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 10, 2014 | Committee Room | Subcommittee Appropriations Justice and Public Safety

Full MP3 Audio File

??? Got the House Appropriations subcommittee on public safety together. I would like to welcome you all here this morning. We have a full days work in front of us and we will try to cover everything we need to cover. We are going to try to answer all of the questions we can possibly answer for you just want to be approved by 3 o'clock this afternoon or earlier if possible. We have this morning Sergeant of Arms Joe Crook and ?? Hawkings. We have three of our patients with us this morning. Caroline May, stand up Carol, Evan McNiel from ? county and Eddis Misque from Wake County. Good to have you with us.It looks like most of our members are here with us now. Let us cover basically what our plan is going to be today. We will be having, first of all, opening remarks by chairs and then we will begin the reviewing of House subcommittee rules and the presentation of the money report and revisions. As we go through the money report and revisions, I think it is probably best if you have questions, when a staff member is explaining something, let me know and we will go ahead and cover your question rather than waiting until the end. I think it is much better to do it that way. Please keep in mind that there is, there are some things that depend on other things in this document so if you have a question that attempts to tie two things together, make up your mind on when the best time to answer that question is during your report. So lets get started. I would like to call Staff Arm Kristine Lay. Kristine will come up and excuse me Kristin. Hold up one minute. Opening remarks by our chair. [Speaker Changes] Everything is really good. [Speaker Changes] Really Good. [Speaker Changes] Its really good. [Speaker Changes] I think we are both proud that we had staff increases for post office. ?? It was a long time coming but I think we've recognized the importance of all the ? people. All the people that have ? [Speaker Changes] And.. Representative Bowls will be here a little later. He had a business situation this morning that was very important. Most of his business situations involve only once in a lifetime for folks ?? So Kristin you will come forward and talk about orders. [Speaker Changes]Hey Mr. ? and everyone.I am going to go over the rules for subcommittee procedure which is one of the stapled handouts on your stock this morning. The first rule are that the amendments must be offered by formal ? which means they have to be written. Number two, amendments cannot increase title spending within the subcommittee report. Number three, amendments can only affect appropriations within the jurisdiction of the Justice and Safety subcommittee and so you will see a couple of transfers in the DJS. You will not be able to make any amendments to those items. Items number four is amending you cannot adjust any of the salary benefit of the appropriations for the departments. Number five you cannot spend any diversions and cannot include any language in the amendments that say Shawna or ?? carry forward. Item number six, you, amendments cannot use nonrecurring funds to fund a current obligation. Number seven, you cannot change the recurring or nonrecurring destination of funds that are currently in the budget before you. Eight is amendments cannot change substituent policy or law.

Number nine, amendments may not fund items with management flexibility reductions. Number ten, amendments may not affect agency or program transfers to other subcommittees. Again, only appropriations within your jurisdiction. And finally, number 11, amendments may not include fees or other finance-related matters. Mr. Chair, that's all the rules. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Christine. Before we go any further, I'd like to recognize Chairman Burr, who's sitting in with us this morning, he's been doing yeoman's work, and he says he's going to take it easy today and let us work. Glad to have you with us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, I'm gonna start in the Committee Report, which is the document with the big box on the front of it. Mr. Chair, if it's okay with you, I will go through DPS admin and law enforcement and the switch over to provisions for DPS admin and law enforcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That'll be fine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Items one through three are the salary and benefit adjustments for the Department of Public Safety. The House is providing a $1000 salary increase. This is different from the Senate's, it's gonna add $809. Item number two is the retirement contributions that go along with that increase... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative [inaudible 00:01:23] [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry, you said to ask questions as we go. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I noticed in one it says one thousand two hundred and thirty-six, and [inaudible 00:01:32] says a thousand, can you explain the difference? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The thousand dollars is the salary increase, the one thousand two hundred and thirty-six refers to the associated benefits that go along with that salary increase. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So they, it's the same. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Senate's was a flat one thousand dollars salary and benefits, so their salary increase was $809. It was a thousand dollars when you added in the benefits. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Could you point me then that says the provision of salaries and benefits are parts of the appropriations act provides additional details of this increase? Where is that at? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's gonna be in section 35 of the larger bill, the bill that was posted online this morning, it's not in the actual JPS section of the special provisions, it's in the salary and benefits section, which is 35. We can get you that page number, I think John's looking for it right now. Okay? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Item number three is the step increase for the Highway Patrol, and you'll find additional information about that in section 35.6B as well, slightly different from what the Senate did, in that it graduates the increase, it provides a 6% increase for troopers with two years or less, a 5.5% increase for troopers with three to six years, and a 5% increase for troopers with seven to nine years. And there's another related special provision in section 35.11A, which directs the Highway Patrol to study using prior law enforcement experience as they determine where a trooper would end up on their salary scale. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, Representative Moffitt. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moffitt. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. You mentioned that troopers have been there for up to nine years, say nine years? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Seven to nine years, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Nine. So everybody who's been there above ten, ten or above, does not receive... [SPEAKER CHANGES] They've already hit the top of the pay scale, so they get the regular state employee increase, the same amount that all other state employees would get. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Item number four is the management flexibility reduction, this is the same as was in the Senate budget, it's 6.3 million non-recurring. Item number five is a modification of a reduction in the Governor's budget, it is the same as was in the Senate budget, it eliminates three and a half positions that have been vacant in admin over at DPS, and also eliminates some operating funds over there. Item number six is a new item, this is transferring into the Department of Public Safety from the Department of Administration the Rape Crisis and Domestic Violence Center and the associated grant programs with that. Item number seven is the same as was in the Senate and is eliminating the last recurring pass-through appropriation to a non-profit in the Department of Public Safety. Item number eight is a modification of a Senate item, this is elimination of 25 vacant trooper positions; the Senate had eliminated 75 vacant trooper positions. Item number nine is also a modification of a Senate item and provides funding for state Highway Patrol uniforms; this is slightly different from the Senate item because it follows the number of troopers that need uniforms. Item number ten provides $100,000 non-recurring for the Highway Patrol Troopers Association's caisson unit. Item...

