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 | April 15, 2015 | Chamber | Judiciary IV

Full MP3 Audio File

Let me go ahead and chorus the order. We've go a busy schedule so I know we're going to have a few folks wandering in, but I can go ahead and do some of our greetings and get us started. Glad to have everybody here, you'll see they have a little updated calendar. I think we've got about six bills in front of us and I'm going to be looking to change the order blindly leading representative Brown who'll be handling 550 will be first on your calender today. But first let me thank our Sergeant at Arms Jerry Austin, David Lattin and Martha Girthin and we have a couple of pages with us. I think today if you guys in the back would please stand up. V. R. Thomas Crosby and Will Dan. Thank you guys for being here see how first we can move through the six bills today for you guys. We've got I think Chairman [xx], gland you're here, I'd like to go ahead and ask you a [xx] 551 DOT sales of unused property before you and representative Brawley is handling that dock and I will wait he come back run to another means of [xx], run through experience [xx] keep that [xx] that you come with. And you got to vote by what time? 10:50. Okay.   Good morning members of the committee and thank you for the courtesy today. For those of you that I've been here for a while when you look at this Bill, you're going to get a sense of deja vu. This is the third time this Bill is run one it originally came out of a study committee in 2011. It was re introduced in 2013 and passed the house overwhelmingly and went to the senate where he was held hostage, we're now going for third time as a charm the underlying situation is when roads are relocated the OT is left over with several small pieces of property that they continue to own. We have approximately 4000 of these in the unused property category most of which will never be used, we don't have an easy way to solve these properties and they continue to stay on our books we are maintaining them we allow before them, yet they could be usable if we found a way to return them to private ownership, the intend of this bill is to do so. There are basically three categories of property something that is actually usable in and of itself, we have one piece of property that's four acres, and a few dozen that are between one and four acres. This are class A they have a higher level of processed for sale. A Class B property is one that adds value to the adjacent properties and a Class C property is something as basic like a two-four wide strip along a highway that was XX condemnation, and the idea is just to get it off of our books, put it in the hands of people who will [xx] it? Who will maintain it? And we don't have to and it'll be back on the [xx] so the bill has not changed since 2013 I'll be happy to entertain any questions. Mr. Adams you're one of the co-sponsors on this. Let me just remind you Representative Adams did [xx] [xx] green light when you speak respect.  And I apologize Mr. Chairman unfortunately running too many committees I guess its gone to my head. I'm glad for you. Just a point of insight for this, I've been in commercial real estates for over 25 years, and I've seen so many examples of this. There locations I can quote just many many examples but for instance how I [xx] which was probably constructed in the 1950s some areas of it have 400 feet of right of way, 400 feet of right of way on a road that's two lane four lane divided in portions, but it just got way excessive right-of -way for only a few blocks, and you create a requirement for setbacks from those right of ways, for adjacent businesses. If you would if that property can go back to the [xx] of properties living an inappropriate right of way for the roads that would increase tax values, increase the utility of the property, it would be very beneficial. I happen to live on the

street which is in down town of [xx] it's now maintain straight it was originally designed to the a hundred [xx] right now it's two right of roads no way it's ever going to use that right of way but, it leaves me a question as to what I can do with my front yard. So, I think that studying this bill in every way this is a benefit to the state if we pass this bill, thank you. Any further comments?   Is there a cost of sale preventing these from being sold? No representative, the current procedures for all properties are, if you want a property you approach the OT to purchase it, then you will put up a deposit for the expenses of them determining whether or not it is in fact surplus of having the same value, you then go through a process of where you do the contract, instead put on the agenda for the council of state and you don't actually have a deal until the council will state including the governor's sign off on it. That's a lot of trouble for somebody that might have a two [xx] them in the side walk they're not going to do it. Thank you if I could also make one identity, they are all properties that are large properties former maintenance charts, they are not covered by this bill, this is just small remnants that are basically with nothing on them. For the county's women