City, County & Local Affairs Committee- House

The new system can you hear me now yes all right. I appreciate you let me go before resented Lowery. So we don't cry out of anything on this. Okay I wish you had brought that up. The first thing I've got is amendment. Of and I'd like to adopt the amendment there's all this does is add Senator Terry Rice aye a Senate sponsor okay all right let letters okay. But the. Okay. Okay we're gonna give you leeway right here that we don't have enough copies here but all you're doing is adding Senator rises co sponsored have a motion by representative Dalby any discussion on the amendment. Okay seeing none all in favor say aye. Those opposed. May proceed as amended. Get someone off of house bill seventeen seventy five what this does is change one word of when this cities of the first or second class. Have a merger C. or any time the state comes in of. This the Attorney General is required to represent them. But the what the board does it just adds a word direct so it what they're using the S. sometimes if we had a radio dispatch to Adam they were they're using that as a we were supervising but we have to have somebody on the ground to do direct supervision of this just strengthens our a case that the home what we have to a defendant not defended the Attorney General that's all this bill does say the word direct. The rate for questions yes is there any questions yes representative college you're recognized for a question thank you I just wanna make sure I understand the way it that plays out so if if somebody is not being directly supervised by a state official or employee then basically they're on their own to defend their lawsuits with their own money correct okay thank you. Any other questions. Seeing none sent by in the audience will speak against the bill. For the bill. President Jane would you like to climb close. Okay. okay or representative Albee. Okay I have a motion to pass as amended all in favor say aye. Those opposed say no graduation to pass the bill thank my Speaker thank you Committee. Okay of UP next is house bill seventeen twenty two of her representative Johnson you're recognized if you would the. Preceding when you're ready. Thank you Mr chair committee advocating click order with the S. S. such as corners of I could recognize him having come to the table a representative that would be good please identify yourself for the record. Kevin Cleghorn president Arkansas State corners Association. You may proceed thank you Mr Committee this bill is intended to clarify an issue that's come up between the hospitals in corners this creates some confusion sometimes when a patient come into the hospital to the emergency department will draw blood on that patient before they expire and then something will happen they'll pass away and often times if there's an investigation you will call the corner in the corner might want to see the blood work to be true as part of his investigation of prior to the death of the patient is perfectly allowable in the end but it's but there has been some question under current statute that would that needed clarifying so um we spoke with the hospital association worked them on this bill to get the language that everyone can agree to that was sound that would give us that opportunity to you know reassure the hospitals this was in the good practice to provide this information to our corner so they can do an adequate investigation and would be happy to try to answer any questions. Okay questions. Seeing none. Has anybody here that would like to speak for against the bill. For the bill. Are you close for the bill I am thank you Mr. Representative Warren you're recognized ocean. I have a motion to pass his discussion on the motion. Saying none all in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. Absolution your past thank you committee Mr. Thank you Mr chairman. Okay next up is house bill twelve sixty four representative Pilkington you're recognized the. Present your bill. Thank you chairman fide there's actually an amendment to this bill yes please present your room at first thank you. The minute I have Basically makes it more uniformed public works were not included in the original part of this bill and after discussing with a representative bill construed as a certain let let us get it handed out sorry okay my bad until. I'm just here to gather in. All right you may proceed thank you chairman public works wasn't originally included in my my bill and after seeing this image the parties they wanted the the code to be unified so all we're doing is putting them in here to where we're increase seen that the project does not exceed two hundred fifty thousand and striking a hundred thousand which when I present my entire bill I think it makes sense because we're just standardizing the number across the board so that's that's why there's amend an amendment in there because I was just something I was overlooked when we initially drafter the Bill. Read for questions. Any questions on the members. Seeing none and entertain a motion. I have a motion. Any discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor say aye. Supposedly NO. May present your bill now is amended thank you chairman thank you committee today present to you what I'm calling the small town Economic Development Act as many of you know I represent the great city of Clarksville Arkansas After speaking with my mare and our economic development director they found that they kept on running into a similar situation over and over again in which they would have projects that would exceed a hundred thousand dollars and they would be forced to bring in an architect who then would basically increase the cost of said projects out the same time collecting about seven percent off that so I drafted a bill to increase that from a hundred thousand dollars to half a million of we know the architects they thought that was excessive they also knew that this was a problem that the hundred thousand dollars was way too low so we compromise a two fifty which actually if you put in and look at the rate of inflation from in this bill the original bill pass to fifties right on the money so actually if anything this bill just puts us at where we would have been when use the rate