Number 11 is the transfer in of the state Bureau of Investigation from the Department of Justice, and it includes a million dollar reduction once it is transferred. The Senate budget had a 750 dollar reduction in the transfer. Item number 12 is a modification of a Governor’s item and provides three additional SPI agents for the Computer Crime Unit. Item number 13 is the modification of a Governor’s item and it was the same in the Senate, which was the ALE district office consolidation reduction. 14 is the modification of a Governor’s item, same as in the Senate, and it restores some funds that were eliminated as part of the budget last year. Item number 15 is a modification of a Governor’s item and transfers Animal Welfare and the Spay and Neater Program from the Department of Ag to the Department of Public Safety. The governor had also included 100 thousand dollars increase for the Spay and Neuter Program; that is not included here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Turner. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could you expand on the reasoning behind this and how it’s going to help? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ??, would you like to respond to that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well we were asked to do this, and because it was not being administered as it should be and the people were moving over also, so we want to put it under here so hopefully they will be investigated and they will do what needs to be done. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This was also a strong concern of the Governor’s. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And this would include all the veterinarians and…? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair? Representative turner, there’s one veterinarian in this program and then there’s people out in this region who go out and do the inspections, so that’s what… The rest of the veterinarians in Ag are doing stuff with cattle and chickens; not the animal welfare, dogs and cats. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for that information. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Graham.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Where would we find this in the bigger… the main report? What page would that be? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You mean in special provisions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, special provisions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is in the Department of Ag section, and I apologize, I did not write down the section number, but John will look it up quickly and will get that for you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me. So it’s in the Ag section? Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Item number 16 is identical to a Governor and Senate item, and it’s just shifting some ?? to receive support. Item number 17 is the same as in the Senate and is eliminating some funds for the Joint Forces Building Repair line item. I think, Mr. Chair, if I could pause for a minute, I think John has the statute for Representative Graham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Graham, it’s section 13.14, and that’s in the agricultural section of the report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We will be going over the provisions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Item number 18 is a modification of a Governor and Senate item. This is the creating a new fee for hazardous materials and businesses. The fee will be 50 dollars for each hazardous material a company has, and 90 dollars for each extremely hazardous material a company has. The Governor and Senate items both had a pro rata amount based on when the fees were actually paid; the House has the entire reduction because those fees will come in in 14-15. This item will also provide funding to local governments for hazardous material response activities. Item number 29 is an item that you did not see when we reviewed the Senate budget, although it was in the Senate budget. It provides 3.2 million dollars for ?? and the Division of Emergency Management. You didn’t see this in the Senate budget because the Senate budget had transferred the mapping functions out of Emergency Management and into the Chief Information Officer’s Office, so the money was going there, but now the House has not transferred those functions, you’ll see an information item here. There is an associated item in the Department of Commerce’s budget where the funds are coming from, and there’s some leftover money in Commerce’s disaster reserve from Floyd and Fran that is providing the funding here. Item number 20 is the same as was in the Governor and Senate budget, and it’s 11 thousand dollar reduction to the Adjutant General’s Office. Item number 21 provides funding for the operation of the Tarheel Challenge Academy in Stanly County. Last year you provided some repair and renovation funds to rehab an old school building down there. This provides partial year…

