Meeting will come to order please. Members will take their seats. And for those of us who can’t hear whose phone might ring during the committee meeting, please turn off your phone, so Senator Ford doesn’t have to stop when he’s talking about me and tell me to answer my phone. Let’s see, we have some sergeant in arms staff that we will recognize and thank. Steve McCain, Ken Kirby, Isaac Walker, and Billy Fitzhugh. Thank you all for what you do, for maintaining peace and order in the room. Our pages today I will recognize. Sal Womack from Sanford, Laura Payne from Lexington, Senators Rabon and Bingham respectively. Marybell Skoggin from Raleigh, Senator Berger. Marybell are you any kin to Professor Skoggin, who used to teach at State College? He was a fine man. Saul Kurtz from Raleigh, Mr. Stein. Colby Wazell from Wendell, Senator J. Jackson. Adriana Nicholson from Durham, Senator McKissick. Out in Gaston, there we go thank you for being here Raleigh, Senator Blue. Will Haven from Durham, Senator Woodard. Will Campbell from Mt. Airy, Senator J. Jackson. And Will Song from Raleigh, Senator Stein. Welcome to you all, I hope you’re enjoying the week and learning a lot, taking something home with you. We have a long schedule today. We’re going to run through it and we’re going to get through it. So if you’re next in line, please be prepared to come up and take over. We will start with Senator Bill 741, Senator Barefoot if you’d come forward please. Add Franklin City tax, before recordation. There’s a PCS on this, a motion from Senator Tillman. To hear the PCS, those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. We are ready to hear the PCS, Senator Barefoot. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill allows the county board of the commissioners and Franklin, Bladen and Columbus Counties to pass a resolution to require the registered deeds not to accept any [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me, are there any questions or comments from the committee? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Senator Tillman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The local bill I move for a favorable report. They’re all in favor of it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Is there any comment from this committee on that before we entertain the motions, we have a motion from Senator Tillman for the PCS unfavorable to the original. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed no, motion carried. Thank you, Senator Barefoot. Okay, thank you. Senate Bill 761, another local bill. Rockingham de-annexation by Senator McLaurin. And this is not a PCS. This is a straight local bill. 767. Thank you. Turn your mic on, please sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. This is a very simple bill, no opposition, de-annexes an area in the city of Rockingham that requested the property owners. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Senator Hartsell, you have a motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move for a favorable report, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion by Senator Hartsell for a favorable report on Senate Bill 767. Comments? Hearing none, all those please say aye in favor, opposed ??, motion carried. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 871. Raleigh Durham de-annexation, annex. Senator McKissick. This is a PCS. Motion to hear the PCS please, from Senator Tillman. Those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Senator McKissick. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a very simple local bill. It de-annexations one part of the land from Raleigh and annexes it to Durham. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wanted you to finish, Senator McKissick, because we do like hearing from you, on occasion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. Senator McKissick loves to talk. Therefore I’m going to make a, I love Senator McKissick. He doesn’t talk online, he talks on camera. But I think this is a great bill. I move for a favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator Jones. Any further discussion from the committee? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hunt. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Being the representative of the town that is getting this property taken away from them, I thought maybe I ought to at least say that I checked with the Mayor and they said it was alright. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you so much. ?? in discussion. I’m sorry. Senator Barringer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Turnabout’s fair play. Senator McKissick, I would like for you to describe and define for me what’s on line 9, page 2, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What we have there is further information which elaborates on the details of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will you agree to meet with me after this to explain your bill fully so I won’t go after you on the floor? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I agree at any and all times to meet with all members of this body to confer about any bills that may come before us or put before us for consideration, so yes, including you, Senator Barringer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Where is this property, Senator, McKissick? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This property is located at the Brier Creek area in Wake County, not too far up the 540 corridor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do these folks want to go to Durham? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes they do. There was an annexation agreement reached back in 1999. In fact, I was on city council and was involved in those negotiations where the city of Raleigh agreed to have certain properties in Durham County and the city of Durham was going to have certain properties in Wake County, based upon utility service agreements and who would be most cost-effective in servicing it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator McKissick. Concise ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We haven’t voted yet, Senator. Senator Tucker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Senator McKissick, just a comment. I have been accused on occasion of telling Durham what to do, and I want records to show that you did not contact me on this annexation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is absolutely correct, yes. You represent no part of Durham or Wake Counties. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, we have a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry, the Gentleman from Durham. Yes, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to comment to Senator Tucker, Durham is very fond of telling Senator Tucker what to do too. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, is that what to do or where to go? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well they’ve actually taken both actions, as a matter of public record. