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 | June 8, 2016 | Chamber | House Reform

Full MP3 Audio File

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Members if you would take your seats. I want to thank everyone for being here today. First of all I wanna recognize our sergeant at arms that are here today. Young Bay Jim Moran, Martha Gattison, Rex Foster. If you would raise your hands. Thank you very much for your service and for being here this morning. Also we do have a number of pages that are with us this morning. Sam Ellison, Sophie Dyson, Anne Wood and John Turcus/g. Thank you very much for being here as well. I wanna thank the committee Staff for their time and effort on the bills that will be passed forward today and also the committee clerk thank you. And also my coach heirs. First stop are gonna go ahead and move in to the bills. I have a house bill 1069. I believe that the PCS do I have a motion to put the PCS before us. [INAUDIBLE] >> Okay that we do not need a motion. So representative Cleveland house bill 1069 the floor is yours. >> Thank you Mr. chairman. House bill 1069 the 2016 NCM play protection act. Any first section of the bill, we are gonna change the requirement for employees for employers from 25 to 5, do you the verify system that will add approximately 11000 business to the verify program. Program and live about 150000 business in the state that will not be required to E-verified. It would repeal the exemption presently for those work nine months or less in a calendar year and it would establish exception for firm works and independent contracts and individuals To provide domestic services in a private home of his spasmodic/g irregular or [INAUDIBLE AUDIO]. The definitions of the contractors and firm works and domestic services and in the bill are essentially the same definitions that are in federal law. Section two of the bill will eliminate the Law enforcement exempt in that we gave last year. The reason we are doing this is since we gave that exception my assumption at the time was law enforcement would just be able to use what was available at that time. However in. An organisation called faith international, commenced big time distribution of identity cards. And we had numerous law enforcement agencies across the state participating in this programs to issue this cards. And then in effect what was happening. We were having another meticular consulate type card that had really no validity being used and being issued. I have talked to the sheriff's association and the police chiefs' association and asked if they could come up with some language that would have benefit Them. I have not gotten anything. I have worked staff trying to figure out some way to get an exemption and through the entire process it was evident that we would just make another loop hole for someone to jump into. Right now, we're gonna have no exemptions At least that's what i'd like and the law enforcement will have to work with it. There was some concern about arrest situations and in situations such as that it would just have to default to the officer making the decision to use the identification that he He could get from this individual but it be a default situation. [COUGH] Section three of the bill requires the department of labor to include information about employers e-verify obligations the labor law postures printed by the department. Some background, we're still, the state is still $1.7 Billion net, through illegal aliens. We have some 13,500 on welfare in the state Medicaid. [BLANK_AUDIO] We have presently as far as I can tell about 2,400 incarcerated in the state. And the everything from murder to rape to child molestation. And if we had a valid program for illegal aliens in this Is a mistake throughhe years, we wouldn't have this things happening

in our state. Atleast it would not be happening at the very [UNKNOWN]. So national chamber of commerce has [UNKNOWN] out instead [UNKNOWN] is the good program. I would like to see use and With that Mr. Chairman. You take me question. >> Excuse me. >> Yes sir. >> This first portion of the bill is exactly the same as we passed in legislation in 2015 and the Senate did not have it on their portion of the bill. The The bill they sent back to us. >> Thank you Representative Cleveland. Representative Goodman. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Representative Cleveland for the bill. I strongly believe in E-Verifying and voted for a lot of the bills that you have brought forth but I'm concerned about this reduction of Of employees from 25 to 5. We discussed this sum last time, that it creates a really tough burden on a very small business to comply with those rules. So I would ask that you consider leaving that 5 or more employees in the bill Excuse me, the 25 or more employees in the bill instead of just 5. >> The E-Verify process is extremely simple. The employees have to fill out a I-9 card for employment, the employer takes the information off that I-9 card, takes about 60 seconds to type it in the computer Computer and within 24 hours you have a response whether he's a legal person or not. >> Follow up. >> There are small businesses that don't have a computer so it is tough on some small independent businesses that are just starting up, that don't know the rules I would think it would have a better bill at 25. >> Representative Jones >> Thank you Mr. Chair I was just gonna say I like to make a motion at the appropriate time. >> Thank you, Representative Specaly/g >> Thank you, I'm just trying to understand the purpose for exempting independent contractors. >> Is because of the nature of the work, they are hired by an individual to do something independent, as an independent employee with their own tools, their own work skills and what not and the contractor himself would not be the employer. >> Representative Harrison. >> Thank you Mr. chair, representative [INAUDIBLE] I apologize at what [INAUDIBLE] you're discussing section two, removing the exemption for law enforcement Those IDs so that's been a big issue back in Gilford county and Greenberg faith and action and those ID's has been a very successful program it's been duplicated around the country. I remembered during the discussion of house bill 318 that we created that exceptions specifically because law enforcement thought it was important to be able to use this ID. So I'm just wondering what's changed between last summer and this year. >> I was comfortable with what we did last year. I did not look forward and released that their be an organisation out their issuing cards the same way the Marticalrly card was issued and had no validity to not inches. We went back to a situation I was trying to remedy and I just can not in good conscience continue forward knowing that we haven't made any gains in suppressing the illegal population in the state. >> Representative Paul. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman and Representative Cleveland, I appreciate the time you've put in this matter. I'm concerned as well about the police chiefs and the Sheriffs Association not having had a chance to work through the question of, are the additional documents beneficial to the administration of law enforcement and we did have a lot of hearings on this so I'm concerned you don't have a provision in here that allows them to come back or bring them into the process are you planning on having them bring you their solutions before you bring this to the floor, before you try to bring to the floor? >> I spoke with both associations I believe it was prior to me actually drafting the bill and introducing the bill asking for input and I've heard nothing from them. If they come forward at any time I'm willing to work with them. >> Follow up. >> Follow up yes sir. >> Well I certainly would hope that we will affirmatively reach out to them to try to make this piece of legislation one that's workable