representative? No I don't but I would like to [xx] that would be great [xx] it's the original goal I would love to entertain a motionthat is favourable to the original goal draft to the original bill. Here in now, motion, all in favor of the original bill, please say aye the opposed, [xx] report and we'll report before thank you Mr. Brawely I appreciate it exactly. The next one before you is there a file of 561 and Chairman [xx] has that [xx] force? Representative Glazier is on this Bill with us. I'm not aware of any opposition to the Bill, I mentioned that PCS but Mr. Chairman if we need to have motion, have that. [xx] we didn't mention that in the PCS before us Thank Representative Bishop, all in favor? I Okay. [xx] what this Bill addresses is a situation involving normally school board that has crimes found against it of some sort and it need to be able to have witnesses that will come and testify in a quasi judicial proceeding. It's not in court, but in what we call a quasi judicial and I'll give you give five examples of what we might be talking about, the North Carolina Employment Security Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity equation, the Office of civil rights, the North Carolina Industrial Commission and the North Carolina Department of Labor. They all handle claims of various sorts that may be brought by employees of the school system. So what this legislation would do and in item five, is that, it's says that, in the case of the Quasi-Judicial Function that's being carried out, that the superintendent and the school board in their discretion, can disclose appropriate information in that proceeding firm and employs confidential personnel file which normally is protected except for the other exceptions that you see here in items one through four but we are not changing, the PCS, changes the item five from what it was if you review the original by adding The Senates at that the end says that the disclosure is to be limited to those portions of the file that are necessary for the defense so that you can't just say, "well I've got a carte blanche to disclose anything", there would have to be some showing that it was necessary for the defense. The second change that this makes is to authorize in addition to subpoenaing witnesses, that is the first part under section two, that can be called in to these

quasi judicial functions to testify in the matter. It also authorizes the subpoena to be issued by the Board of Education and the special proceedings that are outside the normal court system to have tangible items produced and there's listing there such things as photographs, letter, maps et cetra, that you can read but we have limited in the PCS adds the additional peace at the end of section two that essentially says, to try to be sure again that the Board of Education doesn't use the authority to subpoena tangible things that are reasonably needed to provide for its defense and the claim bought by the employee that it can only ask for the these tangible things in cases that involve allegations of misconduct on the part of the employee. The idea being that, again, we're trying to avoid a fishing expedition in which somebody's suffering could be subpoena all sorts of personal records that unrelated to the misconduct that may be an issue in acclaim, and if there's not in this conduct of the employee then it's a more restricted process. So representative Glazier, I see there are some folks that are interested in this from the back, and we tried to circulate this among a number of potentially interested parties, I'm not aware of any objections to the bill. Blair answered questions? Representative Moore I have asked a question actually for Representative Steve   Yes representative, Thank you, Representative Blair, you've gone through the bill and you feel like as Representative Blackwell points out is that, the only information requested would be, what is to remain to the case at hand, that do you feel like, you have adequate protection figured, to secure that? Yes, I think Representative Blackwell actually did alot of work on that and redrafted and it is only where it is necessary for the defense of the board, where claims have been brought against the board and where that information is being sort as relevant to the defense of the board and otherwise it can't be used. Representative Borne? [xx] Alright. Alright, and if you have any comments, just a reminder that green button when you're talk if you wait for me? Alright hearing no further comments, Representative [xx] would love to entertain motion that's to the PTS. Technology. So let's make a recommendation for a favorable report to the PCS unfavorable to the original. They haven't heard the motion, all those in favor please say I and who oppose, the I's have it and we will give the favorable report to PCS with the unfavorable to the original, and report that at a committee. I am now going to turn the chair briefly to representative Blackwell for two goals that I have on the agenda today. Are you going to do 548? No, the two are public school playgrounds and then we have [xx] in that Okay, Okay 30 men, 30 men first then 13. Okay, the first role that we'll take up is House Role 539, short