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have a motion for favorable report on the PCS from Senator Ford, unfavorable to the original. All those in favor, please say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, no. The ayes have it. Thank you, Senator McKissick. As you sow, so shall you reap. Now Senator Hise, we have Senate Bill 874, and this is an original bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, members of the committee. This is a conclusion of I would say several years of disagreement between the town of Spruce Pine and some property owners, and they’ve finally come to one agreement that this property should no longer be in the city limits of Spruce Pine to save everyone some time and effort. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion, favorable. Move for a favorable… Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was Mayor of the town, so I was in the issue previously, but… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tucker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And what is your motion, Senator Tucker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Favorable motion, favorable to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I thought that’s what it was; I just wanted to hear you say it. Senator Apodaca? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, a question for Senator Hise. Is it true you can stand in the center of Spruce Pine and see all the city limits without squinting? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is not correct. We live in mountains, Senator Apodaca. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator Hise. We have a motion for a favorable report from Senator Tucker. All of those in favor, please say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, light on. Motion carried. Thank you, Senator Hise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, Senate Bill 876. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And is there an amendment, sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes there is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let’s get ready to rumble. We’re ready, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair has the amendment. So the members have copies? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s technical in nature. I’m clarifying. Just a small clarifying amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, you may explain the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All the amendment does is being the language into current times. It was written with the old statutes from way ago when Senator Cook was young. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. We have a motion from Senator Tillman to approve the amendment. Those is favor, please say… Is there any discussion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amendment carried. Division.
And now we have, we’re to the original. Senator, as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Members, it’s a glorious day when we can raise taxes and I’m glad to be here today to talk about that. Senator Harrington asked me to bring this forth because she likes to vacation in Brevard and would like to pay more for her meals so with that in mind we’re going to add a 1.5% percent, wait a minute let me get the right amount, yeah 1.5% to the sales price to prepare foods and beverages sold within the city limits of Brevard. If you’ve been to Brevard that’s not many places so they’re having some tough times, this was brought to us by the town of Brevard and by most of the restaurants. I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Senator. Members of the committee, do we have comments or questions? Senator Tillman. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I’d like to make a motion for a favorable report. If they want to do it to themselves, I’ll help them do it. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you sir. We have one person who has signed up to speak. Frank Grey, is he here? Mr. Grey if you would be so kind, identify yourself. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee my name is Frank Grey representing the restaurant and lodging association and I want the committee to know our members are opposed to any new meals taxes. You hear a lot of occupancy tax bills from time to time and of course the occupancy tax is paid primarily by visitors. Meals taxes on the other hand are paid primarily by the local folks and our position through the years has been that if there are needed public improvements that benefit the whole community they should be paid for by general tax revenues so we reluctantly oppose this legislation. There are 500+ cities and a hundred counties, there are only five jurisdictions that have a meals tax today, there hasn’t been a new one enacted in many many years so this would be a major precedent and we would ask for you not to pass this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Grey. Members of the committee any questions or comments? Yes you may sir. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Grey can I ask you a quick question please? I was legislator of the year for the restaurant association, do I have to return my award? You don’t have to answer that. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I think that was on gross sales. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Okay we have a motion from Senator Tillman to improve the senate bill 876 as amended. Those amended of the motion please say aye. Opposed no. Motion carried. Thank you Senator Apodaca. House bill 569, Senator Tillman. Foxfire Satellite Annexation. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chairman. There’s two hundred people ready to go to work Monday on this, it’s a big project and everybody is for this to annex this developmental area into the foxfire village. The foxfire village will profit and want this and it will be a good economic. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Senator Tillman. We have a motion from Senator Apodaca to approve. Any discussion? Hearing none all those in favor of the motion for house bill 569 please say aye. Opposed no. Ayes have it. Thank you. That brings us to senate bill 648. Do we have the correct version? Okay we do have the correct version. NC Commerce Protection Act of 2013. Third edition, so check and make sure you have V3 on the bottom, that everyone has the proper edition, and that will be presented by Senator ???. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chairman. This bill has been vetted many times over the last couple of years and it was certainly vetted yesterday in J1, but the reason it’s here in finance committee is because, let me get my page right, page 2 line 26 there’s a $50 for any attorney wishing to file to join the ??? lawsuit. And I would ask you for a favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you and Senators the only discussion we’re having today is on that $50 fee. The merits of the bill..