since they have such a big job. The other question is, in absence of them having a role or having had input on this despite your request to them and you say they not responded, have you made any projection of any additional local cost that's gonna be incurred by the additional stops or detainment that may result from this? >> No I have not. If local law enforcement was following the lawS as they are presently written there should be no change in cost. >> Follow up. >> Follow up. >> And one last thing that you indicated this will add approximately 111,000 small business that will additionally have to use e-verify? going down to five businesses with five or more employers wouldn't add about 111,000 businesses to using the e-verify system and you know I personally have really been disturbed by the entire discussion and the state for my 12 years up here over e-verify, we're allowing a illegal population to grow in the state, taking jobs from the state's citizens North Carolina citizens, we're allowing employers to pay less in money and wages in driving down employees moneys that cost the labor, I'm really flabbergasted that we do this and we argue about it, these people came here for economic gain, they are here illegally and they are taking our citizen's jobs >> Follow up. >> I just don't understand the problem. >> Just a final comment Mr chair and I hope Representative Cleavelan/g you can reach out to some of the small independent business associations and the farm bureau and other folks to see how this affects their industry and maybe come up with some solutions that will be workable to add 111,000 small businesses with this additional burden certainly is going to impact different ones different ways and maybe their associations can help you come up with answer that will be more workable. >> I'll point out that there are still 150,000 businesses out there that won't be using e-verify >> Representative Meyer,[COUGH] excuse me Representative Meyer. >> Thank you Mr chair, I received a phone call this morning from a police chief in my districts with concerns about sections to removing the compromise from sharing simply like to remind the committee that we put that exemption into last years bill because of law enforcement needing the ability to be able to affirmatively identify anyone that they come into contact with, the ID cards that are being issued do not make anyone eligible for any type of state surface, any type of specific government benefit, they simply allow law enforcement to be able to say who is this person as they come into contact and need to process them, I think that part of the reason why there has been an expansion of the use of that type of card over the last year is because law enforcement continue to have the constitutional responsibility for ensuring that the entire community is safe and it's very difficult to do that when you have people who you cannot identify. >> If I may. >> Representative [INAUDIBLE] would like to respond. >> What we did in the technical corrections was supposed to be a very narrow exception to health law enforcement. But it is gotten out of hand. Immediately after Makori/g sighed the bill in Greensbarrow house bill 318, the group faith action international house really went on put the pedal to the metal to go around and issue a large number of these ID's. This is what they look like I know you cant see this but they are every official looking they almost like a drivers licence. Immediately as soon McCory signed the bill had a group in Esbera/g. I know you can see this pictures. It's called community ID program unaffected by new law that means the technical correction. That representative Cleveland put in you can see the large gathering their were 500 people their getting the ID. Then they went to Greenburrow about 400 their. And then they came over to Winston Salium we had 580 had a group there. These are not just for law enforcement health care institutions were their they use them to access health care. They are supposed to only use this id's if they can produce another form ID.

And I know in my county we have a very large forged document industry their so how can you rely on one ID to form another ID basically to me they are meaningless. But they also to are a magnet for drawing the illegal immigrant community to North Carolina much as when we were issuing drivers licence. I know people that live across the border. Their is a lot of word of mouth. They will gravitate to where they know they can be and where federal laws will not be enforced. I think it's imperative that we clamp down on these IDs they are not the only organisations that hands this house. We just cant have random organisations all over North Carolina handing out IDs that the illegal immigrants take as varied access to services. There are groups that even through our your university system that are encouraging illegal immigrants to access services handing out tax pair funded literature to connect them with different organisations. I think we have enough struggle handling our own population here in North Carolina with health care and education rather than encouraging this particular legal population to increase and Representative Cleveland was right, it is driving down the minimum wage. I've never accepted the fact that Americans will not do these jobs. I know construction workers, American, well trained, excellent construction workers all across the industry their own food stamps, because of the competition. I really think we need to stand up for the American worker, and make sure that they are hired first, and make sure that our businesses comply with the laws of the United States, which are being ignored. There's also an effort right now in Washington, there is a Bill up there which is stuck. Which the U.S Chamber has negotiated with the U.S House to make E-Verify nationwide for all businesses going forward regardless of their size. So hopefully, it is coming we just need to be ahead of the curve here in North Carolina to make sure that we protect our workers and the integrity of the employment process here in North Carolina. >> Thank you Representative Conrad. Any further questions from the committees/g Representative Harrison? >> Thank you Mr Chair. I just wanted to follow up on the Id issue, I wondered if there was a representative from the Sheriffs Association or the Police [UNKNOWN] chiefs who might want to comment on that particular provision. [BLANK_AUDIO] Thank you Mr Chairman. My name is Doug [UNKNOWN] I represent the Sheriffs Association. I do want to let the committee members know that the Sheriffs do oppose Section two of this bill. Being respectful of the objectives of the bill sponsors, the sheriffs have had long conversations about this and as a practical issue removing the ability and discretion of an officer to determine whether to use an Id to determine their identity in the course of the police work they do really makes a challenge for the practical work that they are doing everyday. And so for that reason we oppose section two of the building [SOUND] >> Represent Cleveland/g >> I find it interesting at this point that the Sheriff Association has stood up [SOUND] and objected. Seeing as I've had hem in my office asking for advice in last years bill. They had no objection whatsoever to the entire thing going away. The Police Chief's Association was the group that came to me wanting the exemption. Thank you. >> I believe Representative Stevens has a question for the Sheriff's Association. >> I do. Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Mischos/g I wanted to ask a question. Is the Sheriff's department concerned at all about the credibility of these documents? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> I think yes. There is that concern. Again it comes back to removal of that provision takes away the discretion of an officer to determine whether to make such judgments, determine whether those are effective hoping to identify an individual, and so it certainly is not something they are just taking on face value but from a practical stand point it raises concerns. >> I believe Representative Blackwell had a question. >> Thank you Mr Chairman, maybe i am missing something on a follow up on Representative's Stevens question [INAUDIBLE] I'm still having a hard time understanding how, what is, there's every indication to believe is a fake ID is helpful in establishing someone's identity. Can you explain that a little more to me? >> Representative Blackwell. >> I would just say that I wouldn't expect that an officer who determines and looks at this an ID that's been presented to them in a stop