title 'School Programs Available to Public'. Is there a PCS for this? There is none. Okay, will Representative Brian present that bill. Thank you Mr. Chair. There is a serial referral to K12 on note. This bill is a bill that has already been read through and I think passed unanimously in the Senate. [xx] the YMCA and other organizations that often use schools or interested in making sure playgrounds could also be used. Existing law and your bill certainly does sort of a great job of highlighting this school use. Makes it clear that right now for, say a YMCA group is using the school facility, and the inside and may be they've got their kids off on an after-school activity. All those acitivities right now have to, the school enters into an express agreement with whoever is using the facilities. One of the problems folks were running to was if you had kids who would otherwise, maybe you'd dropped a kid off, people otherwise want to use the

playground equipment, there's no way to do that without actually entering into an agreement. That was heard as a requirement in  schools even if they wanted to, they were worried about liabilities and so to the need to actually enter into an agreement. This just allows the public to use those facilities this is not, schools are not required to do this nor are boards of education, this is just an allowance and it keeps the liability to stand at the same [xx] which is there is no liability for the school board or individual members for the allowance of this use. I'm glad to take any questions. Representative Tobit has a question. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ron thank you for bringing this forward, I used to be to get active as a PTO parent and president of a couple of my daughter's schools, and we addressed this and this needless to say she's 30 now so this was years ago, but I've looked into this 20, 25 years ago and unless something's changed the schools are actually or were actually by law told that that was public property for the public good when they pretty much they got first come first served. Are you saying that's not now the case or? Because it's my understanding the school asked to provide access for the general public. Yes, and I may defer to staff a little. The law right now does talk about folks having to enter into the agreements, and I think there may have been some concern about what they're allowed to do and some concerns about liabilities, and I'll maybe ask staff if they can comment additionally. Representative Torbett, currently schools are supposed to have policies that encourage non-public groups to be able to use those, the boys scouts or why can use the facilities they have to enter into agreement and they are not otherwise generaly  open to the public other than statutes so, in the past although school systems may have chosen to do so, the statutes do not require them to open the playground on the weekends to the public. Follow up, Miss Chair, the staff is that something recent or that's changed because I know I read a law some years back that pretty much said that they were required to provide the property for public use. I'm not aware of any changes in recent years there may have been some in half decades, the law has been this way it could be that they're used to a subject to limitations and so that they had to get of some use but maybe, this is certainly a concern they've had and they're trying to broaden it. Follow up. The reason I say that is we came across some schools, I won't say where but in my county, that made these stipulations for access to the point that it precluded access, and that was a concern and we addressed that concern and got that overwritten locally, but does this provide the schools that type of approach that should they for whatever reason being they don't really want to provide access that they can have the rules so stringent to the point that it became economically impossible to access the problem? I don't think that requires a school to do that so they could put rules, but we have minimized liabilities and other rationales that have been given for why they might preclude the public from using it. So the hope is that this will, certainly schools that have wanted to utilize would have been concerned about having to enter into agreements or liabilities, this is clarified that those obstacles shouldn't be in the way, so it certainly broadly used it does not require the use that could still be Thank you for the follow up. Representative [xx] Thank you Mr. Chairman.   Let's [xx] next question I regret representative Brawley not having that chance to talk to you, before this came forward to the committee there, okay, some secondary still talks about when school boards was to run to agreements for the use of their property and the [xx] of the general affordability that the political board of the education may make outdoor school property available to the public for recreation purpose. I have this concern which is, in 2012, the Supreme Court and is not 100% clear, but the Court of Appeal was held and then Supreme Coart found in different grounds vacated and remanded in court for further look, that local parks operated by local governments are not.