Operating funds. They expect to have it up and running in August of 2015. This item also provides funding to shift the positions at Salemburg from temporary personal contracts to state employees. They've been on temporary contracts for some reason since 1994 when the program was first started and they need to be shifted over to full time state employee positions. Mr. Chair, that's it for the money in law enforcement and admin, and I'd like to shift to the provisions now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Moving over to provisions now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So in the other packet with the seal on the front. The first general provision for the Department of Public Safety is 16a.2, this is a modification to the Governor's Crime Commission Gangnet report and it's just adding in where the report was supposed to go. Before it just went to everyone. 16a.3 is a repeat of a provision that you saw last year and it was also in the Governor's budget, and it is limited authority to the Department of Public Safety to reclassify administrative positions. Item 16b.1 is a modification of an item that was in the Governor's budget. This is the same as was in the Senate and it directs the Department of Public Safety to use funds from law enforcement to pay for security enhancements required by the FBI for access to the FBI's criminal justice information system. It also encourages the Department of Public Safety to use asset funds for this purpose. This is an allowable use of those funds. 16b.2 is the ABC Permit increase, generates $9.6 million and you'll see that listed out in the availability statement in the front of your bill, which I think will be reviewed tomorrow with all the appropriations. 16b.3 is the Hazardous Material Facility fee which we discussed already. I want to bring to your attention the fee is actually set out on page 153, lines 40-43, and then there's some changes from the Senate language on page 154 lines 21 and 22 where it says to provide grants to counties for hazardous material emergency response, planning, training and related exercises and then lines 23-28 which state that DPS may establish and operate a hazmat team in Lee and Moore Counties and that they shall use proceeds from this fee to ensure that hazardous material emergency response capabilities in those counties are sufficient to respond to hazardous material emergencies related to natural gas exploration and extraction. 16b.3 is an amendment to the definition of an emergency, it adds public health, riots, explosions and terrorism related causes. The title of the next provision is on page 154, but if you turn to page 155, section 16b.5 directs the Department of Public Safety to use law, funds available to the Division of Law Enforcement to purchase mobile viper radios, they need $2.9 million for that purpose, and it also encourages them to use funds available to them in the seized asset funds. Section 16b.6 is a repeat of a provision that was in last year, state capital police receipts of quota positions. This has been modified somewhat, it allows them to contract with state agencies to create additional state capital police positions, but it requires them to report on the creation of those positions to the chairs of the Appropriations Subcommittees and the, yeah, the chairs of the Appropriations Subcommittees within 30 days of creating those positions. Section 16b.7 is a change to the adjutant general statute in the National Guard and it just is giving them authority to create an additional assistant adjutant general. This position will be funded by federal funds. Mr. Chair, that's all I have for general provisions in law enforcement. Operating funds. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Going back to the money report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So we're back to the money report, and we're on page 55 item 22. This is a Governor's recommendation to close one of the five prison regional offices and to eliminate the ?? command. 18 facilities including 16 prisons and 2 contract facilities have closed since 2009, with no change in the prison regional office structure. Item 23 is the consolidation of the management of Tillery and Caldonia

...those are adjacent prisons to each other down in Halifax County. This has been done successfully up in Buncombe County with Craggy and Buncombe Correctional and here in Wake County with Women's Prison and Raleigh Correctional. Item 24 is a reduction to various operating line items. The elimination of 11 vacant positions. Item 20... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Mobley? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Back to item 23, with the closure of one, do you know which one it's going to be? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Mobley. Neither of the prisons are closing. The management of the prison consisted of having two management structures. Since they're adjacent and Tillery supports the mission of Caledonia, there will be one manager but all the prisons in the state operate on a unit management concept so Tillery will still be managed as a unit but it will not be sort of a stand alone facility. It will be managed at both those locations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Item 25 on page I6 is the removal of the rest of the misdemeanants from the state prison system. When you all created the Justice Reinvestment Act and created the State Misdemeanants Confinement Program, you removed all misdemeanants with sentences of 91 to 180 days from the state system and paid for them at a state-wide misdemeanants confinement fund. What this proposal does is eliminate the remaining misdemeanants who have, now any misdemeanant with a sentence above 90 days or the DWI folks will be transferred to county facilities that participate in the State-wide Misdemeanants Confinement Program and we'll talk more about a special provision that goes along with that. The regular structure sentencing inmates will transfer or people who are sentenced on or after October 1st will go and then the DWI folks January 1st or after. Sort of as part of this change, Item 26 is the closure of Fountain Correctional Center for Women down in Nash County. That will close October 1st. On August 1st, North Piedmont Correctional Center for Women in Davidson County will close. And then November 1st, Eastern Correctional down in Greene County will be converted from a male facility to a female facility. There's a similar facility to Eastern in Troy called Southern Correctional and in 2004 the department transitioned that facility from a male to a female facility so they have some experience doing that. Turning to special provisions. If you look on page 155 towards the bottom of the page. Item 16C.1. This begins the misdemeanant transfer provision. We presented this last week to the subcommittee and there have been a few changes since you all last saw this based upon some feedback from the sheriff's association working with the department, our drafters and some folks from the school of government. So I think we're getting there. The first section is the same as you saw before. It deals with the whole split sentences and where those folks go. The first major changes that you're going to see are on page 156, Section B. When this was originally drafted the title of this, Commitment to the Division of Adult Correction and Department of Public Safety was inadvertently stricken. So you see that restored because this whole section of the statute deals with folks that go to adult correction and folks that go to a local confinement facility and that title was inadvertently stricken. On lines 28, 29 and 30, it just clarifies that misdemeanors are going to go to the State-wide Misdemeanant Confinement Program. Before it said local confinement facility and that was not clear enough to where the intent of these offenders to serve their sentences is. If you go down to line 48, it clarifies that folks who are felons are going to serve their sentences in the Division of Adult Correction. Top of the next page, Section C is struck because it was similar, redundant language that sort of described where misdemeanors went, where felons went and it was just similar, redundant information. And then finally down on Subsection F on line 32, it stresses that DWI offenders and other misdemeanors are going to serve their sentences in the State-wide Misdemeanant Confinement Program. C is the same as you saw before. It deals with some statutes related to racing and driving while license revoked. Subsection D deals with the...