of inflation and additionally there's a sunset clause on this that expires in two years the reason for doing that is because when I spoke with the architects. Association they they realize that they wanted to improve the architect Law but they said you know would really like to wait first you know to try to work it over after session and I felt that my mayor and my economics bill director did not think that was a good idea and so once again I thought is a great way to basically put a put a clock on this and say listen we've got we're going to do this for two years and then two years if it's a great we work to upgrade we see the success that we want to see will continue and if we're able to work with the architects and come with an even better way to improve the architect Law we've got two years to do that too and and they've committed to working with us so I think it's a good compromise language that forces both us and them to come to the table because we do know that in two years there's a sense that that will expire on this and just one things I want to add you know we Being a small town like Clarksville yeah we have a lot of buildings that are necessarily the most pricey and so a lot of times we're trying to bring in people to renovate downtown buildings things like that they often find themselves going to situations where that to bring an architect's and then also in the the price shoots up you know we had an individual who purchased the building for eighty thousand dollars started doing renovations and hit the hundred thousand dollar mark and so they brought the front architect and Nicks you know the architects said we'll just the bathroom alone you're going to spend two hundred and ten thousand dollars on this project and that obviously still the project submitted a big issue for them so we're just trying to prevent things like that happening I mean another good example is think about you bought a ninety thousand building you repave the road our prepay of the drive way you put on the paint maybe fix up some interior taxing you know your projects over a hundred thousand dollars and you have to bring an architect to sign off on your building and pay them a fee so I think this is just good legislation that just brings us up to date and with that I ask the committee for a good vote. Okay represent college you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair so I think that you know at this level we're talking about two hundred fifty thousand dollars you can start to get in some pretty big buildings I mean you can do something that would take a you know for example it would have an occupancy of over three hundred and need to be sprinkled definitely AT a requirements other life safety things that the architect would typically help with I mean that's the role the architect in many ways is to ensure compliance with things that will save lives and also ensure access also if you bring the architect on the front and you avoid some things that could be price here on the back and because if you forty built and then the inspector comes and says that you're not compliant you might face the children ten thousand dollar bathroom situation that you wouldn't if you done that on the front end so I guess my question is do you. Do you here any concerns from architecture others that we're gonna be compromising life safety especially when you get into those higher occupancy buildings and would you consider putting a cap on the occupancy of buildings and additions of this dollar threshold so intercession for the architects safety was brought up I mean they said that was that the genesis of the original bill But of course even then they you know they did make it zero dollars for everything you have to add to come and bring an architect and the so that's why you said Hendren and so like I said if you just follow inflation we should be at two fifty right now I do understand your point that we discussed earlier about about occupancy limits which we didn't put in this bill because it's not currently in law at all about occupancy limits so if you could build a building that house three hundred people but for doing under a hundred thousand dollars you could do it without having to to bring an architect but I'm I'm willing to to look at adding adding that to the bill As as part of it if we need to add occupancy standards. Okay represent right you're recognized for a question. A polling secondary. Is on the side construction reserve right now. Thank you. Representative bill to know what are you will check this out I'm sure that that two hundred fifty thousand dollar figure you checked out some real small towns and then you checked out some towns that were maybe not so small but they weren't large cities is this two hundred fifty thousand is that pretty well of figure in the middle that if you can live with you think it'll be better for all involved Sir. Yes I do I think that's a figure that would greatly benefit small towns and and one thing I thought to after I got done speaking as well you know of the seas have city inspectors fire marshals things like that they can go in and a behind them to make sure that they're up to compliance and up to standards you know once again Clarksville has a great city inspector who who does those types of things to make sure that they're up to snuff. representative Warren you're recognized. Thank you Mr the representative Pilkington help me out just a little bit so. Is the project's size determining if you need an architect to come in and determine if everything is meeting. Required standards. I guess representative warned the cost of the project is what triggers the need to go in and give no granted if you have a smaller project you know I I work in healthcare we've clinic's allotment with my projects that we bring an architect's to begin with just because we work with them and obviously we have way more regulation that would bring him in on but this is Arkansas state law that says basically if you hit this mark you got to bring a man so okay that's perfect thank you. Okay representing Bryant you're recognized. Thank you Mr. One thing I've I've always had an issue with this statute wonder if you've address it when you're researching this is. Looking at excluding fit and finishes