the ?? proper service this is after all the first transitional law enforce of the state and they are opposed to this bill as we are supporting, Speaker Changes: Representative ?? Speaker Changes: i don't know if there is any available how many information's that were taken off ?? in order to deliver ?? of how much actual investment is used for this type of service, Speaker Changes: Did staff have an answer for that, Speaker Changes: Mr.Chairman, Speaker Changes: I understand this too many moving parts here,Andy I'm asking you a question,the staff has no idea , Speaker Changes: Representative ??, Speaker Changes: thank you Mr.chairman representative ?? association might be held up a question i think that's really up to the individual chairs so Representative Stamp and answer to that individual ?? but the importance of having do it is that court know that is really was done by ?? person rather than just,

Some yo-you you hire who may be your best friend. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. All right. You're correct. I've got a lot of people who a cuing up on either side of this, OK, I'll give the Sheriffs two minutes, I'll give the Apartment Association two minutes and then we'll go back to this debate, because you're right, this is a big deal. Sheriff ?? please come forward. Two minutes. Identify yourself for the record. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Andrew Kegel with the North Carolina Sheriff's Association. Representative actually summed it up beautifully. This is an ?? of the Office of Sheriffs, Sheriffs feel that if you're going to serve very important papers you would want someone in uniform. Again, there's really not much more to be said than what Representative Faircloth has said and we hope you support his amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is the Apartment Association or Realtors to speak to this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please identify yourself. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Jason Deans, I represent Loves, Brack and Bremley. It's a law firm that deals with a lot of these issues. 21 other states already allow for the private process to be used. Again, this is not a mandate that an individual has to use private process, it just allows them the opportunity to. 17 other states allow it so we've got a good majority of states that allow private process, and to the arguments that the sheriffs are meeting the timelines, I would dispute. I think there are a number of delays and I think we have information that the details, these delays, and they're very costly to property owners in terms of their ability to get people who aren't paying their rent out of their properties. The other issue I guess is going to be, I think the safety issue has been brought up. There are other areas in North Carolina in the civil process that allow, the civil rules and procedure that allow for private process. Again, we have got some information that do show the delays. I think there's some confusion because I think the clerk of courts office as I understand it, they're not assigning these to the sheriffs because they know there is a backlog there, but it's especially a big problem in some of the larger counties. We would be open to working on some sort of compromise that would allow us to address this, but I would urge that members of the committee oppose this amendment. This is a free market idea to allow individuals the opportunity to use private process if the deem it necessary of if they are in an area where the Sheriff's Office may be running a little bit more behind. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I have Representative Shepard and Representative Adams both wanting to speak and also McElraft. So Representative Shepard is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was wondering if someone could answer this question, what is the difference in the fees that would be if you hired a private organization to go out and serve those papers as opposed to the county. I've been in conversation earlier this morning about this, and most of the people that I've talked with would rather have an official deputy go out and serve the papers rather than somebody they don't know anything about and that kind of thing, but I was just wondering if there was a difference in the fees and the costs. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think that would be set by the private process servers, Representative Shepard, so we would have no way of knowing. Did you have a follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I guess my question was, probably someone had that if they're doing it in 21 other states, so I didn't know if there was any data that we could look at and so forth but thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair, just a question. Who would a private processor be? I'm not sure I'm understanding what that organization or person would be, Representative Stam mentioned the term yo-yo, but I'm trying to figure out who would a private processor be? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Miss Cochran-Brown. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair, Representative Adams. Basically they would be businesses that would set up and be available to plaintiffs for a fee to essentially serve process. They would be separate private businesses. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So they're not connected in any way with the courts, because this would be, OK, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McElraft.

Speaker: Thank you Mr.Chair i 'm gonna support this memo because i worry about the safety issue but i do understand from the real tors point of view to if is an issue that you have to wait and wait for this process or you got someone n your apartment complex and friendly unit so I'm helping that we do gonna share some asking but in the end ?? or whatever and we look at those areas that how back log may be said that if it have a ?? within 30 days so private process can be take over from there.Something like compromise on this because there is gotta be an answer but i do worry about the safety and i do worry that chair's office is one be doing this so I'm gonna support this amendment, Speaker Changes: Follow up representative ??, Speaker Changes: No that was just a comment, Speaker Changes: OK representative Cunningham, Speaker Changes: Thank you this issue came up in the last session and one and only thing we found out ?? lake is procession for visions stake is a bit longer than what it should so accordingly real tors are losing now financially ?? in private people that leaves.So it is more been an official but we leave affairs for how we are doing business for people in normal community i applauded the chairs for what they do but if they are not doing very well for public then we need to think alternative in the private process alternatively thinking and it would cost you most process that it is been using the sheaf alternative ,so i would say let us think about it and think us about the service that they pay for thank for, Speaker Changes: Representative Reeves, Speaker Changes: thanks Mr.Chair my concerns i think i fallen along representative Adams and stamp were ?? there is no limitation on who come you this gotta be 24 years old ?? I'm little concerned about dragging some 21 year old ?? when they are kicking somebody out of their home,if i need to be corrected on that please need to be the best what is say, Speaker Changes: your correct in the qualifications serve and you are on that kicking someone out of there and actually delivering the papers and now sing the suit is commencing and it's personal service it's do not think them out Speaker Changes: Representative ?? follow up, Speaker Changes: this isn't an actual understand we kick out we do both side in it and when that person gets that service we gonna found like ?? but I'll say that the real concern is just as nothing i think a lot of states in quite that do this form ?? have some qualification for some private process and i think that's the concern if you're gonna use private process let's have something in place so just not a yo yo , Speaker Changes: Thank you Representative Bryan, Speaker Changes: Thank you Mr.Chair i think we actually 22 states do not have any regulations associated i don't know that we have ?? i think there are other ares several procedures cleaning where this private service process can use this as well i think may be a little bit ?? if they think a situation particularly hostels something like that but most of the situations were routine and they want to have another method ?? about 2/3 of the laid and that cost landlord's money also increase revenue rates, Speaker Changes: Thank you Representative Brandon, Speaker Changes: I did look at this issue and ?? county is very similar in numbers to what we have in ?? county and that's tonight of the back law of our service department i know that the ?? associations have their opinions,