In the classroom of 21,000 dollars approximately. Item number 75 is a Senate modified item which eliminates museum from the grassroots science museums. A health adventure museum closed down and that funding was eliminated. The house eliminated that particular museum but added two new museums so they actually increased the grass roots science museums by nearly 43,00 dollars. The research triangle institute item number 76 is also a senate modified item. The house appropriated 500,000 to this entity on a non recurring basis whereas the senate provided 250,000 on a non recurring basis. The last item under state aid is the support center which is a house only item providing the support center with 1,000,000 dollars on a non recurring basis. Mr. chair, I believe Timothy will come back up to go over special funds. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thanks Aubrey. So now we’re going to continue on with the special funds pages which is the remainder of the money report packet starting on page H19 with the department of Agriculture. The three items that you see there were also in the senate money report that was the reversion of those cash balances that are listed there 2,000, 11,0000 and the 1 almost 2 million from sleep products. The biggest difference there is the sleep products the senate had transferred the operational budget from that special fund into the general fund. The house leaves that budget within that special fund but just sweeps the cash balance from it. So if you turn the page over to page H21 the warehouse investment fund, you’ll see that the senate had also swept that cash into the general fund as we covered in the money report. Those funds are swept into the division to offset the general fund support on a non recurring basis. Turning the page to page H23 the Swann waste fund those funds are trans - as we already went through with the money report – those funds are transferred to solar and water conservation division to offset general funds support on a non recurring basis. With Mr. Chair I’ll turn it back over to Jennifer Hoffman to go through the ?? special funds. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thanks Timothy. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Jennifer Hoffman of fiscal research starting on page H25 ??? special fund you see the aquarium emissions fund being reduced and transferred to the general fund. You also see the 3.5 million dollars of the advanced license sales fund being transferred to the general fund to support the three items that were already reviewed. What’s new in this particular budget code is on the top of page H26 and that’s the diversion of 3 million dollars of the emission inspection fee form the Inan pollution control account to the general fund in fiscal year 14-15 only. There’s a special provision there that directs the division of air quality to use their cash balance to support this program next fiscal year. You see something similar happening on page H27 with the reserve for air quality’s fuel tax. This diverts 750,000 dollars of fuel tax that would otherwise have been allocated of the division of air quality. That money will be deposited in a general fund and there is a corresponding special provision that directs air quality to use its cash balance to offset this diversion. Beginning on page H29 there’s a series of special fund pages and what these do is divert interest earnings that these special funds would have otherwise earned to the general fund on a recurring basis so these special funds will no longer receive their interest. Those special funds include the marine conversation fund. If you flip the page it’s the dry cleaning solid tax special fund, the Bernard Allen drinking water fund, continue to flip the page the waste water operating training fund and then a number of funds within the commercial lust cleanup budget code. Those particular funds include the brown filled superfund, the commercial linking underground storage tank fund, the emergency response fund, the enactive hazardous sites cleanup fund, the enactive hazardous sites cleanup fund that’s kept separately form the first one due to Senate bill 1429 that’s the money that’s used for the pre-regulatory landfills. It’s kept separate and apart from the other fund. The non commercial linking underground petroleum and storage tank fund and.

Page 162 is the House provision that 16C.9 to deter inmate access to cell phones. This encourages the department to find funds from Federal sources or other sources to enhance prison security regarding cell phones and access to cell phones. 16C.10, the use of closed facilities. This is the provision I mentioned that follows the money. If you turn to the next page, page 163, lines 1 through 3, this allows the Department of Public Safety to use available funds to reopen and convert closed facilities for this purpose using funds available. 16C.11, this is a repeat of a provision from last year. It allows the department to reclassify positions as support staff for the probation and parole officer positions that were created in last year's budget. 16C.12 is a technical correction that clarifies how many rehabilitated ex-offenders need to be on these community corrections advisory board. 16C.13, this is a study that will see if the UNC providers who are providing health care to inmates may be able to take advantage of a Federal program for reduced drug pricing costs. Mr. Chair, that's all I have for Community Corrections and Juvenile Justice. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Proceed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll charge to the Department of Justice next. In the money report on page 8, items 32 and 33 are the assigned benefits changes for the Department of Justice. Item 34 is a $1 million management flexibility reserve. This is the same as was in the Senate. Item 35 is the transfer of the State Bureau of Investigation to the Department of Public Safety. Item 36 is an elimination of all of the toxicology outsourcing funds that you all put in the Department of Justice's budget last year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could I ask a question on it? Correctional on that begins as, why we doing that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Last year you all appropriated $750,000 to the crime lab in the second year of the budget in 14-15 for the crime under outsource with private toxicology labs. You also appropriated money, I believe it was $500,000 to the conference of DAs for local DAs to outsource to local hospitals. So that part of the program is happening and we'll find out how it's working later. For the outsourcing of private toxicology by the crime lab, they issued an initial RFP for that several months ago and no one responded. Then they've reissued it and have gotten two responses on this reissue. But it is my understanding that they are less than stellar responses... Oh, I'm sorry. Christie is vigorously nodding her head and saying no, no, no, they're good. But nonetheless, the Senate had a reduction of $250,000 and then the House is taking all of the money... [SPEAKER CHANGES] I got that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Page R9, Item 37, this is a modification of an item that was in the Governor's budget and it provides six forensic scientists and two forensic scientists, two, an evidence technician and a forensic scientist supervisor for a DNA unit at the western crime lab. The Governor also had this item in his budget. The Governor's salaries were slightly less than what these salaries are set out here because forensic scientists are hard to recruit positions. In addition, the Governor did not have lease money or a crime lab funding for to build the western crime lab in his budget. The House budget does include funding to build the western crime lab on the Edneyville campus. That was also included in the Senate budget. So there will be a place for these 10 people to go. Mr. Chair, that's all for the DOJ's money and I will turn to their provisions unless... [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Page 163, the first provision in the Department of Justice section is the transfer of the SBI Crime DOJ to the Department of Public Safety. We went over this somewhat when we reviewed the Senate budget earlier last week. I'll run through the substantive pieces of it again for you. 17.1A is the actual transfer, [?] type 1 transfer of the SBI to DPS. Most of the next 17 or 18 pages are statutory and conforming changes but if you do look at, I'm going to draw your attention to...