from the total value this because you can have a a flooring that's five dollars a square foot plus three dollars a foot to install and that's eight dollars a foot the total job cost. If you seek to amend this I'm I'm fine with this way it is I think you need to be raised but if you seek to amend it maybe clarify what counts towards that tune fifty thousand dollars because you can drop a a project a hundred thousand dollars just by changing any of your flooring finish or the type of cabinet you put in things that are not insert and spectacle during during the process. I wish you would've been here when I was drafted that's great what. I I I think this gives a nice short and simple You know that's if that's something you wish to see change I think you just adds confusion to the to the city when they look at this and say Hey I need an architect on this you say. But just the design professional we stay with the architect so. You know that the argument would be is because the actual the concrete the structure of the exterior the doors the things that are required to the envelope of a building yes Is to a thousand in my forbid finishes a hundred thousand so which kind of which is it but I guess I'll be my question is was that considered during the day the bill drafting. I'm a difficult to consideration we thought about what are things that will that that hit that hit that trigger and that's why you know we thought the putting by two by increasing it we do have those finishes on you're less likely to hit that trigger and have to bring in Arkansas because that like I said I mean that was yeah I've example I gave you put on a concert of paint you redo the the parking lot you know you install maybe some new windows and all the saying you've got to bring an architect for something that doesn't really change the architectural structure of the building but you've got to have some come and sign off and collect that seven percent fee. Representing the group you're recognized. Thank you the. I would say first of all that I think this is a good bill coming from the construction fail and the level of contractors that we have there's a lot of builder designed products out there that I have worked with with contractors and builders that all the drawing everything done and then you have to pay an architect just because of that all the works already done so I think it's a good bill and this is more of a clarifying I think I already know the answer but just because you don't have the arctic first of all you're not required not to have you can either pick if you want to and also it doesn't all the last safety and all the codes and everything still have to be filed and verified. That is correct yes. Thank you any other questions. Okay representative Scotch. Okay. Okay. anybody in the audience would like to speak against this bill. For this bill. Saying nine would you like to close for your bill. I just wanna say I appreciate the time the committee and the great questions and and. Right as for good vote. Okay do I have a motion. Okay represent Scott you're recognized I apologized. I have a motion to pass. As amended. Okay any discussions on the motion. Saying none all in favor say aye and those opposed say no. Okay graduation your bill has passed. Okay we will be passed. We will be passing over house bill seventeen oh four today we'll be hearing that or next regularly scheduled meeting. Okay up next to his house bill of seventeen seventeen it also has an amendment on it will lead to the member gets passed out here. J. I believe everyone has Amendment representa Lowery you're recognized proceed thank you if you would have the who's your guests at the table introduce themselves absolutely representative Mark Lowery represent district thirty nine which includes my mail and I have with me today the Maumelle mayor with an introduce himself yes my name is Caleb Norris mayor moment. Thank you may proceed okay thank you The Amendment that you have before you is agreed to language after we drafted the bill to to try to address an issue that has come up and VOL mail Municipal League had some concerns and they have proposed to us the language that you see in front of you that basically makes this permissive that for this bill or this law to be implemented it would have to be done by ordinance before the city council so that makes it a may that they can or cannot do it so I appreciate your support for the amendment. Thanks any questions on the amendment. Seeing none. Entertain a motion. I have a motion all in favor say aye and those opposing no may present your bill is amended now. Thank you of members it has already mentioned this is an issue that Was presented to me maybe gosh over a year ago concerned that a police officers in the city of all mail in receiving their their sick leave and having accrued sick leave it's based on a working day well as we started looking there really is no uniform definition or definition at all I understand of what a working day is our police officers work twelve hour days twelve hour shifts so if you did not make some kind of a change in and and again I I'm not gonna get too far in the weeds I think mayor Norris could probably cut right to the issue a lot better than I can but this helps to make sure that our police officers are not being shorted on their sick leave in their creed sick leave so I'll just turn it over to the mayor for him to explain to you the issue that came before us. Thank you representative Lowery so I just wanted to let you all know how this came up the city of all male on being a good city who periodically reviews are up personnel policies for compliance with the law and just current practices stumbled upon an issue where we currently allow the accrual of more hours of sick leave than police officers were allowed to have so essentially what I'm doing here today is asking you all to untie my hands so that I can look out for the law enforcement officers in my city currently under the law we provide the maximum amount of accrued sick leave to our police officers that comes to seven hundred and twenty hours the maximum allowed for firefighters is two thousand one hundred and sixty obviously they work twenty four hour shifts so it's designed to be sixty to ninety days for