00:00 I think that this could be a very good service it really is just a messenger service I mean just like anything else it's not necessarily people going in to throw people out to use representatives to a stance term yoyo it is something pretty much any yoyo can do you just stick to the thing on the paper on the door and you keep it moving but this does save a lot of people money and time and we do it in all types of other processes and legal services and support it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a question for representative Faircloth Mr chair if I may [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] representative Faircloth this looks like it's permissive it's an option so you could use the sheriff or you could use an agency I won't use the term yoyo I'm not use what that means but so what would be wrong with that because they would have an option they could use a sheriff or they could use a private source. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you representative I think you hit on it when you I think you mentioned what qualifications does the person have yes there would be an option as I read it but the option might be someone with no training whatsoever and that's one of the concerns in the service of the process I would suggest Mr chairman if we can support this amendment I think there are those that are sitting in this room who will be more than willing to sit down with the sheriffs and the real estate folks and work something out for the future. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay representative Blackwell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a question for staff please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is it the case that currently if there is some sort of inability,failure, delay in the sheriff serving a paper of this sort that the option to use private process is already available in that circumstance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blackwell my understanding is that is available now but only in that limited circumstance in which the sheriff returns the process as un-deliverable and I believe that maybe in only in certain kinds of cases but I can check that and get back to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think we've come on up on the situation where this amendment is consuming so much time I'm gonna displace it and we'll come back to it 'cause there're some others that need to be dealt representative Stam is recognized for a series of motions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have one that was requested on the ok number AST184. [SPEAKER CHANGES] okay staff [??] this basically says that these pharmacy plans that that section doesn't apply to the state help plan itself I think this was requested by representative Dollar and he just went in here when it needed to be signed but isn't this okay representative Murry representative Murry he's okay with it representative Avila. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A question of representative Murry why particularly do we need the exempt health state plan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mainly there's unclear fiscal impact the state health plan didn't wanna address that secondly I thought this we exempt the state health plan from a whole other DOI regulations and so I thought we already did that in this provision and so this actually clarifies the intention of this provision. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes if there's gonna be a fiscal impact on the state health plan wouldn't that be the same case for everybody else involved. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The way the state health plan works they have to have an [??] and do all that process when you talk about just the state health plan versus the entire population of anybody who gets pharmacy benefits it's I don't know that the impact would be I don't know if there's gonna be an impact on state health plan because they're supposed to update their prices anyhow and so but to clarify this provision that's why we had it so that's why we're having this in I don't think it'll be any cost impact on anything because it's basically patient's choice and price updates and price updates go up and price updates go down. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion for the debate the motion is representative Stam to amend the bill on page 31 line 14 05:00