and believes it to be a fake ID that they would use that as a positive identity source for that individual, I would think that in that case they would then bring them in to help to determine the identity. >> Follow up Mr. Chairman. >> Yes sir. >> So each individual officer when he makes a stop is also gonna be sort of an expert at identifying the validity of the document that's being presented and if they are at all unsure they're taking all these people in until they can determine whether the non-approved ID or non-official ID is in fact a valid indication of who the person is? I'm not following you. >> Absent the provision that was added last session it would be, law enforcement officer would be unable to utilize any of those items listed that were prevented for use of determining an identification. And that would then have to do other means of determining that which would potentially bring them in doing a more detailed background check to determine who they are. And I understands that's one of the objectives of the reasons of section two of these bill. But I just wanted to let the committee know that there are some practical concerns that the sheriffs have raised related to removing the discretion of an officer to utilize the ID's that are presented to them on the street to make those determinations. >> Thank you. The chair has two people left to speak, we will take a vote on this bill. At 9 o'clock we'll go with Representative Paul. >> Did you have a- >> Thank you Mr Chairman and just some comments on the bill and again respect the efforts that have been made. But certainly I hope we would be hesitant in trying to proceed forward without the involvement and full participation from the Sheriffs Association Association recognize that effect. They're the ones who are at the point of service or utilizing this and if their actual practical needs aren't fully addressed makes it difficult for them to do their jobs as well as again the question of what this is gonna cost them additionally. Is this an unfunded mandate now and And a greater drain on the Sheriffs departments and law enforcement agencies as well as taking away a valuable tool for them to be in the community and be able to address the needs of the community. I heard a statement in some questioning so far Where these were labeled as counterfeit or illegal IDs as if everyone that is issued was illegal and I think we should not make that assumption or the people have a nefarious reasons for having these IDs. It may be that once we set this This standard people wanted to comply with it and came forward and tried to do that and we may be looking at this from the wrong end. It probably is a good thing that folks have come out and been willing to get identification that they felt would be helpful to law enforcement and to them. The issue that was also brought up about Of officers stopping and looking at people's IDs. They are trained to do that, they do that everyday whenever they do a traffic stop and ask for your licence, they're making an examination of your identification documents and determining whether or not they should detain you, whether the document might be false etc, etc so it's no additional training Necessarily on document examination they would need to do and of course we do with all our college campuses and population and have a burgeoning industry for our college students who are creating false IDs for club admission and many other reasons, purchase of alcohol etc so I think We're treating this to much different from what we normally do as opposed to recognizing that this is something we've been able to do and our law enforcement agencies should be partners in whatever the final solution is so I would again hope that the bill sponsor would work with law Enforcement to try to have a workable solution that they say works in the field for them in protecting their communities. Finally I hope we don't create perks/g that are not supported, we haven't had anything from Nor the department of labor to say that this is somehow affecting wages in the State of North Carolina. And we haven't had any study of empirical evidence that says because of these documents we are drawing immigrants to North Carolina. So I hope that we can try to deal with Deal with the facts as we

have them before us, and try to make this legislation work for the law enforcement agencies and counties without additional expense. >> Representative Millers, and then Representative Hager/g will finish up and comments. Representative Millers [UNKNOWN]. >> Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I just wanna provide some perspective about the discussion here, and make sure everybody understands Understands what's before you and what's reality about this legislation. First and foremost, what I am hearing from the Bill of Sponsor was that this language here was identical of what was introduced last session. Again, this Law Enforcement provision went through the whole entire process. It was not untill it actually came back over from the Senate Senate that we first had the first peep for many aspects of law enforcement and we moved to accommodate. We moved to accommodate they're some who abused it. And what I say by abused understand this under this law the way it's currently drafted, the only individuals who could who could not have a valid Id under this law are individuals that That are not US citizens, or not properly documented. So make no mistake the only individuals who will be using Ids as currently through this exemption will be those who are here, undocumented and illegally. Make no mistake. Second is that the bill sponsor reached out to law enforcement as the bill was being drafted, before it Before it was even introduced, before it was even in committee. So make no mistake about this, this is just the first committee we have the House floor, we have the Senate floor and if law enforcement decides to come forth we'll be happy to work with them. But again in regard to our partners in law enforcement which I respect whole heatedly and I do use today/g They do, is that you can't have a partnership and discussion with individuals that are ignoring you. So hear this, this provision here is very simple, it is very straight forward and actually the bill sponsors are actually willing to work with law enforcement if we actually can [UNKNOWN] a way that they can actually do their duties without That actually not allowing better law enforcement and that is accepting an ID for something that could be fraudulently made. We're not specifying one ID, it could be a library card, it can be anything. Is that it's all about proper law enforcement and not actually using identification that could be fraudulently made So I support the bill and I just want everybody to have the perspective of what they are actually voting on and what the discussion is and I hope the law enforce will come forth they work with the bill sponsor instead of continue to ignore the bill sponsor. >> Representative Hager. >> Thank you Mr. chairman ask the bill sponsor a question and a comment if you don't mind. Representative Cleveland would you happen to know if an officer that approached the car. Approaches the person and ask for the ID. Would they know if for the ID's they could get and you never meet them thank you for doing that. What and how much how high the incidence reach ID that they would encounter would have be counterfeit. I would imagine some of these things You look like David Buster of cards that they would have high levels of counterfeit is would that be correct? >> I would agree with today's technology. You or I can sit down at a computer and manufacture and identification card and would look. You are offset to say with it's real or not I think it's minimal. >> Comment Mr.chairman >> Yes sir. >> As we were talking I pulled out my licence, if you guys get a chance pull out your licences you have, their are a number of security measures to tell if it's fake or if it's counterfeit or if it's valid. Is very difficult to do because of some of them security measures that we don't even know siting on this room they are on this licence. They are on your money on everything. If we allow this to continue down the road. And I think representative Cleveland borough together a great bill, the will have instance out their that have high high very high levels. Of counterfeit or ID's out their that don't have security measures like we have on our licence right their. And in the day of terrorism a day of a porous southern border. Days that we have to worry about getting to their for political rallies or have to get together for sports events. Don't you wanna know don't you want to have some higher level of confidence. Of who's around, who's doing what, who's working there, who's attending these events. And my colleagues I would urge you to say that this is the standard we have now. Can it be better, yes but do we accept less of a standard than this, my answer would be no. >> Members this bill does have a referral to appropriation With that said, Representative Jones you're recognized for a motion. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. I move for a favorable report for House Bill 1069 with a referral to appropriations. >> Members you heard the motion before us, all in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> All opposed. >> No. >> In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, the ayes do have