either sixty automatically a city may increase that to ninety days if they choose of for non uniformed officers this is or non uniformed personnel this is everyone except police and firefighters we also provide a generous sick leave a cruel carryover of one thousand forty hours you'll you'll know there that the law prohibits me from treating police officers with sick leave as well as we treat non uniformed officers this is also complicated by the by the fact that the statute is silent on the definition of working day but the courts of up older if we have an attorney general opinion saying that that's an eight hour day. Our patrol officers work twelve hour days which means if they're taking if they're sick at home they have to take a day and a half of sickly so that translates to sixty days. For police officers firefighters can of course take ninety days willow NO one uniformed officers to take a hundred and thirty days of sickly again all we're asking is that you you untie our hands so that we can treat police officers in our law enforcement officers at least as good as we treat our non uniformed officers. Thank you I would just add that the amendment if you're if you've seen it it actually says that a working day shall be defined by a municipal ordinance so it gives the city council it's basically local control gives the city council of the right to be able to decide if they're going to define working day is twelve hours or if they're going to it is is eight hours but it does not mandate this also and I think representative Warren will prevention this because he works with retirement issues it does not affect retirement that's in the very last this section it just specifically refers to accrual of sick days so I'm open for any questions you may have. Okay representative Collins you're recognized. Thank you Mr a service on this amendment it says working day shall be defined by a municipal ordinance. Which we can't really order that municipality to pass an ordinance so and I don't think this is necessarily a big deal but doesn't effectively mean that they may define it by a municipal ordinance. Technically yes I'm indifferent to be truly permissive but they can you know if a just to define it under the shall provision they have the right to define it however they want to we don't dictate how they were to find it it's just we probably have. I have found a loophole maybe that other cities have not found or a problem in their policy manual and so it just says that if you're going to define it it shall be done by ordinance not that the city council is required to define. And just a quick follow so if they don't defined by ordinance then would it refer back to what the attorney general's opinion is in your opinion the eight hour day. I will turn myself off. Okay well I may be an attorney but I don't know that I'm the one that should be answering that question a representative of a. Sat down. I have my theories but the other part it really is an issue that had not come up I mean we we presented like I said over a year ago a request to the AG's office on you know has this issue been dealt with and they did give us a multiple page And reading of that an opinion but it really did not unties hand so to speak to be able to deal with this issue so we're just trying our best to not have legislation that requires every or every every city that was one of the the push back that we got from the municipal league and also the chiefs of police that we were mandating that they follow this model we are not doing that we're just saying that if you're going to define working day any differently from how it's being interpreted now it should be done it shall be done by an ordinance. Representative all you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair it did anybody run this past of the law enforcement standards group Jamie cooks office secretary cooks office to see if they had any guidance or maybe this is a menace fully question but it it seems like to me that would be I'm curious as to what their view is as to how working day is defined. I certainly would be open to any kind of help from the Municipal League as they've as they looked at this at their if the president they want to speak to that I would assume they're probably neutral on this bill but they could provide information. Perfect cation. Okay. Any other questions of the representative Ryan I'm sorry. Thank thank you Mr chairman representative mark and mayor. You know it's just like a different ball game now you know you got different people that work in the city or in a county that maybe have an eight hour day. When you're dealing with placement environment is totally different thing I know so you're you probably got to come up with something that'll fit all four of the big picture is that what you're kind of trying to do with that is what we're trying to do is equalize it but we obviously we have to do it in a way that where it's not just local legislation because that's that's not allow we can't say the Maumelle city police will you know but it does give flexibility to other other cities if they want to take this type of an interpretation they can do so but it would be done by ordinance to be at their option I would just in in response to a representative Dr all these questions we did get initial feedback from the chiefs of police that that they were not happy with the bill my understanding is with the change that we put in there they were mainly concerned because they didn't really know how they would calculate the sick days based on what we were describing so what that's why we put in the language to make it more permissive so that if they if they choose to do that then the city the city's resources can step in to do the interpretation for the. Okay representative Brian you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr so the the hundred and thirty days for the thousand forty hours you set for non uniforms is that set by ordinance. No Sir. There we go it's it's just set fires city policy. Okay follow please call up so I guess my only concern that I saw with this bill. Is the leading the the maximum accumulation and how the city would capture that because you captured two thousand eighty hours per employee. With the sickly built in