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 | March 24, 2015 | Committee Room | House: Pension and Retirement

Full MP3 Audio File

So we're going to call this meeting in the house pensions and retirement committee to order. Turn off all cell phones or personal devices, anything that might cause a distraction today. I want to recognize a couple of people. We have Kenny Locke who has a page, will you stand up Kenny  and he is sponsored by representative Barron Jackson from Wake County. Thank you Kenny for your service. We have Brittany Mcmanus, Brittany? Also from Wake county and sponsored by representative Bobby Richards, and then we have Caroline Norton from North County. Caroline, is sponsored by Representative G. Blackwell, thank you for your service there Caroline. And our sergeant at arms today Barry Moore V. H Pearl and David Lemfican[sp?] Smith I had to put that. Inside Joke. That's an inside Joke I think I'm the only chairman that is able to pronounce his name correctly, but anyway. Alright, our first bill today is going to be house bill 50, it is a PCS, so I need a motion. I move. I second All in favor? I. Alright, the house bill 50 is before us and I think Gibbs Stan is going to come up and present that. Thank you Mr. Chair. This bill was suggested by judge of the court of appeals, currently that's my [xx] currently judges retire at age 72. Now of course they can continue as to recall our emergency judges if ALC, which is, keeps doing doing judge things but they retire at the end of the month in which they turn 72. One of the problems with that is, well it can cause political confusion. the sequence of events last year involved ultimately resulted in this 19 candidate race when somebody retired in August and they just wasn't enough time, but there is also other problems, magistrates for example are reappointed, typically their term ran January to December the appellate courts, they have terms, they like to finish up their business by the end of December, and by the end of the spring. So Jess Mccola suggested to me why don't we make the retirement age at which they are required regardless of what age that is, at the end of the calender year in which they become that age, rather than at the end of the month, and that's what this bill does. I have a note here from Mr. Solari from the treasurer's office, they've got no problem with it got the actuarial note on their retirement system, and it will not have a financial impact on the retirement system. That's the good news, but the purpose of the bill is to make it more coherent change in office at the time of year when things normally change anyway. I heard, I believe it was Shirley Randon, and I think senator Brandon told me that clerks were very much in favor of that because of their duties, when they reappoint magistrates being at the end of the calender year it would just avoid people put in office for short firm for a couple months or for 14 months, not that it will always happen because people can always retire whenever they want to, but it would reduce the number of times that unfortunate of the end occurs. Thank you very much Mr. Chair. Aright. Do we have any questions on this bill? No discussion, we have a motion. Alright representive Mcgraw But I've got a statement [xx] Alright. You well can ask [xx] [xx] that's [xx]. I know judges who can serve well beyond 872 [xx] You hear the motion in the other discussion. Alright. All in favor say I. I Oppose no. Okay. [xx] 50 has given a favorable report Aright. Next on your agenda we have House Bill 70.

That is also a PCS. I need a motion for the PCS labor force, second, all in favor. I  Alright House Bill 70 is before the committee. Representative Bishop, come forward to explain your bill. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Members, this is a bill that comes forward from the city of Charlotte. There ain't a sentence here on half of the city of Charlotte for an amendment to the several amendments to the Charlotte Firefighters' Retirement System that are necessary to comply with tax law. In particular this requirement are changes requested by the internal revenue service in order that the plan maintain conformance with the internal revenue code city has been operating the system in compliance with the code with this changes are necessary in due course. There are three sections to the bill, section one amends the plan so that if a plan participant dies while performing qualified military service, the plan treats, the plan for this one having died during covered employment under the plan, and there are a number of other amendments of that nature under section one that all deal with someone rendering qualified military services, otherwise amendment. Section two makes a slight change on lines 27 and 28 that was removed at the request of the Internal Revenue Service, section 13.1B5 permits a non spouse designated beneficiary to make direct rollovers out of the plan to an inherited IRA established to receive the benefits. There are some other matters before this committee will be or have been on question of rollovers into state plans under certain circumstances. That's not involved here. These are solely rollovers out of the plan, and again are required just for technical requirements of law. Section three permits, it is necessary to comply with the pension protection Act of 2006 and the worker retiree and sponsor recovery Act of 2008. That section's amendments permits eligible retired public safety officers to exclude up to $3000 of their qualified health insurance premiums from their gross taxable income each year, as long as the premiums are deducted from there retirement benefit. So, and that's a, I yield back Mr. Chairman. Alright. Does the committee have any questions? The bill sponsor. Representative Blairs is recognised the significance of the January 1st 2007 date. Give me a specific reference please. Well, on page one lines 25 and 26, but I saw it again on page three line 45 and 46, is that in the law? That dates in some other law or. Can't answer the question. Representative Bishop you're recognize to answer this question or you want to refer it to staff? Thank Mr. Chairman I would like to refer to Mr. [xx] to answer that question Alright Mr. Fanon if you would take the microphone, please state your name for the record. Thank you Mr. Chairman Dane [xx] with a [xx] Charlie. I believe this reference is to be act itself. I think in this case it was the hero's assistants and the heart act. I can't remember the other namely act, but it was reference to not act himself.  Representative Blairs That day is from another law that impacts the same fund.  That would be correct. That's my understanding That satisfy you representative Blairs?  Alright, are there any other questions from the committee or comments? okay, we are available for a motion, and if anyone is willing to make a motion, there is still a referral to appropriations. Representative Blessed.  I move that the proposed committee substitute be given a favorable a report [xx] original bill.  With a referral to the appropriations. With a referral to the appropriations. Alright the committee has heard the motion All in favor say I.  I.  All who oppose say No. OK house bill 70 is given a favorable to report with the serial referral to Appropriations

without further business, thank you for your service, we're adjourned.