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 18, 2015 | Committee Room | House Judiciary IV

Full MP3 Audio File

the property in other real estate they have to pay capital gains on it. So they're never put back into the place they were before the taking if they have to pay an attorney. So this is not an attempt to get a lot of money for attorneys. It's an attempt to get condemners to pay a reasonable amount as the deposit. In the fiscal memorandum I have, they were ?? that DOT agreed that in all cases, of tried cases, or I even think it might have been settled cases, I can't remember, the landowner always gets more than what they deposit. And of course they're--I'm not saying subjectively they're hoping, but objectively they're expecting that a reasonable number of people just will not challenge the condemnation, and therefore the deposit will go through on a default judgment. So--and I've been there. I did condemnations for the town of Apex for many years, and we always . . . You never tell the appraiser what to do, but there are certain appraisers that appraise low, and there are certain appraisers that you use for estate planning maybe that appraise high. So it's a problem. They always lowball, whether intentionally or not. Section--I'm amenable to having a different--what's in the bill is the way the House Transportation Committee came up with it two years ago. I'm amenable to changes to that section on the details of it, but the idea is to make the landowner whole. Section 4 has been removed, and then the new section 4 and 5, I'm going to ask you to call upon an expert witness. Jason Campbell, who worked--when you get, when you're ready to do that--who worked for a decade for the Department of Justice doing land condemnations for the state but is now in private practice. And then if you wouldn't mind recognizing Representative Jackson for a moment, and then I'm sure we'll be able to answer questions. But if you could have Mr. Campbell discuss Sections 4 and 5, whatever you want him to do. SPEAKER CHANGES Mr. Campbell, if you'll just stand at the mike back there I think we'll be fine, and identify yourself and you have the floor. SPEAKER CHANGES Hi, my name is Jason Campbell. I'm an attorney. I have worked thirteen-and-a-half years for the North Carolina Department of Justice representing the Department of Transportation, and I am now two years in private practice. And so I've had the--and I represent primarily property owners, or wholly property owners in condemnation proceedings. So I've had a chance to represent both sides zealously. Section 4, if you can imagine, what it's designed to solve, I don't believe that it's a change in the existing law, but the Department of Transportation's practices have departed, have changed. And it's meant to bring the Department of Transportation's practices back into conformity with their prior practice. In this case, if you can imagine a property that has--a commercial property. We all know that most commercial properties have at least two driveways. Sometimes large commercial properties will have three or four driveways. If you're thinking about the grocery stores you visit, or the malls you go to, or the McDonald's you visit, you'll see that they all have typically more than one driveway. A lot of times, the Department of Transportation comes along and it buys the control of access. If you're driving down the freeway and you look to your left and right, you'll see those woven wire fences on the edge of the freeway. And that's a physical monument that lets people know that the adjoining property owners have a right to make no connections, driveway or otherwise. They don't have a right to go to the highway across that road. That's a physical barrier. But it's also a legal right the Department buys, and it's called control of access. The Department also buys controls of access on lots of smaller roads these days. We're used to seeing it on freeways, but now you'll find it on-- SPEAKER CHANGES Mr. ??, excuse me just a moment. Can all the members of the committee hear okay? SPEAKER CHANGES When the doors are closed. SPEAKER CHANGES We're trying to get them quiet-- SPEAKER CHANGES Okay. All right. You might want to speak up just a tad bit more than--we've got a lot of noise back here behind me, outside. SPEAKER CHANGES So the control of access--the Department of Transportation is now putting control of access on lots of smaller roads, less than highways, less than freeways. And what they're doing is, they will come along, and they will

the property in other real estate they have to pay capital gains on it. So they're never put back into the place they were before the taking if they have to pay an attorney. So this is not an attempt to get a lot of money for attorneys. It's an attempt to get condemners to pay a reasonable amount as the deposit. In the fiscal memorandum I have, they were ?? that DOT agreed that in all cases, of tried cases, or I even think it might have been settled cases, I can't remember, the landowner always gets more than what they deposit. And of course they're--I'm not saying subjectively they're hoping, but objectively they're expecting that a reasonable number of people just will not challenge the condemnation, and therefore the deposit will go through on a default judgment. So--and I've been there. I did condemnations for the town of Apex for many years, and we always . . . You never tell the appraiser what to do, but there are certain appraisers that appraise low, and there are certain appraisers that you use for estate planning maybe