been, well, well vetted so unless Senator Apodaca has something else he'd like to add? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just wondered if we could increase that fee, it doesn't seem like nearly enough. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hear the wishes of this committee, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Then we have a motion by Senator Apodaca for favorable report on Senate Bill 648. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed no. Motion carried. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. House Bill 558. Soil and Water District Refunds, that. Representative Whitmire? My calender had changed that's why you had a different one. But you have the floor sir. This is a PCS but it came over that way. Correct? Good Enough, go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you Committee. The PCS actually rolled in Senator Jenkins Senate Bill 261 that had passed the Senate last June, 44 to nothing. The original piece of 558 which remains intact does the following three things: it cleans up some sloppiness in the tax code, well we've got 21 sewer and water districts that don't get their sales tax rebated and the other 76 do; soil and water helps property owners, property rights, farmers, it's good for agriculture; it also keeps water clean and that portion of it only cost 7,641 dollars to fix so it benefits 28 senate districts and I ask for your support and welcome questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Whitmire. There any questions or comments from the committee? Senator Apodaca moves for a favorable report, seconded by Senator Rucho. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? ?? Motion carried. Thank you, Representative Whitmire. House Bill 618, Amend Firearm Restoration. Senator Cook? Thank you sir, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill corrects the situation wherein folks who had their firearm rights restored had their rights taken away again through no fault of their own. Some folks originally committed offences which resulted in a loss of their firearm rights for a specified period of time. After the specified time had past, their rights were restored. However, a new law was subsequently passed that inadvertently took away their rights again. This bill simply restores their firearm rights that should have been protected with a grandfather clause in the last bill. I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator Cook. Questions and comments from the committee? Hearing none, Senator Warren moves for favorable report. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed no. Motion carried. Thank you Senator Cook. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, members. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1069, Unemployment Insurance Law Changes. Representative Howard? Senator Rucho? I was going to say we'd save the best for the last Representative, but I'm afraid I was in error. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the finance committee. The joint unemployment insurance commission spent a lot of time working along with the Division of Employment Security and the Department of Commerce in trying to put together some important changes. I will allow, ask the staff if they wouldn't mind going through it so that everyone can understand that and also, Mr. Chairman, I do have, [SPEAKER CHANGES] An amendment, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] and if you'd like I can either do the amendment now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please, do the amendment first. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, thank you. Members of the committee, their were a number of questions on the independent commission which is designed to offer an independent review outside of the DES and what this does is it establishes a guideline as to how the members are appointed in the staggered terms and the like. I will ask staff to further explain this so that you can completely understand what we're trying to include in this amendment to
House 1069. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Chairman. Cindy Averett. The unemployment insurance oversight committee spent quite a bit of time looking at several different issue and as Senator Rucho said, each part in this bill is a separate issue that the committee considered. One of the issues that was in the original bill that came to you had to do with the board of review, that section part was taken out in the house but is being resubmitted into the bill here. There was some concerns over the statute didn’t provide enough information as to how the confirmation and appointment of members would work so what this amendment does is to appeal the current subsection that deals with the appointment and confirmation of board members and puts it into its own statute. The bill as it came out of the study committee would have had changed how those members are appointed. Right now there are three members appointed by the governor, confirmed by the general assembly. As it came out of the oversight committee it was going to move two of those appointments to the general assembly but this amendment keeps all of the appointments with the governor, it continues the confirmation process but just puts timelines in so it’s clear how that confirmation process works. The second part of the bill amendment which begins on page 2, line 27 is creating staggered terms. One of the things that right now, all of the members serve four year terms, they all went on at the same point and would go off at the same point. The study committee felt that for purposes of having continuity on the board that there should be staggered terms. There was also some confusion as to whether or not the current board had been properly constituted. The current board members names have not been submitted to the general assembly, they’ve not been