[SPEAKER CHANGES]: 17.1G These are the statutes that are related to the Division of Criminal Information, and this pulls Information out from under the SBI and places it under General Provisions in Law Enforcement to give DPS more flexibility in consolidating the different IT functions that exist for law enforcement. Now we can skip the next 17 or so pages, and go to page 181. Subsection M, down there on line 41; this is the appointment of the director of the crime lab, and it is basically the same as what was in the Senate ?? There's been a couple of technical changes to it, but it does have the Governor appoints a director, confirmed by the General Assembly, for an eight year term . . . I'm sorry, did I say crime lab? I meant the SBI, not the crime lab. The House is not moving the crime lab, so everyone's clear. Sorry about that. So they're eight year terms, confirmed by the General Assembly,and the Director may only be removed for certain reasons laid out in the statutes, including committing a felony, becoming addicted to substances, not coming to work, that kind of thing. NNN, Subsection NNN, allows for the appointment of an acting Director, until the next year, the next session, when you all will appoint the real Director. Section OOO is a limitation on movement of funds or positions from the fund code 40SBI. Subsection PPP takes the Alcohol Law Enforcement Section and moves it under the SBI, so it will become a branch of the SBI. And if you look at, drawing your attention to lines 42 and 43 there has been a change there to the statutes, this is the same as was in the Senate budget, but this language just emphasizes that the General Assembly wants ALE to focus on ABC law enforcement. It does not change their jurisdiction on any criminal matters at all, but it does change the emphasis the General Assembly wants them to focus on. Turning to page 183, Subsection UUU, this directs DPS to consolidate ALE and Highway Patrol regional offices. I'm sorry, not Highway Patrol: ALE and SBI regional offices. The Highway Patrol regional offices, you all tried that last year, it didn't work out. VVV is requiring DPS to report on the consolidation of the SBI into the Division of Law Enforcement; there's three reports required there. That's it for the transfer provision. The next provision, 17.3, is directing JPS oversight and HHS oversight to jointly study the merger of the Crime Lab and the Office of the State Medical Examiner into an independent agency, and they are to report back to the 2014 General Assembly on their findings. Mr. Chair ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Graham? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you, thank you Mr. Chair. Last week we were talking about the reduction in ALE offices from six, from nine to six. We're going to keep the nine, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Graham, the SBI has eight regional, eight regions and eight regional offices. ALE has nine. And so I think the assumption is the DPS will look at that, at both the eight and the nine, and determine what is the best for the SBI and ALE as a whole. But there is a reduction related to that, so one would assume that it will go not up to nine but down to eight. Page 184, Section 17.3A: Ensure proper role for Attorney General. This clarifys some language in the statutes, first that the GA is the client if the Attorney General is representing the General Assembly in any matter or in connection with any action of the General Assembly. Subsection C, says that if the General Assembly hires outside counsel, then that counsel shall be lead counsel if the General Assembly chooses to designate them as such. Section 17.5 is transferring the Private Protective Services Board and the Alarm Systems Licensing Board from the Department of Justice to the Department of Public Safety. This is a Type 2 transfer, these are independent boards so they are just where they're . . .