If there's an injury caused by the negligence in the maintenance of the park, there's no sort of immunity associated with it. So localities if they make park property available can be liable, and that's an appropriate thing obviously then for the insurance to cover, and it seems to me that if you're going to have a school board make the decision to make property, make a recreational property available to the public, so the public is not on notice of a distinction. We're introducing a contradiction into the law merely by virtue of what local authority is operating the park type property, and I think that may be a questionable thing to do as a policy matter. Have you guys considered whether or can staff speak to the question of whether there is an inconsistency here? My premise may be incorrect, but I understand what you're speaking to is recreational facilities, ball fields, playground equipment, something like that, if that's the case then I perceive that there's an inconsistency put in the law particularly [xx] we're creating given that other [xx] operated by county or city would not be immunity from liability, and I actually think that's probably the better rule. Steph, do you have any? [xx] I don't know. I have to look into what they tell me. I'm [xx] not sure about that. Yeah. Jeff follow up representative [xx], Yeah. I guess I'm trying to think out of prime in the follow up, in the absence of that knowledge, what is the rationale for the Bill if in those circumstances. I understand we may want to encourage the local Boards of Education to make their recreational facilities available for use by the public. I'm concerned about the prospect that you've got to, frankly those things that people don't generally know and I didn't know for a long time since at least have an obligation to maintain the condition of their roads in a condition that's not hazardous, and if people are injured by the hazardous condition of a road there's liability, and cities insure over that, and school boards can insure for this purpose. I don't know that we want to encourage a circumstance where school boards are rendered immune for having park-like[sp?] property, make it available to the public, it's in a defective and dangerous condition. I just don't know that, I'm not sure I. I'd like to hear a rationale before we get there that it exists. Representative Bishop, I'll just comment, sort of to step back again. I think right now there's a need for an agreement which is part of what they're trying to get around is not having to enter agreements for the general public's use of these. I think the liability question may be unreasonable, but I think we're keeping a standard. So if the YMCA is authorized to use the interior of the school facility, right now the immunity standard that the school board is given is the same one that's being applied, and the given school has to say OK you folks can use the outside ball field or program equipment while people are inside here and I think the standard is staying the same it is boarding the number of people that might be using it. I do think the concern in the first case of just the regular meeting is, school boards don't want to [xx] insurance they don't want to increase what they're having to pay or liabilities, and I think the same thought applies to the playgrounds. Follow up. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The subsection C which refers to entering into agreement with persons for the use of the property, I'm not sure the change there is necessary in the sense that if a School Board wants to make a condition of their granting use to a particular group, a waiver of potential liability or an assumption of the risk, don't even know whether that's a good idea of policy, right? But they certainly could do that in the contract. Since they can do that with the contract they got no problem with it being done here, but if subsection see the difference for me is, it's not a question where you're entering into an agreement with a group that can deliberate over whether to accept that condition when they enter into the agreement that you're talking about making it debatable to the general public, who have no such notice and we're in a situation where you've got two different sets of rules. So, you go on the county park property and there is a rusty spinning thing or whatever, and the kid gets hurt on that that could ankle turn, spend[sp?] that, then you have a claim for the injury if it happened to be a, may be it's a dual used property that's used by a school board or just the funded jointly by a school board in the municipality, then what rule would apply? I just think introducing 19 consistency is a mistake. [xx] Representative Tine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are in such a litigious environment right now that we've created a stumbling block for our schools to say, Hey, come use our public areas of schools, and so we're trying to remove that stumbling block out of the way, and the thing to remember is we're sending our kids to these schools all the time too, so to think that when we send them our kids to school that everything is maintained properly and we're not going to have concern and nobody is going to get hurt, we are at that level, but then all of a sudden when we opened it up there's somebody else who has suddenly gone entering this environment where we're not maintaining the