confirmed by the general assembly. Last year the general assembly enacted some un-codified legislation that said if the governor makes these appointments by September 1st, the general assembly waives the confirmation process. Those appointments were not made until December so that statute that you passed last year with that deadline in it is no longer applicable so this bill just repeals that un-codified section from last year and it now provides who sits on the board of review and it sets up those staggered terms and you can see that on the last page of the amendment how it sets up the staggered term with one term ending this June 30th and a member being appointed by the governor to serve four years, the current member will serve until June 30th, 2015 then another appointment will be made for four years and lastly a member will serve until 2017. So this is what sets up your stagger provision terms and provides that the members will be appointed as provided in this bill. Lastly, section 6.3 which begins on line 19 of page 3, the division of employment security asked the oversight committee for some comfort in knowing that in the time that we have not had a board of review appointed and decisions have been made by the assistant secretary that there be some validation of those decisions and so that is what section 6.3 does. It provides that any decisions issued by the assistant secretary or by the secretary of commerce designee or by the current sitting board of review will be considered as if those decisions had been issued as the law provides, given the same legal effect. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Ms. Averett. Any comments or questions? Senator Tucker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chairman. May I address this to Senator Rucho? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Please. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Rucho in that part 4 on duration of unemployment benefits, is this address the mining industry or the seasonal worker or? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Tucker we’re on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Oh I’m sorry, I apologize. [SPEAKER CHANGE] But you may have the floor when we come back to the original bill. Any further discussion or questions on the amendment? Hearing none, all of those in favor of the amendment please say aye. Opposed no. Amendment carried and will be added to the bill. Senator Rucho you have the floor of the.. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I will ask that I guess Ms. Averett will go through the UI bill so we can get a full understanding of it. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Chairman, Jan Paul will go over the part one of the bill, confidentiality of information, and Greg Roney will cover the remaining parts and they’ll be happy to do that if it’s okay. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chair. Janice Paul, research division. Will regard to the confidentiality provisions in part one, just to give the committee a little bit of background, this stemmed from the..
That in March of this year the United States department of labor issued essentially a cease and desist letter to the division of employment security indicating that certain longstanding practices of the division in providing notices of hearing prior to actual appeals hearings to attorneys and other members of the general public who had filed for copies of those notices of hearing under North Carolina public records law that that dissemination or disclosure of information violated federal confidentiality regulations and provisions of the social security act. The letter indicated the division of employment security continued to disclose that information, to provide those notices of hearing that there would be sanctions taken by the federal government against the state of North Carolina which could jeopardize the title three funding of the social security act that pay for the administration of North Carolina’s UC program as well as would affect the credit against the federal unemployment tax act rate or the futile rate of North Carolina’s employers. A lawsuit subsequently was initiated in superior court in Wake County. A preliminary injunction ultimately was issued by superior court judge ordering the division of employment security to continue providing those notices of hearing. These particular provisions are designed to bring North Carolina’s public records law into compliance with federal confidentiality requirements as well as to prevent any type of negative impact upon North Carolina’s funding. So what this would do essentially would enable the division of employment security to stop providing the notices of hearing which the federal government indicates is in violation of federal law and to ensure that all of North Carolina’s not only procedures but laws are in conformity and compliance with federal regulations. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] This is ??? with research division. I’m going to pick up with the remaining parts of the bill. The next section does several things. One of which is it authorizes DMV to share social security number information that is has on driver’s license records subject to federal requirements with DES which is division of the department of commerce that ministers the ??? outlaws. The next thing that that part does is it increases the number of job contacts per week ??? has to make. Currently it’s two contacts per week on different days so a minimum of one per day on two days and this is going to change it to just five job contacts per week but the claimant could do it all on the same day. It’s going to remove the procedure for reconsideration of a decision of DES. This was meant to accelerate the finality of the decisions. And then the last bit of it is truly technical changes, modernizing some language and changing