that appraise high. So it's a problem. They always lowball, whether intentionally or not. Section--I'm amenable to having a different--what's in the bill is the way the House Transportation Committee came up with it two years ago. I'm amenable to changes to that section on the details of it, but the idea is to make the landowner whole. Section 4 has been removed, and then the new section 4 and 5, I'm going to ask you to call upon an expert witness. Jason Campbell, who worked--when you get, when you're ready to do that--who worked for a decade for the Department of Justice doing land condemnations for the state but is now in private practice. And then if you wouldn't mind recognizing Representative Jackson for a moment, and then I'm sure we'll be able to answer questions. But if you could have Mr. Campbell discuss Sections 4 and 5, whatever you want him to do. SPEAKER CHANGES Mr. Campbell, if you'll just stand at the mike back there I think we'll be fine, and identify yourself and you have the floor. SPEAKER CHANGES Hi, my name is Jason Campbell. I'm an attorney. I have worked thirteen-and-a-half years for the North Carolina Department of Justice representing the Department of Transportation, and I am now two years in private practice. And so I've had the--and I represent primarily property owners, or wholly property owners in condemnation proceedings. So I've had a chance to represent both sides zealously. Section 4, if you can imagine, what it's designed to solve, I don't believe that it's a change in the existing law, but the Department of Transportation's practices have departed, have changed. And it's meant to bring the Department of Transportation's practices back into conformity with their prior practice. In this case, if you can imagine a property that has--a commercial property. We all know that most commercial properties have at least two driveways. Sometimes large commercial properties will have three or four driveways. If you're thinking about the grocery stores you visit, or the malls you go to, or the McDonald's you visit, you'll see that they all have typically more than one driveway. A lot of times, the Department of Transportation comes along and it buys the control of access. If you're driving down the freeway and you look to your left and right, you'll see those woven wire fences on the edge of the freeway. And that's a physical monument that lets people know that the adjoining property owners have a right to make no connections, driveway or otherwise. They don't have a right to go to the highway across that road. That's a physical barrier. But it's also a legal right the Department buys, and it's called control of access. The Department also buys controls of access on lots of smaller roads these days. We're used to seeing it on freeways, but now you'll find it on-- SPEAKER CHANGES Mr. ??, excuse me just a moment. Can all the members of the committee hear okay? SPEAKER CHANGES When the doors are closed. SPEAKER CHANGES We're trying to get them quiet-- SPEAKER CHANGES Okay. All right. You might want to speak up just a tad bit more than--we've got a lot of noise back here behind me, outside. SPEAKER CHANGES So the control of access--the Department of Transportation is now putting control of access on lots of smaller roads, less than highways, less than freeways. And what they're doing is, they will come along, and they will

...close a commercial property, one, or two or three of a commercial property’s driveways, and they will tell the owner of that commercial property that the remaining property, they don’t have to pay any damages to the remaining property for the loss of its commercial value because they’re left them at least one driveway. And so in the last 13-1/2 years that I was with the department, they never took that position; if they bought control of access, they bought the right to close the driveways, then they would pay for it. But now they’re taking the position that simply don’t have to pay if they leave you at least one driveway, no matter how bad. And one of the ironies of that, of course, is that there’s actually a process to go back to the Dept. of Transportation and in the future, buy back a driveway. So if you’re left with one driveway with control of access and you go back to the department and you apply to get a second driveway, they will actually charge you to buy back the second driveway. And they’re charging you based on an appraisal that’ll be done called an enhancement value. They will do a condemnation in reverse. They will figure out how much your property is benefiting by having a second driveway and they will charge you the full freight to buy back your second driveway, and yet now they’re alleging that if they leave you one, they don’t have to pay for it. So they’re not paying you upfront and they’re charging you if you’re attempting to get it back in the future. And I think, I think the existing laws are pretty clear -- the existing law says when an existing street or highway, let’s just find it real quick...the existing street or highway shall be designated and included within a controlled access facility, the owners of land abutting such an existing street or highway shall be entitled to compensation for the taking of or injury to their easements of access. That should’ve been pretty clear, but the existing law is not being followed at present, the law change would simply say easements of access, including compensation for partial control of access. And that should just make it clear that if they close a driveway, buying the right to never let you have a driveway there again unless you pay them, then they have to pay you upfront. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And Section 5. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In Section 5, what’s happening here is you can imagine that the Dept. of Transportation when they buy your property, whether it’s a business, a farm or your personal home, if they’re buying it completely, you may have to move. And the Dept. of Transportation is historically given, and by federal law, they have to give you 90 days to tell you that you have to be off your property. And so there’s a box that the DOT has to check for every single person that has to move their business or home. Well, the Dept. of Transportation, historically, the Dept. of Transportation would file its condemnation against your property and they would give you the 90 day notice when they filed. And that still shorts, because you can imagine that what you have to do there is go to the clerk of court, withdraw the deposit, go out and find your new business or your new home, buy it and be out of your old place. Okay. So there was a 90-day window to get all that accomplished, but that’s all that the federal law requires is that 90-day window, unfortunately. But the Dept. of Transportation has shortened that window significantly because now instead of giving the 90-day window when they file, they give it six months or a year’s into it in advance of them actually filing the condemnation. So what you’ll have is, I had a client with about a 103 acre cattle farm and a home of 48 years, and about a year before the filing, they came out and told him. They gave him the 90-day letter, the DOT checked off their box on their federal requirements and told the people that they could be on the property for the next 90 days, but after that they had to be off. Well, they didn’t own the property and they didn’t acquire the property for another 8-9 months. At that first meeting, my clients told the property owner that they needed the money in order to be able to move. They had to buy another farm and they had to buy another home. The Dept. of Transportation wrote that down, but never notified them of when the condemnation was going to happen. And in fact, the condemnation was filed and of course they knew that the condemnation had been filed was when they received a 30-day notice 3-4 days later, saying they had to be off their property in 30 days. Then they went back to the department and said we can’t move a cattle farm and a home in 26 days because we just got our money. And the DOT had them in court on eviction proceedings 29 days after filing the lawsuit. And that sounds like...

something that would be unusual, but that is the standard operating procedure. Not necessarily filing, but filing that 90 day notice a year in advance. What the DOT needs to do is they need to go ahead and file the 90 day notice when they file the condemnation, even it it means they just simply file the condemnation sooner than they otherwise would. All they had to do in this case is file the condemnation 90 days before they needed the property, and that would have given the people a chance to move. So they can solve this problem by simply filing the condemnations faster, giving the people the full 90 days the Federal Relocation Act requires, and then giving people a chance to get off their homes and businesses. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Representative Bryan or Representative Jackson, any comments from you as prime sponsors? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I really don't. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We'll take really don't as an answer. And you don't? Okay. Members of the committee, questions for either Representative Stam, Mr. Campbell? Representative Torbett. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask a question, and also, if there's someone here from DOT, perhaps their DOT ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] There is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And the reason why I ask that is because ?? in the short time I've been in Raleigh working on some transportation issues, it always seems the DOT is represented as a corporate global entity of something. But we need to also understand that when you say DOT, that they don't print their own money, they derive it from taxpayers. So when there's court cases involving DOT and landowners, it's taxpayers against taxpayers. So I think the effort that we're trying to arrive at is what's a fair and equitable balance for all taxpayers? But I keep hearing ??? DOT. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I agree. Representative Torbett, I agree. I love DOT. I voted for the, your bill, Senate bill 20. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's not my bill. That's ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, whatever, whatever. But my point is, this is love like a brother. You've gotta get them to fix a few things in their operations if you want the people to pass a bond for another billion dollars. You can't treat landowners unjustly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, follow up. If we could just hear something, a perspective from the Department of Transportation? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, before we do that let me see if there are other questions from members of the committee at this point for Representative Stam or Mr. Campbell. Let me say before you respond, we've got a number of people from the public and other entities that are here to speak, so if you want to hold questions and see what they've got to say, that's fine, but if anybody has something that's burning right now, now you have a chance. Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've been on both sides of this issue, and I've now been here long enough to know that sometimes the conversation's worthwhile. I hope this will be. I've been on the metropolitan planning organizations in the Hickory area for 25 years, so I've been involved with the planning of a number of roads, and I've worked with DOT in doing that. One road project in particular was the McDonald Parkway project, which connected the north side of Hickory to I-40. That project took a long time, a lot of planning. We had five different corridors that we began with, and we had to examine those corridors for a number of years to figure out which is the best one. It involved existing fly-over interchange between my views?? or we had to make a decision whether or not to build a new interchange. So it was very complicated project. It took a lot of time. We had to reserve that huge corridor so that no development could occur before we could make that decision. So I understand what it takes with regards to holding the corridor so you can make the best?? decision to ?? the bottom of the ?? Portland Road project. However, DOT then took, when they built the new interchange on I-40, they took 11 acres of property from a landowner, leaving the property owner a little less than 11 acres, and they, DOT said in their conclusion, there would be no compensation because the added value to the remainder of their property was greater than the amount that they would pay for the 11 acres. So I acted as an expert witness in that condemnation of appeal. Now in that condemnation appeal, we had, I believe, five appraisals of the value of one part, I'm gonna use one parcel because there were 12 in there, one parcel of land, 2.6 acres, was valued at a half million dollars by DOT appraisers, but an appraiser for the plaintiff had an appraisal at $1.260 million. So you had

Seven, look at it, $700,000 is fair deed value based on search bottom prices, seven and I acted as an expert witness. I’m a commercial real estate broker. It was probably seven. It’s been seven years. I believe it was seven years to settle that and the plaintiff actually got the damages for the building. So I’ve seen both sides of this and I think that there have been some abuses. I’m gonna support this and I hope you all will too. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. I’m going to remind the committee this is for discussion only today. We’ve got some people here who aren’t members of the committee that I think may want to speak and I want to be sure we get them that opportunity before we have to adjourn and we’ve got one other bill. Let me ask for an indication back there, who? I know the League of Municipalities said they wanted to have a few minutes and in addition to that, DOT do you want to say something? And is there someone else back that that would like to speak other than those two? If so, raise your hand and let me know. League, do you want to go first and if you could do about three minutes that would be very accommodating. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, I can and thank you very much, Mr. Chair for having us here to day and allowing us to speak. My name is Erin Winnea. I represent the North Carolina League of Municipalities which is an association of 550 of the state’s cities and towns, so we’re pretty large and all of those cities and towns that maintain roads use this DOT procedure to do combinations. It’s also called the quick take procedure. In addition there are dozens of local acts that have been passed over the last several decades that give additional authority to those local governments as well. What our members use this procedure for is to build public infrastructure. It’s not just roads and bridges and transportation infrastructure which would be also sidewalks, but it’s also water and sewer lines, airports, those sorts of infrastructure projects. What this procedure does right now is allows them to move those projects more quickly. It keeps borrowing costs down and it saves taxpayers money by allowing them to do this and I’ve spoken with Representative Stam and thank you for you willingness to work with us after this meeting to address some of the concerns we have about particularly what Section 3 would do in terms of potentially raising the costs for borrowing for these projects. We do have some concerns about that, particularly with respect to the amount of the deposit that would have to be put down. That, of course, increases trial costs for the agencies that are being taken to trial during these condemnation proceedings and we additionally think that it’s hard to predict jury awards and so sometimes there’s not much control that the agency that is using these procedures has over what a final award will look like, so we appreciated the opportunity to continue working on this bill to address some of these concerns and I guess we’ll look forward to future discussions. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. DOT, if you’ll tell us your name and position over there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, I’m Nick Tennison. I’m Chief Deputy Secretary of the NCDOT. We’re are pleased to be called second so that you actually see that it’s not just us that has concern on this statute. We also would endorse hardly Representative Torbett’s acknowledgment of the fact that when we say NCDOT is going to pay these things it clearly is the taxpayers and that’s the crux of the challenge, which is what we have is a free market private property economy and in that context we have to plan infrastructure and so when it comes time to do the transaction of willing buyer willing seller it’s a little hart to establish value up front for a sale that is ultimately for the convenience of the public. In other words we need the property now before that person wants to make the sale. We continue to have some concern about the now Section 5 in terms of the notice. We want to make sure we go through that and understand exactly how that procedure needs to be modified in terms of our current execution. We want to make sure that we’re still consistent with other mandates on us. I want to also point out that part of the issue for us is ultimately that we have constraints about how we are able to identify the value of property that on occasion results on what may appear to be a low ball estimate. The Department has no policy, in fact would never have a policy of entertaining the idea of that as a strategy. We do not attempt to low ball offers. We attempt to make offers based on the appraisals that are provided

And when that results in a difference with the land owner, we’ve entered into a number of negotiations, some of which are protracted, during in which we ultimately settle in many, may cases for greater than initial appraisal than we have. So we’re looking forward as well to the conversation about the bill and certainly I’d be happy to answer any questions anybody may offer to the extent of my ability and training. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are there questions from the committee for either of the two speakers or for Rep. Stam? Rep. Johnson. And I think there’s a mic on the tables that the Sergeant at Arms has told me we need/ask you guys to turn those on, the little round thing there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right. This question is for the DOT representative. I was listening to Rep. Adams when he was speaking regarding the, I guess, how the property was placed and taken to some degree, not taken, but the disparity between the mounts. What I’m concerned about, how many appraisals do you actually get? And I know it depends on the size of the property, but how many do you normally get, ?? appraisals ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We based our offer typically an appraiser that we identify and then that appraisal is reviewed, so it isn’t like we get multiple appraisals. We get an appraisal from a, from an appraiser that’s qualified to carry that out. And then based on our estimate or our offer on the reviewed appraisal that we get. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those examples you gave about the, a million, that’s not even close. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That was in the condemnation, [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s during the trial phase, [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] again, Nick Tennison, NCDOT, during the trial phase, from time to time we’ll get an additional appraisal as negotiations reveal issues that our initial appraiser considered. And that again goes to this question about calculation of the difference between the deposit and the ultimate judgement or settlement amount, because there are things that we cannot consider that are not compensable, I think is the technical term, and those things get revealed during negotiations or during that offer and counteroffer stage, so our state of practice would be one appraisal. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Further questions from the committee? ??, Rep. Stam would like to have a moment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, and just realize that this is serially referred to appropriations, but just to get your mind to the right order of magnitude because the math aspect, for example, might be a half a billion dollar issue, but this particular one, the fiscal two years ago and the preliminary fiscal number this year projects that the cost will be nothing in the next two fiscal years, one million in the third fiscal year and five million in the fifth fiscal year. So this is not a budget buster for the taxpayers. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further questions? I’ll ask you to save your comments so that we can be sure we get the other bill out of the way, too. Okay, that’ll conclude our consideration of the PCS on House Bill 127. And we’re going to move to House Bill 205, dealing with an increase in the retirement ages for judges. There also is a PCS, which I hope you have at your places. Rep. Warren moves that PCS 405 be before the committee. Is there objections? Seeing none, the PCS is before us and Rep. Jacqueline Schaffer or Leo Daughtry, I’ll let you all handle this presentation as you wish. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. You have the PCS before you. As you can see, this is a pretty straightforward proposed piece of legislation. The bill summary does a great job of summarizing an already very straightforward bill, but I will take you through it very quickly. In short, it increases the mandatory retirement ages for justices, judges and magistrates from the current 72 to 75. In addition, what it does is it allows the judges, justices or magistrates to serve until the end of the calendar year in which they turn 75. Currently, it’s the end of the calendar month when they turn that age of 72. It becomes effective on Dec. 1, 2015, if passed.