All in favor, say Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed? Motion carries. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Chairman. Can I do AST183 next? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, use of natural spring water at ?? located restaurants. Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This isn’t about one particular place, but raise your hand if you’ve ever been to Shatley Springs. Isn’t it great? But do you realize that that great water, which people come from all around to get ?? back to Hickory or wherever. They can’t serve it in the restaurant itself even though the spring itself has been inspected many times and it’s perfectly clean. So whenever I go to Shatley Springs, I have to send my boys out to get a jar of the real water. Because you can’t serve it in the restaurant. So this corrects that situation and then asks the Commission on Public Health to do some rule making. But this is of all the crazy, crazy situations, that’s a crazy one. You go to a place to get pure, clean, spring water and you can’t drink it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chairman. I think as a pursuant of rule 24, I need to be excused from voting on this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Representative from Shatley Springs is excused from voting on this amendment. Further discussion? Further debate? Representative Holley is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, I’m trying to see if I understand this. Now I also understand that when you grow food on the spot that you can’t use that in your restaurant either because of the laws of the accountability that the restaurant would then have if something was wrong with the water or the food. I’m a little confused. Is this just for one location or is this for all locations or..? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, it’s for all locations. There’s one…Yes, I’m sure they’re plenty of restaurants. I just used that as an example because that’s where I like to go up and vacation around labor Day. And climb Mount Jefferson and canoe down the New River. But there’s another one, what’s the one? There’s several of them like this where it’s pure spring water but you can’t drink it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, so if something happen to happen to that water that day that the restaurant served it, whose liable? The restaurant? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I’m sure it would be. You realize what they do, they have to put chlorine in this pure, in other words, you have to drink chlorine water in that restaurant, when the pure stuff is right outside. Of course they’d be liable for contamination if there were contamination. This been there a hundred years without being contaminated. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Further discussion? Further debate? So many as favor the amendment by Representative Stam say Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed? Motion carries. Okay you’ve got a third amendment but copies have not been distributed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can explain it. Is this the Jury Cohen amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, Representative Brandon is recognized to send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chair. My amendment is a very simple amendment. It deals with section, page 17, lines 42 through page 21 by 6. Basically, this takes the burden away from the LEA’s to deal with the transportation costs. That’s really the bigger problem. I think a lot of you remember last year that we, increased the time that the school buses were going to be on the road, that also increases the maintenance cost. And this prevents our LEAs from having to bear that cost. We do have a fiscal note that shows in 4 years this could cost up to 25 million dollars. I urge the adoption of the amendment. Thank you. SPEAKER CHANGES] Any questions for the bill sponsor? Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to support the amendment for the reasons stated by Representative Brandon so clearly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Blackwell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I too want to urge the Committee to approve this amendment. This is something that I fully understand and expect that education and ed oversight and appropriations education sub committee will be working. But there’s actually a budget reduction that’s mandated in what is in this regular tory reform bill and this is not where we ought to be doing that. So I would encourage you to let our education committees deal with this in the interim and next session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just wanted to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Further discussion? Further debate? So many as approve the amendment say Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye.

The Amendment carries, OK, We have got Whitmire, corrected, I believe this has been passed as SO498 RO66. OK, we have got the right one here. OK, this is the municipality may exercise extra territorial jurisdiction and the debate was how this would impact farms. And for further discussion or debate, does everyone have the amendment, are we looking in at the right place. OK, So many in favor. Mr. Brisson, Thank you [Speaker Changes]Thank You Mr. Chair. Just to want make sure that everybody realizes that this is extending the authority for the cities and towns for your extra territorial jurisdiction. So it’s not as simple. It looks simple. But it’s not as simple. When it lets see come outside the cities extra territorial jurisdiction, it becomes county. And it had to be. We may not to say so. Also the agricultural land. is in there is exempt. I am not sure that would exempt agricultural land. [Speaker Changes] Rep Shepard [Speaker Changes]Thank you Mr Chair. Question for Rep Whitmire if I could. I think I had earlier heard you say Rep Whitmire that this was supported by county of commissions. My concern is how it would have an impact, would it have an negative impact on the counties that already have some jurisdiction that affects this as regards extending their jurisdiction. [speaker changes] Rep Whitmire. [speaker changes] Good Question. Let me just elaborate completely. First and foremost I live on the farm I grew upon. And I absolutely represent Brisson, appreciate the statute that went in to place, I think it was three years ago with Bonafide Farm [inaudible]. That being said, having worked with issue that rose locally and spread to other parts of the state. We haven’t had a couple of situations which could evolve in to a significantly bad situation and significantly cause issues with what good statute is on [inaudible] 2011. That being said this amendment is narrowly tailored as possible to ensure that municipalities can enforce their flood claim ordinances. Here is how it works. Closer to home, once the situation rose we had an individual building a dyke along the river in the floodway and the national flood claim insurance eligibility criteria which put Mississippi in the cross hairs of potentially not just a hollow threat but a very serious threat of losing their stakes flood claim insurance eligibility in its entirety. This amendment is as narrowly tailored as possible to address and prevent [inaudible] that we hear. Going back to the winter time, late winter or the spring, I had a number of individuals from our states division of emergency management that found the state individuals who implement the national flood claim insurance program and its criteria in the same room with some qualified engineer type from the department of agriculture. We discussed this and some repercussions that are potentially coming from it. And I don’t want to speak for those departments. But in this chair I would welcome any one of them to come to my place if they felt compelled that this is a. well, I will say this, if anybody disputes it, I would welcome to voice your opinions. This is well coordinated as is nearly tailored to address this issue and those in the [inaudible] that have been in the table appreciate my efforts. I again don’t want to speak for organizations. I have not got any opposition. They appreciate the intent and the remedy in a limited manner that it does. I appreciate it. [speaker changes]Where is Rep Murray? Did he step out of the room? [speaker changes] Mr Chairman. I just want to be on the list, ask a question [speaker changes] OK. Actually, I am going to cut

pissed off because it's time to vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, Mr. Chairman, can I ask- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, Representative Robert Brawley was on. Representative Murry is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 493 as amended given a favorable report and rolled into a new committee substitute unfavorable to the original bill and to authorize staff to make technical changes as appropriate. And if there's any other pending amendments that we didn't get to, if you'll see me I've got, we will be addressing this issue quickly, I'm sure. So thank you and I move adoption of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. So many as favor the adoption of the motion signify by saying aye. Opposed no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The aye's have it, motion carries and the meeting is adjourned.