it, thank you very much. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, committee. >> Representative Millis, Representative Radel you're recognized. Senate Bill 303. [BLANK_AUDIO] Is PCS do have a motion before us. Representative Hagar moves to have the PCS before us. All those in favor? >> Aye >> Any opposed?. PCS now enforced. >> Thank you Mr. chair and ladies and gentlemen of the committee. Galdaby/g has woken up by the first bill this bill in here. Before you is an effort by this body that has been consistent, and that is an effort to hear from the citizens of this state, from over burdensome and over iii statuary regulations, to actually- goodness gracious I think they want copies of the bill. >> [LAUGH] >> Representative Millies if you'll pause for a second it looks like a lot of fun. >> Looks like when you put fish food in a fish tank. >> [LAUGH] >> [BLANK_AUDIO] Mr. Chairman? >> Representative Howl. >> This might be indicative of the expressed need for us to make this information available earlier so people can have a copy of it so I don't know how we could address it to maybe make it more friendly to the public and people with interest so that they can get this type bills and changes [CROSSTALK] >> Thank you very much for your comment this bill also has to go through the proper channel so there'll be plenty of time available along the way so thank you. >> Thank you Mr chair >> Representative [UNKNOWN] the floor is yours. >> Thank you Mr chair this bill was made available last night to the members of the committee, like Representative Bill says it has this committee to go though, it will have a finance referral it will go to the floor and of course we'll have discussions with the Senate, so [INAUDIBLE] look forward to all the public input that we can get on this provisions, this effort here is to address unnecessary and over burdens and regulations that our citizens have identified we've had a sensitive ear to the public but the ear has been sensitive with also responsibility to protect public health, safety in our commonly shared environment, so each provision that you see here is trying to remove unnecessary red tape where we also uphold our responsibilities to those items mentioned there, so I'll step to the bill very quickly I'll be happy to entertain any questions you may have I'll handle the first two parts and alternative to Representative Radale/g for the last part of the bill, the first and foremost part one of the bill has to do with regulations upon business there has been a federal ruling when it comes to joint employment of recent that provides a major that has presented a major amount of uncertainty upon franchise ease and the franchise or relationship so what we are doing here is we are just clarifying in terms of state law how the franchisee and the franchise or a relationship is being established when it comes to employees so it has to do with direct control versus indirect control and a number of states I believe nine or more have already addressed this because the federal ruling and we're looking to do the same thing to provide certainty to our businesses here in this situation. The second provision here has to do with the water and sewer billing, this has been a problem for a long while and it's really kind of because of this issue it's calls from a design stand point when it comes to supplying water and sewer and other utilities a lot of common sense not to be employed. And the common sense that's not being employed is because of our current statutes if anyone from whether it's leasing or renting out single family residential or whether it's multi family or whether it's a commercial product is that if an individual was to bill the actual tenant for the utility even though that they're not providing the water or the sewer or things of that nature is that they would be considered a full fledged public utility under our statute. So we wanna make sure that we protect the rate payer as we do this, so this provision here has been crafted with consultation with our public staff to remove regulatory red tape where single family residential landlords as well as for commercial individuals who lease out retail space when they actually can with proper regulation

passed through bill from another utility provider, but that's gonna be half full oversight through an application process with our public staff, so I can go into details abut that, that's really the short story about that provision, but it allows a lot more common sense to be employed We're talking about providing water and sewer to single [INAUDIBLE] residential rental properties as well as when it comes to commercial properties where an individual is leasing out the retail space, and again that is the short story on that. The next section 2.4 deals with dressing unnecessary regulation where if an individual wanted to actually reasoning/g a piece of property and the reasoning conflicts with the comprehensive plan. They would have to actually amend the comprehensive plan and then actually come back and do the reasoning. Some local governments only have reviews of amendments of comprehensive plans every six months. So if individuals were in that situation, it would almost take them 18 months to two years just to so a [INAUDIBLE]. This actually codifies a court ruling and so our state laws which establishes that when your looking to do a [INAUDIBLE]. It also constitutes a plan amendment to the comprehensive plan as well. This next section here dealing with parent parcel and subdivision classification, the first section when you talk about probating the will, this again codifies an existing court ruling where if individual had a 100 acres and their will said to equally divide their land among their heirs, that is not constituted development in regard to sub division process and that way the individual doesn't have to be pulled through the ringer of technical review committees, planning zoning a lot of things that are unnecessary just to probate a will. The last provision there deals with individuals, say for instance you have a family member who wants to divide out a piece of property to their children, that doesn't have to go through a full fledged sub-division process, because that sub division is not for development it is strictly to more or less to cut out a piece of a land for their family and so that's what handles. The next section has to do with statue of limitations on land use violations. This is basically allowing a three-year window if there are land use violations actually viewable to the public that there is a three year statue limitations on that. We're actually having as individuals we own a business for 10 to 15 years gotta sell it and all of a sudden for the due diligence process and local government comes forward and says you had only violations that were clearly viewable to the public and have been there for sometime so this actually just provides some certainty of what's in compliance and what's not. We definitely think its a very good regulatory reform. The next section here 2.7 deals with a study for PED and we wanna make sure we are hearing a lot from non profits when it comes to this aspects on the peace legislation where there are experiences regulatory red tape dealing with the state.. We are sensitive to that, we want PED to study it and bring forth some recommendations so we can provide some regulatory relief to our non profits. 2.8 which we'll discuss a little bit later and just hear me out here. Whenever we actually did a bill last session dealing with fast or third party review, engineered review of onsite waste [INAUDIBLE] systems. It was our understanding through that process that we disrupted the lanes between what a licensed sole scientist does from what a professional geologist does. So the intent of this provision was to actually put those lanes back by way of statue. It's my understanding there is an amendment here to probably pull that provision and that's something that we can discuss moving forward. 2.9 has to do with the board of refrigeration examiners. There is a bill filed last long session, dealing with this, I've heard from this board, this is their recommendation. I have all the information you would wanna hear on this, but it's actually some really good reforms to really bring this up to date as well as to address their actual funding mechanism. I haven't heard any opposition to this, more than happy to discuss this matter in detail. The next thing has to do with definition of antique auto mobile. This is definitely a good regulatory reform. A lot of these antique auto mobiles may not be owned directly by an individual, maybe through a pass through company which is everything but an escort/g and that way that they are actually under a whole special class taxation just like an individual would be, so we definitely think this a good provision as well.