Administratively housed is being switched from the Department of Justice to DPS and you'll also see in the conforming language down there subsection b on lines 47 and 48, it's taking the attorney general out of the appointments and putting in the secretary of public safety and then if you turn to page 185 line 18 it's saying that the director will be appointed by the secretary of the Department of Public Safety. So I believe that's all with the Department of Justice. Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? Oh, OK. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. From the money report in page I10, this is the office of ?? services, items 38 and 39 are the salary increase and retirement contributions, item 40 is an administrative reduction to the ?? service, this is a modification of the Senate item, this reduces the appropriation by 20% and removes the position that was with the Senate Budget. I'm going to go on and with your permission, Mr. Chair, I'm going to ?? provision, so turning the page to item 11, this is the Administrative Office of the Courts, item 41 is the compensation increase, salary increase, item 42 is a step for all assistant and deputy clerks, item 43 is a step for magistrates, item 44 are the retirement contributions and item 45 is the judicial contributions. When we talk about the Senate budget they had a very similar item where the state overcommitted to the judicial retirement for the current year, so this takes money back out after giving the cost of living allowance, so it's not cutting into retirees at all, it does still include the cost of living allowance. Item 46 sweeps the salary reserve and directs AOC to budget salaries at actual levels, it ?? at the end of March. Item 47 is a reduction to the administrative and services division of the Administrative Office of the Courts of 6.6%. This is a modification from the Senate budget which had a directed cut to technology services and a 5% cut to the rest of Administrative and Service budget. Item 46 is the state funding for family court and item 49 eliminates the direct appropriation for access to civil justice that goes to the state bar for access to civil justice in all province. Now turning to provisions on page 186 starting on line 18 section 18 A.1, it is a modification of a similar provision that appeared in the Senate budget. This directs IDS to develop a plan to deal with the public availability of fee applications, directs IDS to work with the controller and OSBM, the agency has said that they had a few problems with the budget or with the original or the Senate provisions so this gives them time to work that out. Section 18 A.2, this is a request from the agency. This gives the ASE and IDS some time to work on this report that is due on July 1, 2015 now dealing with the criminal case information system for public defenders, also this directs this report to go somewhere, this was a staff oversight from the last budget. Section 18 B.1, this is very similar to a Senate provision dealing with various reporting requirements. I walked through this last week and I'd be happy to do it again if anyone's interested. Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. OK. So, OK. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Couldn't find your ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's all right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] On the money report, page 12, family court, we were doing away with that ??. This ?? no more, is this what I understand. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's what it does, that's correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And this ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] What is the basis for that? I don't

Representative Dollar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s not a statewide program. There’s only, like, 13 family courts in the state. My district doesn’t have them. Some work well, some doesn’t, and this does not preclude an additional district from having the family court; we just are not going to fund it. In some cases they could even be local funding of the family court if that local area wanted it, or if the management of a system wanted to designate a judge as a family judge… so there’s some latitude there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can I just follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to make a comment, I’m really concerned about this. What do we do…? And you hear my frustration. We’re trying to keep children with their families, mothers with their children. If they’re not with their mother then where are they at? Somebody’s got to take care of these children. I see this and I think we have a strong family court in my county. I’ve been there, I’ve seen it work, I’ve seen it be successful, I’ve seen children coming back to their mothers. For me this is a family issue. To me this is a moral issue, and just to say if we can pass that off to someone else, I’m not sure that we’re going to see a benefit when we pass it off to some other part of the judicial system when we’ve got folks who are experiencing working with these families – councilors, individuals who can keep these families whole. I’m really concerned about what we’re saying here and sending a message out to our families, especially those who are afflicted with issues as it relates to drugs, so I’m really concerned about the message we’re sending. I’m really disappointed to hear this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I could explain some things for Representative Graham, the family courts that are being abolished here have to do with couples who are getting divorced. It has to do with civil court. The courts that you’re referencing are juvenile courts. They’re still within the district court system. They’ll still be operating exactly as they have before. These courts only dealt with divorce, property division between… If you’re saying “Whose not getting the kids when mom’s not getting them?” it’s dad, because courts decide which parent shall have them. These are divorce courts. These are specialized divorce courts; they have nothing to do with abuse, neglect, dependency at all. Those courts are still operating completely the way that they were. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The “family” part of it I assume was what you were… the wording “family” raised your concern I think, but you see it’s a little bit different from handling family matters. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’ve got a great judicial district. I’ve been to yours, and we’ve got one, and we look after our children just as well as your county does. We have about the same number of people working in juvenile courts as your county does, and that will stay the same, but we don’t have a standardized family court system in this state. We just don’t have it. And we don’t have one in my district. You have one in yours, but why should we have specialized courts when we don’t have enough money? And o what we’re trying to do is make sure that the court system works, but the family courts in our estimation do not serve a statewide purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further questions, comments? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ve got a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Speciale. [SPEAKER CHANGES] On these facilities, the juvenile facilities that that have in Lenoir County, do you remember them approaching us at this committee and giving us this plan that they have for the future to go from the old facility to the newer facility that was closed? Do we do anything? Do we know anything on that or why not is hasn’t been…? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Lisa, could you comment on that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly, and thank you for asking. I should have mentioned that there is a provision in this budget that will allow – it’s not in this package but it’s in the full budget. Section 36.4. It’s in the capital section. That allows the department to take the funds that had been allocated for the repair and renovation of the kitchen at ?? Lenoir and to instead use those funds to start implementing that plan – the strategic facilities plan. So there is a provision for that. Thank you for asking. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair?