references so that they correctly refer to the division of employment services. The next part clarifies that DES could attach the credit card ????? so if a business hasn’t paid UI taxes on its employees, DES could attach the credit card, the payment coming from the credit card processing company, to DES and this clarifies that DES has this authority to attach these payments. The next part eliminates the minimum range for weekly benefits. There are several different ranges, we have one table that’s in the summary that shows you that as the unemployment rate in North Carolina decreases, the maximum number of weeks of UI benefits also decrease so during periods of high unemployment we allow a maximum of twenty weeks, during periods of low unemployment the max comes down, but for each individual claimant there was also a different part of the statutes that gave each individual claimant a number of weeks within a range. Well, when house bill 4 was done mathematically it turns out that the lower part of those ranges weren’t actually operable, that people weren’t mathematically ever getting the bottom of the range, everybody was getting the top except for just a few people and so what this bill does is it just drops that inoperable language and it places everybody at the top of the range and so the number of weeks of UI benefits will still change for all claimants based on the statewide unemployment rate but there will be no longer an individualized variable weeks. Everybody will just get a set..
… number of weeks that’s in that table. That’s the maximum. And then the final item is that it’s going to require a photo ID as a statutory requirement to receive ?? benefits. USDOL says this is permissible and is even calling it a good practice. Currently there’s an administrative practice to require photo ID, and this is going to actually put it in the statutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, ??. What was that? Senator Rucho? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chairman, I’m prepared to respond to any questions or direct them to staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Senator Tucker has a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m not sure mine applies, but we had at some time with seasonal workers some opportunity to game the system. This doesn’t apply to that, does it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It has not been changed at all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I ain’t got through reading it. It does not apply change to that at all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir. Senator Tucker, we followed the same rules we established so that we could have everyone with low rates. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Senator Hise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m just trying to get some clarification on identifying the information as confidential information. I’m coming at this, they’ve done a lot of work in the Government Data Analytics Center in the past year on being able to pair the information for unemployment with employer information and those IDs and making sure that we’re not paying out fraudulent claims that are coming forward. Is there anything about identifying this information as confidential information that would mean it couldn’t be sent to outside agencies and used for those analytic purposes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Which staff member would…? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Hise, with regard to this, there are provisions in North Carolina general statutes as well as in the federal social security law that enable sharing of information such as the cross matching that you’re referring to for program integrity purposes. It enables the sharing of information between agencies as necessary for the administration of the program, and this is a very limited and just more specific definition of what constitutes confidential information. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Senator Blue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Rucho, on page 4 – and maybe staff will respond to this – on page 4 you have a subdivision on judicial review, Subsection H, and in it you change from the current requirement that it becomes final 30 days after notification and makes that 30 days after mailing. Is there some compelling reason for that? And the reason that I ask that is typically if you’re mailing any notice – legal notice – it is presumed that the US Postal Service has slowed down a little bit and there’s a three-day presumption built into any notice like that, and so I’m wondering whether there’s some compelling reason to change that in this statute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I think staff has… Ms. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Blue, the reason for this was it was my understanding in talking with the division, we were just trying to clean up the law and make it clear as to when the 30 days started, so I’ll be happy to look into your question more. It was not intended to be a policy change per se as trying to clarify and modernize the statute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, Senator Blue? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you would, I’d appreciate that. The presumption typically is three days added onto it, and if it’s going to be a difference, I think it needs to be emphasized so that people don’t miss statutes of limitations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Members of the committee, any further questions or comments? Hearing none, all of those in favor of House Bill 1069 as amended, please say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, no. Upon the motion of Senator Hise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. We’re done. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, the meeting is adjourned.