A 2.11 I'll give you the short story on this. We wanna make sure that all public records are available to the public. But there's been some recent issues that have kind of been brought up to some local government registrar of deeds. And that is that it's the statute is a little bit vague the way it's currently drafted and we're trying to provide some clarity to this, is that there are some private entities that are not only requesting this public information that is made available to them. But they're also mandating it to be provided in a specific format it's more or less causing a lot of burden on the Registrar of Deeds not just to provide this information to the public, which is upheld in this bill, but I don't think our local Registrar of Deeds should serve as the IT department of these third parties or these private companies. And so, I can get into the details about what all this does but we look to is just to clarify the state law that all this public documents shall be made available to the public, we have full transparency but the format in which they are made available can't be dictated by the public sector on this. Next provision provides some certainty to the residency of the lieutenant governor. Right now the statute says that they should have a rally office, I think it's very important for them to have access to the general assembly and be close a rally is a very big term, to wanna provide some certainty to where that office will be provided. The next section here is a very important section, while it's always been an interpretation of individuals during work as a mandated and dictated within DOT's ride away, and that work has always been a consistently viewed as being under the states storm order or as being within the DOT's and PDS storm order permit. There's been some recent discussion across the state that if you are a third party doing this work as mandated and dictated by NCDOT in the ride way they are treating the DEQ is potentially treating this individuals differently than is if it were DOT doing it work so we wanna make it clear if you are doing the work dictated by DOT within the right of way that you're under their state, stormwater NPDS permit and that would be it and I will turn now to Representative Laudel/g to back cleanup. >> Thank you Chris. Folks I'm gonna pick up at part three, Agriculture, energy, environment and natural resources regulation. Section 3.1 directed the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to inspect and during plants. Currently this inspections are carried out by a multi member inspection committee and it involves sometimes using employees of, former employees of rendering plants and this brings into question a possible conflict of interest of having an employee who used to work for one plant and inspecting what used to be a competitor, so the department has asked that we give authority to the inspection directly to the commissioner of agriculture of his designee. There are I believe nine rendering plants in the state, five of this are owned by one company so it's certainly something that can be managed by one individual designated by the commissioner of agriculture and again this is being asked for by the department of agriculture. Sections 3.3, 3.5 solid wastes amendment next several technical and clarifying changes to the law enacted in 2015 that established life of site permits, for sanitary land fills and it also provides franchise agreement that had been previously executed by a local government for land, sanitary land fills maybe modified upon the agreement of all parties involved and to remain valid and also extends or defines rather that the sanitary land fill lifetime should not exceed 60 years. The next segment is actually the largest part of this regular form bill and this deals with when [INAUDIBLE] facilities and authorizing the department of military and veteran affairs to review an comment on military related permit criteria, this basically is making a lot of technical changes to the language because we are going into some local government issues and directing local governments to contact the department of veterans and military affairs before doing anything with tall buildings or wind energy facilities so you'll see that stands quite a few pages in the report most of it is just making the technical corrections required to get the department of military and veterans affairs engaged in reviewing wind energy facility permits, moving on section 3.9 this came out of the environmental review commission in the interim study commission I'm going to ask BEQ to study riparian buffers for streams, this is something that came out of their legislative proposals on their last meeting April 13th of this year,

section 310 would allow the transfer of certain conservation easements, what this means is basically when recipient of funds from that ecosystem restoration fund acquires conservation easement as part of a restoration project being utilized to the division of mitigation services. The recipient may upon approval of the department of environmental quality DEQ, transfer that conservation easement to another government agency or a third party upon approval of DEQ. And then moving on to part four, the elimination and consolidation of reports. You'll see there is quite a listing of reports here scheduled to be either eliminated or consolidated and make some other changes. All of this again can also come out of the environmental review commission, so it was heard in that committee and passed on as a legislative proposal that we have incorporated into this resveratrol/g phone bill. And then part five is the severability/g clause and effectively that concludes my review. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Do we have any questions from the members? I'm seeing Representative Brody. >> Thank you very much. I actually have three questions on three different parts but I'll go through them pretty quickly. On section the one with the water and sewer charges just wanted to ask is this any address anything when you build for water service if one person is responsible for [INAUDIBLE] and they don't pay and then does the land lord then or get held responsible for the bill, does this address any of that. >> Representative Brady it does not get into anything when it comes to none payment nor the ability for a landlord to cut off any type of service, this is to allow leases and resource to be able to provide pass through billing for pump water and sewer that has actually proved by another entity without having to be come a full fledged public utility. >> Representative Broody before you move forward members of the committee I know there was a number of hands that went up and some of you have amendments if you will raise your hand and let me know if you have an amendment that you likely put forward in this committee [BLANK_AUDIO] Before you get into more of the questions would you go ahead and submit those amendments for or less dispose the amendments first and it will roll back in the question I do have a number of people that already signed up for questions. Representative Brody you are recognized for an amendment. >> Thank you Mr chairman actually I have two amendments we are holding two back for later on. >> Can you let us know the number has amendments we can go in and pass out to the members committee ATQ 75 version five as to what building code study, that's the first one. You want the next one also? >> Yes sir. >> And, oh gosh what's this number, CSSB 20 version 69. [CROSSTALK] ATA39 version 3 >> Representative Brody would go ahead and start explaining the amendments while the sergeants at arms are passing these out, thank you >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, The first one is building on study,basically to increase the efficiency and identify duplicative inspection. This is gonna have the building [UNKNOWN] to actually come from the building co-counsel. To review all the statutes and codes so we don't do the same thing by more than one inspector. And they will report to the joint legislative commission on government operations by February 1st before the next session. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> We need the bill sponsor to lightly comment on the amendment. And [INAUDIBLE] amendment number S303 ATQ75 [BLANK_AUDIO] Mr. Chairman we're fine with the amendment. >> Any questions from the committee? >> Mr. Chairman. >> Representative Bishop. On the amendment? >> Yes sir. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I was [INAUDIBLE] one aspect representative Brody did, it says you wanted to the building code council to assure that code provisions are contained in only one code volume,