equipment and not maintaining the area. So I'm in favor of the bill that we remove the stumbling block and make it so we can move forward. Other questions are coming to members of the community of Representative Adams, Well I'm going to vote for the bill and I understand the the bill but I think that representative Bush Bishop raises the question should be addressed perhaps with all the amendments on the floor, I'm asking. I have had conversations with the [xx] folks about his concerns and I don't mind furthering that conversation, but I do think really to represent time [xx] you know you never know fail[sp?] to be surprised at a couple stations you expected that. Then you expect that your first conversation about us today but I do understand that there's always big questions to ask and there's details that are important to get right but at this point I really represent time, and I think this is okay, but I'm not against entertaining it. Representative Whan. [xx] started and I think they've already [xx] we talk about liabilities and I'm not sure [xx] [xx] in Section D that the stock you make whatever [xx] conditions but what is not being more protective public property that has stipulation that require some supervision from whatever entity was going to use the public I guess I'll just comment generally, a lot of this is imagining, if you want a parent you've got three kids you rub in one over the Y program and you want to take your other two out on the playground, we don't want to force the schools to be worried about whether or not they can let you do that, and I didn't think that, when your parents got a couple of kids in the playground, we're not entering into an agreement with them, school could say to them we do require, the comment could be, again I don't they're going to want to, maybe they will, the school can do whatever it really wants in this regard, they could have them sign something I think personally that getting into that process you may again, we want people to be able to use it and let's sort of leave the people being unreasonable if we can't do that I'm just worried about us further questions or comments from the committee at this point. We don't have a lot of time but I will ask is there anybody in the audience that's here that wants to comment very briefly on the bill, if you would want to come up we got a mic back there we got it coming if you were never sure of your name and if you are within the organization you got to prove what that is just a couple of minutes Sure Good Morning thank you so much should the voter go with the North Carolina Alliance of YMCA's we obviously are working with Representative Brian on this and the reason why is because we want people to have access to school property to take their families to play and the way the statute was written in 1994 has been interpreted that we have to have agreements but that was not the original bill authorized intention. We've actually spoken with them and what we're trying to do is get them opened up so that poor families can take their children up there to play. It really just give permission for schools to do this. It doesn't mandate that they to do jt. It simply gives them the opportunity. There have been a number of funders in the states who have funded grand funding to schools to

improve their playgrounds that have required the stipulation that the playground be available to everyone in the community to use. So really, we're just trying to make playgrounds more accessible. So thank you. Any other comments? Questions, comments from the committee? Is there a motion? Representative [xx] do you move that we give a favorable report to the bill and that it be referred to the K12 education committee. Thank you Mr. Chair you read my mind. second, maybe second further discussion saying those with favor [xx] saying Aye. Aye. Oppose no. The Aye's have it and the motion is adapted. The next bill before the committee is house bill 513. Representative Brian is up again to talk to you about a very simple matter of Royal property technical corrections. I'm hoping this would be so confusing but you act without asking the questions the last [xx] too easy to read. This bill, is it a technical correction bill or a title correction go it's a worked in a bar association on this bill, [xx] the Bar Association [xx]. Section references, the first is just a Royal confirming change, we just did one of the mayors you can satisfy is did a trust mortgages from it and it's just making a clarification that The final satisfaction the person's death is not necessarily extinguished in lofty instrument expressly states that. So the instrument costs states that [xx] a that's fine. The second change is making changes to the condominium mark. Last session we passed a number of changes [xx]. So these acts kind of marry each other, 47 F and 47 C. 47 F had some liability especially with clearing right transfers but we largely confirmed in 47 C last session and we made all these changes but we made a few extra changes, which we note in 47F, we're now trying to finish off those changes and make 47F pretty much mirror 47C, I'm glad to answer any questions about that. Representative Whan, [xx] I hold that for just a moment, are there other questions or comments on this bill or is it sufficiently confusing nobody wants to go there. Are the members of audience that are here that would like to address this