So moving to page 188. I’m sorry, 189, section 18B.2. It’s an annual report on criminal court cost wavers. This is very similar to a provision in the Senate budget. This redirects it to the chairs of the appropriations subcommittees and the JPS Oversight, and directs ASE to aggregate the number of wavers that are being given in each district into ?? judge granting the waver or wavers. Section 18B.3 on line 16; this is the report dealing with compensation of court reporters. This, similar to the Senate budget, adds another reporting requirement. Section 18B.5; this is language dealing with the training of superior and district court judges on the crime lab. We worked with the Scholl of Government on this language and this has been modified from the Senate. Section 18B.6, starting on line 38; this deals with special superior court judgeships. This language would, with the next four special superior court judges whose terms are up, the next two would be converted to business court judges, the two after that would be eliminated, and this has some very specific language that deals with the assigning of business court judges, starting over on page 190 on line 1. This increases the number of business court judges and deals with the provision. Section 18B.14 starting on line 27; this directs the courts to assess a fee for toxicological testing performed in private hospitals by prosecutors. This is slightly different from the Senate language. On page 191 and at the bottom of page 191, the Senate language directed this money to go back to the prosecutorial district; this money would instead go to the general fund. And that concludes my presentation on the House budget. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a question about the last thing he just talked about, the testing. The question, and we dealt with this as an independent bill in Judiciary Committee: Who pays the initial 600 dollars to the private hospital? Is this merely a private hospital fund? And at some point we talked about that maybe the district’s contract could give the moneys paid as opposed to coming from the general fund, and then we talked about what if the test didn’t cost 600 dollars, and what if the fees of the expert were not 600 dollars? Are we getting a windfall somewhere, and is the money going to the person who paid it out? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff had some concerns about the original language in the Senate budget, going back to the prosecutorial district. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, as we did. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, it seemed to violate some of the general principles of the unified court system when money goes back to the general fund instead of back to the courts, so the 600 dollars is just to make this type of testing parallel to state crime lab and the local crime lab, with the thinking that there shouldn’t be an unequal level of court costs based on who actually does the testing, so… [SPEAKER CHANGES] But the… let me follow up. The question was still, where does the money come from to begin with to pay the private hospital? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens, last year ya’ll appropriated 500 thousand dollars nonrecurring to the Conference of DAs to pilot this program, and they are doing that I think in five counties right now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Almost. Almost five. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And so the theory is that if you have this fee, it gets charged, it comes back to the general fund, then ya’ll come back next year and choose if the program is working. If the Conference of DAs comes back and reports to you “yes, the program is working”, you will have an additional source of money to provide recurring funds, because right now it’s just nonrecurring. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. That helps. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? Other questions? Representative Graham? Charles Graham? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? questions. Can I go back to the…

The special provisions on page 160, maintenance in prisons, I just have a question on that, and the question is are we as a committee supporting privatizing prison reform, prisons? Prison maintenance, I'm sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Graham, the public currently has a contract in order to do maintenance in 3 prisons. Two of the contracts are up at the end of this year and the third one's the end of April so they're in the process of preparing an RFP related to those 3 facilities. The General Assembly in 2011 said you cannot expand that maintenance beyond those 3 facilities unless the General Assembly acts. What this language does is sort of removes that prohibition so they can expand that if they can do it in a cost effective manner also obviously maintaining the safety, so it is not saying we're going to go forward and expand that, but it gives the authorization because before you all had a prohibition that they could not do that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So they can, I guess you're saying they can move forward if they feel that it's something that can be done in a positive way without ?? these original policies state and also taking into consideration safety. Without any, excuse me, I'm sorry, without any policy or anything currently in the legislature. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, sir, all they're doing at this point is they are wanting to remove the prohibition, just to give them the fund to explore what's out there because before they could not ??. The Senate reported to the General Assembly to ?? Subcommittee to deal with ?? current maintenance and some issues that have come forward, they decided to expand this ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That requires they are ?? to anticipate savings and so forth. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Other questions? What's your title, Representative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Commissioner. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Commissioner. Did you have any additional information that might help that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. Our purpose at this time, we hit this, we anticipated 11 'o' clock, and that was just about right. Question Representative ?? ? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? Commissioner? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sorry. The very last section, this is a special fund page, which is why I forgot it. In the commerce section of the budget you will find a provision that transfers the ABC Commission by type to transfer to the Department of Public Safety. The ABC Commission is an independent commission. It is operated independently but it does have to be housed somewhere. Right now it is in Commerce. The House budget is moving it to DPS and so what you see here on the special fund page is the transfer of the ABC Commission's funds to DPS. There ?? Representative McNeill ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I want to comment on that. There is a ?? reform that allows for a very close cooperation between ELE and the ABC Commission. ABC is undertaking a lot of studying work on dealing with underage drinking and auto accidents and so forth and so that would allow them to be in close proximity. Do you have another question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up question was so it's just to transfer, no change in, no cutting their budget, the budget stays the same, they're just moving from one agency to another? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? Mr. Chair. Representative McNeill, the Senate budget had, you'll see at the bottom of page 514, there's a cash balance there of $5.8 million. The Senate