are you saying that you want the building code, the residential code, the electoral code, plumbing code, ought to be published as part of one volume or if you don't have duplication or inconsistency among the codes. >> Representative Brody. >> That's the exact question I asked initially and no it, is we don't want duplicative items in each volume it's not trying combine in a one big volume. >> Any more questions on this amendment? >> Representative Merkelrat/g Thank you Mr. Chair this question is for the amendments sponsor, can I go ahead, may I go ahead, Representative Brody does this have anything to do with when you have two air conditioning units since you have a duplex you had two air conditioning units and you've to get a permit for each one of those and be inspected by a different inspector for each one, would that study help with that situation at all? >> Representative [INAUDIBLE]. >> Thank you, the air conditioning itself would be inspected by by the HVAC inspector. Now if you don't do them both at the same time then you'll have one HV inspector and then the next HVC inspector but if for example you would cut out a section of your house to install this you wouldn't have the building inspector and inspectory both they will decide which the HV and C will do the HV and C, the building will do the building and they are just scouring the codes and the statutes to make sure that that's how its designed to do. >> Follow up. >> Follow up. And where one time I know my heating and air conditioning folks were complaining cuz they had a. They were put in unity and each side of a duplex, they had to get a permit for each one of them and then have a separate inspector come out for each one of them, so they do, and they were done at the same time so had that been rectified, do you know? >> I guess you are zeroing in a question probably coming from the locals instead of the state. State would have, if you pull permit for each one you get the same inspector to do the same time though local in particular might have had something to do with them being different, this in turn will actually look at some of those, if it's part of the code that it will straighten that situation where you can do it all at one time if that's the case. Here is a pretty much situation also it might be hard to actually place this in that situation. >> Representative Stern do you have a question on the amendment? >> I do. >> You're recognized. >> I've never read the building code except once and it's hard to understand for people who are not building but on this light page in line 78. I really miss the fire about this or it's contained in only one code volume because the effect of that might mean that you might just have to have [INAUDIBLE] of cross references that are gonna make it even more confusing. I mean you may have for plumber, you shall use a I'll just use a crazy example you shall use a two by four to support so and so, and then for the electrician you shall use a two and four a two by four to support so and so and to say that that provision can only be in one volume would mean you'll just have to have infinite cross references and why do we wanna get in draft. I would ask some of our draft of sheer of legislation of chew well it's because the people the reading that statute might need to know that same thing without having to have the other 40 volumes of the general statutes. Is that really necessary to put that into a study? >> Representative Brody. >> I think you started out your question with the pretty much your answer that you don't do billing because if you do that for example you have to look at the series inspections you'll get a basic frame inspection on it. Let's say you've taken a house a frame inspection on a house then after that each one of the trades comes in and then after the trades are done then you a building inspection to come in to address exactly that very situation that would occur enough a plumber is supposed to supply a pipe with a 2 by 4. The plumber number one should note if their are good at their job.

But if let's say they forget it. The building inspector would catch it then on the next step. So you are doing both in the same code book plumbing and inspection. But what you are doing is you are relying on the specific building inspector to address that particular and not the plumbing inspector to address that particular issue. You see where the duplicate comes in? Plumbing inspector may say I don't like that. The building inspector say I like that, so how do you resolve that, and that's what the study is trying to do. >> Representatives Millers. >> Ladies and gentlemen on the committee as well as the chair. I would say that we have this room until 10 o'clock. And that either that the amendment sponsor who either pulled the amendment to discus with the individuals who may have issues with it before the floor. Or that will see that. This is just a stay study provision we are getting into the weeds we are designing duplexes and putting HBAC Systems in and the whole shooting maps so I would ask that either one of the two things the amendment sponsor with a [INAUDIBLE] amendment work with individuals prior to go into the floor or that we actually put this amendment in there and then we need to make me more tweets go into the floor for a study. >> Representative Hagar. >> Thank you Mr chairman I think I might be the only other builder on here set of bill licence but I understand exactly what Representative Brody is talking about Representative Stam those are two simply different issues if you are going to put a [INAUDIBLE] box up with electrician two by four that's different than telling plumber he needs to support his two inch PVC pipe with a 2 by 4 those are two separate different different issues, they should be in the code separately. So I think Representative Brody has a good handle on this. It's a study like representative miller said. I'm for representative Brody I'll vote yes. S303 HTQ-75 is enforced , all in favor will say Aye. >> Aye. >> All oppose, the Aye's have it. Representative Brody you are recognized for your second amendment. Thank you Mr. chairman. This is some amendment to the general contract or licence. Basically what it's doing is bringing this generational old code up to date and eliminate a lot of redundancy in awarding and just streamlining a bit. I just want to say that this is comes out of the, from the general contracted licencing board and those of of us who are subject to it as well as their associations have really no issue on this. >> Any comments from the committee or Bill sponsors? Representative [UNKNOWN]. >> How is the board gonna determine good and moral character? That seems pretty ambiguous. >> With a smile [LAUGH] Representative Brody I am sorry you are recognized. >> I guess to answer real simply the way that every other licencing board determines moral character. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> I have a follow up and that would be [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Representative Brody? >> The best I can say is they do an examination of the applicant's themselves, so they asked her questions as well as when you apply for a general contractor's licence you have to get letters of recommendation from people who are already licensed in the industry and that's pretty much what I think a lot of the other licencing boards do also. >> See they were comments amendment is 3080A-39 as [INAUDIBLE_AUDIO] Representative Randall would like to comment. >> Thank you Mr Chair, response to my good friend Mark Brody, we have just seen this amendment for the first time here getting a chance to look it over we would like to talk with the contractors group and other people get some information so and that's when you pull it and then bring it back on the floor or in another subsequent committee so we can get a better understanding about what this does that's for changing licencing board issues. >> Representative Brody. >> Mr Chairman I'll ask that this amendment be pulled from this eviction. >> Thank you, thank you Representative Brody request the amendment S303ATA-39 be pulled, thank you. Representative Curtlin/g you are recognized for the amendment. >> Thank you Mr Chairman. This amendment is page six line 15 and it's section 2.8, and I'll keep it, you don't necessarily have to have a copy of it cuz it just pulls that section but the just a little brief issue on this. I used to serve on the state commission of public health as the septic tank chairman and one of the issues that we had was the limited number of soil scientists that are out there and you know