And as you’ll see we do have an actuary on note for that. They have estimated that there is no financial impact on the retirement system, etc. Staff has informed us however that it will still require a serial referral to House Pensions and have a few, few pieces of information for your kind of discussion and as we go through this. The current law went into effect in 1971. Since then quite frankly I mean we’ve had a few changes. People are living longer. Cognitive ability, we’ve, specific research shows that elderly judges for instance, their cognitive abilities are not waning with increased age so what we’re doing in short is we are forcing good jurists off the bench needlessly and into retirement. There really is, there is a cost to our justice system. Frankly there is a cost to our retirement system. What we’re doing is that we’re forcing judges needlessly onto retirement and then we’re bringing in their replacement and so, you know, they’re, that may not be the best way of doing things. As you can see from the bill summary the splits are state are, the states are split on how they approach this. There are some 19 states that do not have any retirement age. There are, as you can see there are 22 states that have 70 as the limit. We’re right in the middle, we have 4 states including North Carolina that have it at the age of 72 and then currently 4 states that have it at the age of 75 so there’s a lot of debate about whether we should eliminate altogether this retirement, this mandatory retirement age. I think that raising it a few years at this point is a good, good first step in this direction. So with that I would like to open it up to the committee for. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Did you want to? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh, yeah, did you want to add anything? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. I think Representative Hager, did you have a question, comment, some? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. If you, any other member of the committee have a question. Yes Representative Bishop? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, thank you. You know, notwithstanding what I heard about the research there’s, I’m a practicing trial lawyer and I would say anecdotally and I would say there are some occasions when I’ve been grateful for the existence of mandatory retirement age and I would ask this question, is it, if a judge is passed mandatory retirement age can they not be recalled as a temporary emergency judge in the description of the judicial system for further service? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, that is true. Under current law there are, there is cause for that. There is a provision for that. Staff if you want to weigh in further on that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So if you have on a case by case decision making basis if someone’s past the mandatory retirement age they could conceivably go on to 75 or 85 and continue to serve if they were recalled in the discretion of the court system. [SPEAKER CHANGES] While that’s true I do believe that it is for temporary service however and I would respond that if it is sufficient, if it is okay for a judge to be recalled past the age of 72 then why not allow all the judges to serve past the age of 72? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Great, other questions from the committee? I have a question for staff maybe. Is there a mechanism in place that is not entirely cumbersome for dealing with the ink adequacy we’ll say of a judge with reference to age or not. I am sympathetic to Representative Bishop’s comment having practiced some law myself but I found judges below 70 myself sometimes that I wish had not been there and I don’t know that it was age related but I’m just wondering do we have a mechanism that allows us to remove somebody for cause that would help with somebody who stays past 70 who maybe ought not to be. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure, Mr. Chair, actually Section 17 of Article 4 of the State Constitution provides that any justice or judge can be removed from office for mental or physical incapacity by joint resolution of 2/3 of the members of each house of the General Assembly and then also the Judicial Standards Commission, the Supreme Court upon recommendation of that Commission can suspend for any period of time a judge who has a temporary physical or mental incapacity interfering with the judge’s duties and can remove any judge permanently for the same reasons. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Other questions or comments for the committee? Representative Bryant

I think it’s a good bill, given the suspension option is already available to me; since this was done 40 years ago, adding 3 years seems pretty reasonable. It doesn’t even seem to be that much of a policy shift for me. It seems to be a sort of natural shift of longevity of life. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Other questions or comments? Okay, Rep. Hager you’re recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The times I’ve been in court, I’ve always appreciated the experience and institutional knowledge of the more experienced judges, just like I do, Rep. Daughtry, the experienced legislators, so [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’re old? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, experienced. Therefore, I move to a favorable on the PTF and an unfavorable to the original, I think with deferral of the pension. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, you’ve heard the motion. Is there further discussion? Seeing none, those in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, no. The ayes have it and this meeting is adjourned. Good job, guys. Yeah.