… budget have taken 3.5 million of that and transferred it to the general fund. The House budget does not change any of their funding; it doesn’t touch their ?? balance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Other questions? We’re going to take a lunch break now until 12 o’clock, and during that time we would like for you to have amendments that you want to prepare. The staff will be available for you, and please be guided by the rules for the amendments, and when we come back at 12 o’clock, what we want to do is by 12 o’clock to gather your amendments, and then we are going to take about a half hour for the Chairs to go through the amendments and plan our sequence and so forth, so we actually will reconvene here at 12:30. That sound goof with everyone? We’ll break now for 12:30. Amendments in by 12 o’clock. All the committee back to order. We have reached the time and we’re now closing the time for reception of amendments. Are there any questions or comments prior to the time we start going into amendments? Representative Reives. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was curious in looking over it what our ?? prosecutes, and I guess my question is what the policy was behind moving the state Bureau of Investigation out of the AD’s office. I know when I prosecuted, it was good having that investigative arm there with the AD’s office. It was kind of a smooth transition when you could get cases moving that we could prosecute locally, and I was just curious… [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can give you my thoughts, and then someone else may want to… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have several state law enforcement agencies, and from a budget standpoint, if you had those agencies closer together so that they can purchase automobiles and maybe those kinds of things that have to be money spent on for agencies, it’s better to have them operating close together. Also, there are two schools of thought in terms of where a law enforcement agency should fit in with prosecution agencies. For instance at local government level, the sheriff does not work with the DA. The chief of police does not work for the DA. They are a law enforcement agency and the DA is a prosecutor. So and from a general management standpoint, there was a feeling that by merging for instance the SPI and ALE, who have basically the same authority and responsibility, although ALE we’re seeing is more concentrated on alcohol law enforcement, they still can all enforce the same laws. It doesn’t make a lot of sense, having two large bodies like that in state government. So that’s some of the thinking, and I’m sure there may be other thoughts as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Did you have a comment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well if I could follow-up… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Have we had a chance to see how that’s worked in maybe any other states or anything, that sort of…? Is there any precedent for it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’re going to… There’s precedent at the federal level. FBI is at the frontline with the prosecutors. There’s… We are asking for I think it’s three different reports, isn’t it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. It’s three. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Three different reports we’ll be getting back to find out how this is working next year, the year after and so forth, so we want to know if it works or not, as with anything we do, and we have addressed some in this budget, but it can always be tweaked or it can be changed if it’s a mistake. So it’s a matter… There are two schools of thought – we fully realize that – but we feel like we need to make this move now in the interest of moving forward with a consolidated law enforcement function, and we’ll see how it goes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Other questions or comments? If not, Representative Stevens is recognized to send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment is on the special provision, page 184. I’m sorry, not 184. It’s…

89, or… [SPEAKER CHANGES] 86. [SPEAKER CHANGES] 86. I knew it was somewhere in here. We are requiring ?? defense to prepare a plan for putting all of the applications publicly online and to give us a report back, but we would give them no money. It’s going to be a very expensive project to get all of that and I think there’s some concern about safety, security of information – financial information, security of attorney-client privileges and things like that. I don’t see going ahead and developing a plan without money in place to pay for it, so I’d ask that we strike all those lines. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens makes a motion I believe. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. I move that we strike lines page 186, lines 8 through 18. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’ve heard the motion. Are there questions? If not, all those in favor indicate by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment passes. Representative Szoka is recognized to send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I propose an amendment to the special provisions on page 153, line 39, and I’d like to make an aside here that I thank the Chairs and the staff for pointing me in the right direction and answering some of the questions I was asking last time. I did talk to Mr. Sprayberry, the State Director of Emergency Management and I ran this by him as well as well. He thinks it’s a good amendment that would limit the total amount of fees that any one company could pay to five thousand dollars net, which is estimated to have no impact on the total amount that the program will in fact collect, but I think it’s important to send that message to the business community that we’re not putting an open-ended fee out there. I would move that you all vote for this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Questions? Staff, can you give us any further information on that, or…? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? talk to the division about it here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Szoka. You’ve heard the motion. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Amendment passes. Representative Jackson is recognized to send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment appears on page I10 of the money report, where it shows a reduction to IDS of 466,380 dollars. IDS is a ?? that… their administrative functions were actually spread upon three different areas including public ??, so they are willing to make do with the same cut of 466,380 but would like a little discretion to cuts on travel, train, things in the other areas of their budget. So it wouldn’t affect the money; it would just allow them to get it across their whole agency and not just in one particular area, and I move for adoption. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’ve heard the motion and explanation of the amendment. Are there any questions? If not, those in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those opposed say no. The amendment passes. Moving on, Representative Hurley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mine’s on page 189, and we had asked AOC to study how the compensation for reporters would be done, and they’re just asking for a little additional time, so all mine does is change the date to January 1st for the final report on compensation for court reporters, ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Questions? Representative Stevens. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not in any opposition to her amendment, but I guess my question became, I thought we’ve studies court reporters several times, and I just didn’t know why we were studying them again. Are we still missing something? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’re not studying them. They were studying them. Excuse me, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hurley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] They were trying to decide the best way to do their compensation because they were doing it differently all over the state, and they’re still working on it. They just need a little additional time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Purely a compensation study. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any other questions? You’ve heard the motion and information on the amendment. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All those opposed say no. The amendment passes. Oh my goodness. What a wonderful room to be in.

There is not enough room in this building for us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm to ?? the night out. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We should. We really, really should. I want to thank the committee members for all the cooperation that we've gone through. I know it hasn't always been fun, and I thank you very much for staying in the room and that we've taken a big step. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a motion to send at the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's now the time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that the Justice and Public Safety Subdivision adopt the Appropriations Subcommittee report as amended and further move that staff be authorized to make technical records and conforming changes related to reconciling the various amendments adopted and that the appropriate totals be adjusted accordingly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You heard the motion. All those options. All those in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All those opposed say no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The ayes have it and the motion is carried. Thank you very much, we're adjourned.