and then you can follow that up to ninety hours Max per employee but if you don't courage a cap you have a twenty year employee with. Where the math comes out to that city would be liable for expenditures as a is that a concern no Sir and and so when it when we first out now it's work for the municipally for several years so I thought I could read minds it turns out I couldn't. My wife could probably confirm that one of the things we we The Amendment was geared to do is to make this permissive and non mandatory a city that chose not to change their policy is is far and doing things the way they are this just allows those cities that do you want to do that to be able to do that for us in my personal experience and what I've seen in Maumelle is that those employees that accumulate a lot of sick leave tend to be the employee is not taking a lot of sickly we also allow our employees to use they're sick leave for FMLA or maternity leave for example which is of course capping that it sixty days instead of ninety so first city that that didn't want that extra liability of having the extra sick time on the books I'd encourage them not to do this for those cities that want to treat this as a benefit to help our employees out it's not something that we're particularly concerned about imam al. Further clarified that section it says Ann you sick leave we've scratched out shall we put in may accumulate to a maximum of sixty days unless the city or town by ordinance again permissive authorizes the accumulation of a greater amount we also struck the section that says in no event to exceed the maximum accumulation of ninety days so if that local city wants to allow their police officers to accrue more than ninety days they can do that. but they would have to they would do that by ordinance or they want to the limited sixty days again by ordinance totally permissive. Okay. Representative Beatty you're recognized for a question. I just motion it had at the time Mr chairman and one quick question representative Lowery I understand that the school superintendents are neutral on this bill. I wish. I wish to represent Bryant you're recognized for a question yeah I guess just a follow up to my concern in no event to exceed a maximum accumulation ninety days if we strike that language when the argument be that every every city now has no cap on accumulation unless they set up by ordinance to me it I figure you leave that in there and say unless authorized by ordinance that way you know it when whenever you get done being mayor handgun city council because they change every two four years been on city size. And eventually somebody's going to get I I gotcha. Because there's no cap on my cannulation I haven't taken an animator eighteen years from now it's gonna be stuck looking for a payday to the employee that that's and that's my concern. if I may representative Brian so of course the standard is sixty days in sixty days unless an ordinance is passed to change that to another number at and so it's not automatically limit less if the city. All refrain from speaking directly for the city council I would imagine that they would pass an ordinance changing that from ninety days to a different number. Higher than that. Okay any other questions. Seeing none represent baby you're recognized motion do pass holders give me. are you would close for your bill. Would you like to close for your bill If there's no for against all thank you let's get a late today president allow anybody in the audience would like to speak against the bill for the bill. Okay okay what I like to close I am ready to close and I appreciate to the upcoming motion from representative Beatty and hope that you will support this bill. Okay a representative Betty I hope it is a do pass. Well that. Motion to pass. And as amended as amended I have a motion do pass as amended in discussion on the motion. Saying none all in favor say aye those opposed say no. Graduations your passion your bill. All right next up is house bill fourteen choose me House Bill sixteen forty two representive Underwood. With this last. Have you had amendment we adopted last time it beating so you may proceed with your bill now that's correct thank you Mr chair I present this bill last week so I won't go back into mile presentation just you know essentially what this bill does is required child support cooperation in order to receive public housing I do wanna say state now set that last week there was some discussion about the definition of compliance and so I thought that was a good question I did want investigate that some and so I did look into that a little bit and what I didn't mean the bill mainly because I found that the other programs that we are requiring this for for food stamps and then also for our welfare are casual for program didn't define compliance either and so I thought I'd leave that alone and not and leave this bill consistent and just continue to make sure that they're some grace there I'm what I'm prioritizing whose cut cooperating I'm going to be more than happy to take questions Right. For any questions. Yeah. Because of represent McCullough you're recognized I apologize thank you Mr So people are often wait list for years and and they check their status in line and do you think that changing the rules is going to add barriers to accessing affordable housing. No I think this should should actually help because kind of like I mentioned to allow on last week. People are on wait lists there's only a limited amount of public housing that you can have so this should allow people who are cooperating to be prioritized and so not to let people are not cooperating to cut in line a follow up Mr yes. Thank you is there any guarantee that that children are not going to be impacted by the spill. Well I think what I would say that I think children will be impacted positively because those single parents are not receiving child support now have a great opportunity to receive child support so those single parents should have better means to support those children. A representative Bryant you're recognized for a question. I just want to want to confirm if if. If I am the custodial parent and I'm not receiving child support. Well this bill affect me being eligible to get on the