one of the issues on this bill is that every property owner that has onsite waste water treatment, obviously a septic tank. The engineer has to bring in a soil scientist but there's only 170 of them in the whole state. And what was filed last time, that Representative Miller's mentioned that he filed last time was to add Gelatus/g to that, because Gelatus/g have been doing septic tanks for hundreds of years and its only been last 19 years that soil scientists, I have got involved, so we have got a very limited number of people, this needs to be studied and evaluated so I recommend we pull this right now. >> [COUGH] >> Representative Millies/g. >>Yeah Thank you Representative [UNKNOWN] and members of the committee, just we understand what we are actually looking at here that in the past session the general assembly actually put fourth a private engineer on site waste water [INAUDIBLE] process not just for conventional septic systems but for alternate designs as well which is pretty extensive, when that bill was drafted we wanted to make sure that professional geologists were Geologists were involved in anything that had to do with Geologic Aspects or Hydrologic Aspects. In doing so, we were told that the language that we had in the bill could disrupt the lanes between a Licenced Soil Scientist and a professional Geologist. So our intent with this language was to re-establish and put those lanes back. It's my understanding from talking with Representative Katelyn/g that there needs to be some further discussion on it. I'm fine with the Amendment, and actually pulling the provision and allowing discussion to go on between now and 17th to handle this. It's my understanding from Representative Katelyn that the actual State statute in dealing with the professional geologist gives them broad purview and that they would act within their expertise and that the professional Geologists board will crack down on those who are acting wrongly, so with that said I think this made it further, but again it was the Sheriff's intentions to do what was right, but what we are hearing but with further discussion we are finally moving the provision for future talk. >> Representative Hager. >> Thank you Mr. chair I ask the bill main sponsor a question. Representative Catlin with all your degrees you are saying you used to be chairman of sewage. >> Representative Catlin you don't have to answer that. >> I'll say yes. [LAUGH] >> So we do have the amendment before us. S303 CSSB-20, I see no more comments, the members before us. All those in favor will say aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed. The ayes have it. Representative Hager you are recognized for an amendment. >> Thank you Mr Chairman I am not sure if it's been handed out or not, that's it Mr Chairman. It is the diversion number. >> It's 303ATS-41 version 7. >> Representative Hager if you go ahead and explain or we are gonna pass out. >> Mr Chairman I'd like to recognize Chris here as a public staff, since he explained was requested by public staff utilities commission. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Mr. Chairman I apologize to the bill sponsor is the first time they'd seen this today but I think it's fairly easy to understand. Mr. [INAUDIBLE] will explain it adequately. >> Your comments are noted but we are used to it. So you are recognized please state your name for the record and title. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman my name is Chris Ayers. I'm Executive Director of the Utilities Commission Public Staff. In short, when customers call the Utilities Commission Public Staff Consumer Services Division, the information that they provide including their name, address, phone number, email address, customer account number, the name, address and phone numbers are considered public record. And we received about 13,500 calls last year to our Consumer Services Division. And most of these folks are calling asking for help in getting a payment arrangement with the utilities they are asking for help in avoiding getting their service disconnected. And currently as the law reads the personal identifiable information, the name, the address and the telephone number is public record. And that information generally it comes from customers that are pretty economically vulnerable. They may have specific health, financial concerns, other issues that they raised that go into our database as we track and resolve these issues with the commission. And they don't really understand that the information that they are providing is in fact public record and can be disclosed upon a lawful public records request. We've discovered that customers tend to expect privacy in that information. And so the language that has been provided to you would simply protect the name, address and telephone number of the customers that call

into the Utilities Commission Public Staff Consumer Services Division from being part of that public record. Everything else would remain part of that public record and be subject to disclosure upon public records request. However, we believe there is some value in protecting the personally identifiable information of the customers that call into our office seeking assistance. >> Thank you very much Mr [INAUDIBLE] representative Millis would like to comment. >> Representative [INAUDIBLE] >> Thank you Mr chair I'd like to ask our staff just to give us a comparison how this relates to other similar issues where we have done this none disclosure certain information. >> Yes this chapter, chapter 132 contains several exemptions to public records laws. I can look up those if you like but this happens often. >> Thank Miss [INAUDIBLE] >> Representative Millers >> Ladies and gentlemen of committee while we definitely be skeptic of the language put forward by the amendment sponsor. I definitely trust the testimony of miss Ireas/g. I think its a good provision where I ask you guys to support it. >> Representative Mayer. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think this question out of curiosity not apposition, but it is somewhere this information has been misused or abused to let through this request? >> We have seen request for public records, that has specifically asked for names, and addresses and phone numbers. As we reviewed those and we responded to them as we required by law. But we began thinking these 13,000 customers that called us last year had an expectation of privacy in the information that they gave us. And so if that information were misused then those customers would be in a pretty tough spot. >> Representative Whitmire I would request that we wanna get to the debate. We will vote on this. I will cut the debate at ten till. Representative Whitmire you have a question for the amendment. >> Thank you Mr. Chair, just a short and sweet. 2013 I ran a bill very similar to this that addressed disclosure of information through another agency to protect it, and I fully support this amendment. Thank you. Any further comments? Seeing none you have the amendment before us. All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? They ayes have it. Would you have some questions Representative Harrison? We're back on the bill. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you to the bill's sponsors I just, I have a couple of questions, most are related to the one provisioned. I appreciate the chairs leadership on our comprehensive when permitting legislation, I think he shepherded a couple of years ago. If I read this correctly, it seems to provide a sort of veto power for the Department of Military and Veteran Affairs over when citing, whent/g facilities, and if I read that correctly, I'm just wondering if the industry was included at all in the discussion of the development of this provisions? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> I'm sorry representative Harris, I didn't hear the question, cuz you were saying it really quick. >> [LAUGH] I was referencing the Wendt/g provisions and I wondered if this effectively creates a vito powers for the department of military and veteran affairs over one facilities, and if so as the industry consulted with in the development of this changes? >> As far as industry I have not consulted with industry personally but the provision were put in place when you go back to house bill 44 that was in 2012 session there was no recognized State Military Affairs Committee or Division of Military of Veterans Affairs. And we felt like with the state of the military the way it is now, due to a lot of our base commanders cannot publicly comment on many things that may affect their industry. It would be a good idea to go into the Military Affairs Committee to allow the military to fully, look at these say did not disrupt operation or missions at are base, if you go back to one of the issues that happened before hand in house bill 44 is that you did have a [INAUDIBLE] when that was threatening same with Johnson Air force Basic charity point. There were a station in the woods because the waiting commander to actually voice the concern that the actual ball got moving or else we would we would be sitting here today without Senator Johnson period and that's why it's imperative that when you are studying this wind farms that the military does have a voice and this is a proper place for them to get up with. >> Quick follow up? >> Yes ma'am, thank you and so with existing projects maybe not yet permanent such as the Amazon project in northeast North Carolina would. This would be subject to that review? is that perspective or retroactive? >> To my knowledge it would not affect that project, it would just be moving forward. >> Thank you. >> Representative Mills. >> If Representative Harrison in regard to question regarding public