bill? Seeing none representative one you recognize for a motion which should be to give this a favorable report in areas [xx] that's in the floor. Thanks for that [xx] Who will second? I second  Motion seconded for the discussion saying those in those favor say aye, aye, Oppose no, the ayes have it, the motion is adopted. Chairman Brian Thank you, well I was so [xx] I think the next Bill on the floor is the Drivers' License Restoration Act and my good friend who is the correspondence of [xx] thank you, Mr. Chair, this is a fairly simple bill, I will tell you that this passed overwhelmingly in 2013, representative Representative Brian, representative Turner and I worked on this issue, it passed 112 before on the floor they went to the senate and received a favorable report from senate judiciary 2 and got stuck over there, this was a victim of the regulatory reform back and forth last term, so this is the driver's license restoration and this bill has no opposition from the conference of district attorneys, it is exceedingly important in rural areas like mine where there is no public transportation and folks have to drive to go to work, have to drive to go to school, have to drive to take care of familes, how it happens now let's say you get speeding ticket, and you don't go to court and pay that, your license gets suspended. Let's say you get another you're going to be you get a

 speeding ticket you're going to get charged with the speeding ticket and you're going to get charged with driving while licence revoked. Let's say that person goes and tries to pay that speeding ticket that they got that [xx] ticket they are paying to revoke their licence for an additional year. People get caught in this cycle here, where if you pay the ticket, you are committing another moving violation during a period of suspension which causes another period of revocation and an additional period of revocation. So this bill say's that those folks can come and take care of those old tickets, they can come and pay those things off, plea guilty to those things pay them off and it doesn't result in an additional year revocation of their driving licence. There's a revenue raiser for the state, it makes common sense and like I said, is and suddenly important for rule as where there are no taxi cabs, no buses no training stations, we don't any District and so I will be leaving to yield for any question or answer anything anybody has to say. There is a technical amendment that ibelieve Representative Hamilton will offer? Representative Adam, Hamilton will be glad to take that amendment [xx] it's [xx] over the line that's just very briefly but effectively this is a clear [xx] and it just correct the adaptivley[sp?] record, so if you want to take a quick look at it but it has no any normal bill have a technical correction. Any other quick motion to have the amendment before us to give Representative Horn I hope that's no problem. Representative Horn have that motion in a second. Thank you, all those in favor of having the amendment property before please say I, I Okay. We already made a property before so the discussion about the amendment, hearing none of all those in favor of the amendment please say I. I. Any opposed? OK, the amendment is adopted. Any question for Representative Baskerville? For me. Representative Johnson. I think this bill makes sense, I often wondered about that why people have their license revoked for it seems like forever. And this kind of, you pay your bills, you get it going it's over it makes sense to me I don't really see much discussion. Thank you Representative Johnson. And just an additional comment, I don't remember if Representative Baskerville miss or not this isn't applying cases of DUIs and hit and runs, a lot of situations there we would be worried about someone about keeping their licenses revoked this is not impact those situation. I've read this in a time did you? representative [xx] Further discussion representative [xx] I'm not real familiar with this area and I'm trying to absorb this in a sort of [xx] but the section, in the section two the language of 2028A1, one it says that, this is these are exceptions from what you're trying to do. If it regard [xx] driving license for revocation [xx] driving. Isn't [xx] a license for revocation? [xx] you got you license revoked for [xx] Correct. And that's terminology is that I would refer to it as an [xx] driving licence [xx] correct All right thanks. So those are exempted from this [xx] I didn't follow it through. Any further discussion? All right, hearing none, I'd love to representative Tyne and representative [xx] are supposed have the amendment rolled in Federal of finance [xx] [xx] the bill is amended, rolled into a PCS report and sent to Parker That's pretty good, we do have [xx] Okay, you heard the motion, who'll second the motion? Any further discussion, in favor say I I Opposed okay, we have a favorable bill as amended while attending PCS report out. Thank you Representative [xx] Thank you. Well I can't believe [xx] today I think [xx] and the last thing we have before us there is