list it and I did address this question last week but they are required to cooperate however that is a lot more flexible for them because there's some good cause it exceptions for them so I thank the question was asked last time out domestic violence that they are excluded from have to comply it even if they're just concerned about it all out to show any proof or anything so this is really geared at those parents that are not paying their child support the non custodial parent. Okay any other questions from committee. Representative Scott you're recognized. Representive Underwood do you feel like passing this bill is really going to make. Fathers' or whomever pay child support if they're not paying child support yes it seems like that's the premise of your bill I do and and I think I mentioned this I don't have this with me now but there's some other states have done this and I have seen a positive increase in child support collection since that night. Any other questions. He won the audience would like to speak against this bill. For this bill. She like to close for your bill I'm I am close for the bill and I would make a motion to do pass I guess as amended from last week so okay just motion is do pass I think what we need. As amended your correct I just against Saddam are. Right. All those in favour and any discussion on the motion excuse me. Seeing none all in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. The House haven't resolution your pastor bill. Okay up next this house bill seventeen forty five a representative group. Please recognize. Your self and you may proceed yes the representative Richard McGrew district twenty two thank you Mr chair. A committee this is a bill the I will probably maybe think we've already passed it because a few weeks ago we passed in the committee a bill very similar to this that allowed cities communis bills in counties that had invested in training in their law enforcement officers to recoup that cost if they were hired away from them and so all this does in my in my district I have hot springs village which is a big community little over fifteen thousand people in that community they're law enforcement's offers are certified and through Garland County but not part of Garland County they do go to training and because they're a little smaller community that have in the past have had law enforcement agency moved to other areas so that just makes it fair to that community also by doing the same thing for a private community of over five thousand that it does for cities municipalities and counties. With that answering questions. Questions. Representative Brian to recognized so if you hire. Higher law enforcement personnel in center to the state training. In the the your Hot Springs Village private in the pays the state say five thousand dollars for training and then that. That person lease to seek other employment who are you who you asking for a station from the the employee or the the city taking the employee from the city or entity that hires that individual so you're to me it's no different than in business if you invest your money into that individual and training them that would have Electric Company I had similar situations happen where I went through generator training and stuff and had a competitor I'm away I put a non compete clause to stop that this is a way that we did for city municipalities in this is just the fixing that for communities of five thousand or more for the day so it is for the the community that's taking them to pay. Follow up. Is that I guess the thing of it from a private business such as the. That's the risk of the game is is I'm gonna hire somebody I want to train them and I'm gonna imminent Pam right insurer of them keep them as happy as I can but knowing that the market forces will. We'll drive with the employee does. I'm just. I'm curious how a private entity enters into a non compete with a public entity what is not a non compete just simply saying that if for instance a city of hot springs offers that hot springs village officer more money to get him there and pulls him away that they on the with the same place as it already is in place with with them if they do this in hot springs village to hire them away right now they would have to pay it's just making it the same prospering village so if. Hot Spring the city of hot springs hires that that police officer a law enforcement officer from hot springs village they will know that they have to reimburse in fact that has happened and the hot springs police department has has been verbally told Chief Middleton hot springs village that they would reimburse them it isn't because just as a courtesy because it's the right thing to do but this just makes it is codified codifies it. Okay representative Dalby. Thank you Mr chair question that just came to mind as I was reading this again is there any statute of limitations on this let's say they he incurred the expenses Hot Springs Village incurring expenses five years ago ten years ago twenty years ago and then that person goes and seeks employment someplace else are we saying then that whoever hires him now has to pay back expenses that were incurred twenty years ago. I record fine just I couldn't find the limitation is there somewhere in the law that I'm missing. Represent Dalby and I'm if you drew attention to that it was in the one for the city's so I would be willing to pull this back and amended in put it in there was a stair step. And I didn't realize it was an in here so I would be glad to put it back in amended put that in there I think that would excuse me yes I think that would probably make a little more consistent because if it's open ended right now thank you. Okay anymore questions. So none would you I would pull it back until I can make this moment to bring it back to you okay thank you very much committee That church property and ensure. All right to what will be the unsure of next week so I'll be notifying you all yeah I haven't talked to staff do we have that many bills yeah I don't think we have that many bills right now I'm sure we'll get some more but I would it would appear that a probably Wednesday will be the soonest we will probably meet again say I will notify you all let you know our next meeting