input, I would see if, the Chair would recognize Jennifer Mutch/g to speak about the public input process before a final decision is made. >> Thank you Chairman Noah's/g. As to the public comment, under current law, and this doesn't change in the PCS before you. There is a provision that DQ holds a public hearing in each county that a proposed facility would be located in and it requires notification to a number of agencies and local government units as to the timing, and the content of those public hearings. So we haven't made any changes to those provisions. >> Representative Stam. >> Briefly I have an amendment I'm going to do for the floor clarifying [INAUDIBLE] some more drafting work, when I get that done the members of committees so I won't hit you cold and if there is any members that particularly are interested in that you can see me before then basically it clarifies what we did in 2015. There you go. >> Thank you Representative Stam Representative Hall. >> Thank you Mr chairman I have three questions if I could be allowed that one in section two and one in section three >> Please go ahead please >> The first question is regarding section 2.6 that institutes a three year statute of limitations on the local government regarding this land used violations and my question you to bill sponsor or staff is what is the current limitation? >> Representative Stam may wanna answer that question. >> If I could since I proposed it I don't think there's any statute limitations on it now, and if you look at the bill rather than the summary there are limitations as it does not apply if there is actual threat to health and safety and it only begins to accrue when the violation is apparent either from a public right of way or from areas to which the public is invite. So this is not related to secret land use violations that are not known about, but rather things that are obvious and should have been taken care of years ago instead of 10, 15, 20 years after the fact. >> [BLANK-AUDIO] Thank you Mr.Chairman. Follow up. >> Representative Hall follow up. >> Second question is regarding section 2.11, regarding the access to public records and basically limits the access now to folks who have I would assume Internet access and a computer, access. I guess my question is, was there some study or some other reason this was done and was the effect on individuals who may either institute pro say code actions or have other requests for actual documents that aren't accepted in electronic form. Were they consulted was that done as a result of a study or how did we come up with this? >> Representative Millers >> Representative [COUGH] Excuse me. Representative Hall, thank you for the question. It was our understanding what we're trying to do was is clarify that the actual public documents made available online, that as long as they are made available by way of downloadable to the public and not be in mandated in a specific format. That that was our intent to clarify that made available would be, downloadable, but I would say in regard to looking at the bill in regard to your question I'm definitely willing to work with you between now and the floor just to make sure that this is narrowed to local governments. To actually provide this information online from any type for requirement that is not being made available in other form. So I'll further reiterate, we are dealing with this due to Registered Deeds. And of course deeds are definitely, physically there actually for convenience they make the deeds available online so people don't have to go to the Registrar of Deeds themselves to physically pull it. That was our intent, look forward to working with you between now and the floor. >> Thank you Mr.Chairman If I had the third follow up real quickly. And- >> Before you do the follow up person Dicks had a comment on this very same issue. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Sponsors of the bill I have some of the same type of concern and just for future reference for staff and for the Bill of Sponsors. I need some help in understanding why in prints A the second sentence and prints A on page 10 is not in conflict with prints A1.

Now for discussion but I have some of the same concerns that were expressed by Representative Hall and we'll talk relative to the floor situation. Thank you. >> Thank you, Representative Dixon. Representative Hall, you're recognized for you final follow up. >> Yes thanks Mr. Chairman and it's regarding the inspections for rendering plants and it appears we are removing the requirement that whoever the inspector is have knowledge, or practical knowledge of rendering operations, and I'm wondering, I can understand us we do sing or streamline in who can be appointed to inspect. But it appears here we're taken away a safeguard for both the industry and for the public. Because we take away the requirement to have someone who basically knows what they are looking at and what they are doing to be the person to do the inspection. So I just wanna get a clarification on what that does when we say we no longer require a person to have practical knowledge of the operations. >> Thank you Mr Hall for your comment, I'm sure the bill sponsors will talk with you afterwards, do their time and strength and remember this bill has to get through finance and then put the bill on the floor and there will be a number of opportunities to meet with the bill sponsors to answer your questions and move forward on this/ Currently right now representative Hager moves that the PCA regulatory/g format 2013 senate bill, excuse me 2016 senate bill 303 receive a favor report for the house committee substitute as amended. Amendments rolled into a new PCS? We're good? That's it? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Thank you Ms. Hudson, and are favorable to the original. All in favor will say aye. >> Aye. >> All opposed? The ayes have it. The ayes do have it. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you. [SOUND]