going to be for a very brief discussion only, it will hopefully [xx] [xx] this is the house bill 548. Represetative Bishop, are you going to represent thi to us? He was just here, I don't know, he stepped out. Alright well, I was present, She described it. [xx] I could refer to Erica if representative Bishop if that might. I was going to introduce it and then [xx] Okay, [xx] 548 548 with a small [xx] like she can even see it, [xx] last night representative Bishop you want to come on up let you [xx] and then we might have a give as a little further background I probably couldn't print out all that paper it's just for discussion only says you can look that in your computers and we can talk about it in general. So, 540 is a [xx] of comprehensive Bill to modernize running law to take it from it's understanding now not a running expert myself but if you split between the County Code 153 A and the City Code, 160 A in various locations and this is a project of the North Carolina Bar Association it's sponsorship all and they've done a great deal of work to involve all the respective stake holders and the objective is to make a pulsi neutral to the greatest degree possible, qualification of the existing law or both, taking the statute from its desperate location and and putting all there's any law into it's own chapter representative Sam will take over here some my mistakes I'm sure, but put into one chapter and there are some that this notion of policy neutrally is a critical issue and stakeholders are continuing I think to come to the point of comfort about what is being done there also some policy determinations that are finalized or made in the statute as drafted, but they are intended to be only consensus policy changes. So, it's a worth in progress I think they draw exactly that [xx] ship they're continuing discussions over the text and whether they're going forward or not but it's an important effort and one that will make it more efficient and effective and simple for folks to know and comply with the zoning law, if we succeed in getting it done. That's what I would introduce it with Mr. Chairman if you want to Representative Stammer, Representative Hamilton perhaps has something that might be real. Well Representative Bishop I think he actually did a pretty good job, going through where we are and again the bar association has been working on this, we've been talking to the home builders and part of the reason we want to pretty before he was to allow, take a look and reach out the folks that you may know that deal with land use and land[sp?] issues, have an opportunity for them to put it before you to take a look and give further feedback, Representative Stan did you ave any comment you want to make? Two things first of all, this is J 4 in my opinion because this is the smarted judiciary, you have the a land planner, you have a state specialist any way that's it's movie, that's number one, number two, the lot policies I would love to change in when development, you don't have no two or one for example, not yet purchased, however one of our commitment [xx] years that with all of us here or without the floor we're going to oppose any amendments that tries to change exsting policy do that in a diferent bill and then we are puting the bill if such and such a bill becomes law then this is I just want to let you know that this bill is 105 pages and I'm sure you all brought it together brought it to committee today their is a lot of meat their but it's not meat for gridding  it meat for organizing so that practioners can actually file the law in a resonable way and so citizens can actualy find it that's my two scepts, Chairman

Yes I had hesitated slightly before asking this question, it's not not my intent to open a can of worms but since its 105 pages long could we know what the areas that are these policy areas that you're trying to reach what are the areas that are an issue that you hope to resolve but are yet? Mr. Dan Brodsky if you just stand and walk with me on he's been a land planner for 40 years and he will privately brief any member of the committee the current list was 82 different items but they boil down to a half a dozen real issues, and I don't want to take committee's time at 10 till 11 to go over issues that may disappear tomorrow because they are meeting tomorrow  to try to finalize this. This is not the oversight site degree that it will be policy neutral is just sometimes it's a little difficult to express in words what the holdings of particular cases are. Representative Adams well two life experiences give me great intrest in this one I was a technincal communications specialist with now Conny back really examen[sp?] my 27 years in commercial real estate. This could really, really beneficial and I have preached this with my local communities. We have a 420 page standing order so we did in Heckreign[sp?] we tried to simplify it by adding the hitches. This is a common practice, of a developer, who comes into a town and sees a 50 page standing order [xx] good business, he sees a 420 page standing order he knows it's a matter of control not of facilitating development. I would be very interested in seeing this bill with someone. Please print it out for me.  I'll make sure you get your copy was it [xx] Well as the hour has arrived I think we cut for discussion Presto[sp?] free to go talk to folks take a look and again as representatives we can get some power of the V-UPS and particular, interest in getting into the weed. Thank you guys for a great being question three five boers[sp?] we are adjourned. Good job Bob, That was nice You were really good on that tactic though. I was discussing, considering that this was normal.