I call to order the meeting of the full House, regulatory reform committee members, if you could, find your seats. Guests, if you could, retire to the back of the meeting room. This is the first meeting of the full committee for the short session, I'd like to recognize our Sargent of Arms for the quick turnover of the room, the Senate were here previously and that's the reason there's a little bit of chaos, but Bob Rossy, David Collins, Martha Gadison and Doug Harris, thank you very much for your hard work and for bringing a little order to this meeting. We do have some house pages I'd like to recognize. Pages, when I call your name, if you could, stand up and hold up your hand, I would appreciate it. Ian Boehner, Connor McVicker, Samantha Naylor, Daniel Lou, and Lauren Lee. Thank you very much for being with us this week, and I hope you enjoy regulatory reform as much as we do. Folks, we have a full calendar of bills on the agenda. A lot of these of very technical, so for the wonky aspect of your personality, you'll enjoy a lot of these, but we need to move through them at a fairly good clip. I'd like to go ahead and recognize Chris Millis, Chris? Chris is going to be running House Bill 1081. There is a PCS before, so we have a motion to adopt PCS. Representative Brown has made a motion to adopt PCS. All in favor say aye. PCS is beforced. Representative Millis, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee. For those of you all who are part of the ERC Committee this interim, this bill is familiar to you all. For those who are not, I will briefly explain what these measures do. Before I do so, let me thank those with the ERC as well as the state ?? groups who worked tirelessly throughout the interim to actually take the original intent of addressing the problems that this bill works to address and polishing it out and hammering it out and having very frank and delivered it in open conversations to make this bill the best bill that it could be before you today. So very grateful to the stakeholders and all the work that's been put into it. Very simply it's this: the bill does exactly what the short title says, and one thing that I want you to understand is while the bill says that it reforms the review of engineering work, please understand that every one of your constituents, who actually desires to turn dirt on their property, to expand their business, or to do any type of development that requires regulatory approval, that this is actually a bill that affects them directly, and what the bill looks to do is reform our regulatory processes to move more towards an effective and efficient manner to uphold our protections to health and the environment. And what the bill does is, the first section has the definitions; the next section actually requires the individuals who are your constituents going through these regulatory agencies to distinguish between what is recommended by the agency from what is required in order to get a regulatory approval, and if the regulatory agencies require such, this legislation to simply ask that they state the authority that they have to require such for the approval, so the measure is simply to uphold our protection of the health and environment that our constituents have sent us up here to protect, but to do so in a way that is efficient and also very effective. I'll appear to stay and answer any questions, but due to the schedule that the Chair has, I want to be very brief in my comments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Millis. Any questions from members of the committee for Representative Millis? Say non, do we have a motion? Representative Waddell? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we give favorable report to Bill 1081, unfavorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. We have a motion to give favorable report to PCS, unfavorable to the original bill. All in favor say aye. All opposed. Thank you very much, Mr. Representative Millis.
Have a subsequent referral to environment. Next on our agenda are two bills with Representative Brody, the House Bill 1105 and House Bill 1106. There are no PCS’s. Representative Brody you’re recognized to, just run them each separately. You’re recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. A couple very short bills, they come out of the study committee on land development co-chaired by Representative Torbett and myself. Just to be real brief, in our study committee we had actually encountered and it may be stretching the imagination of everybody that sometimes government causes problems and we need to step in and attempt to fix it. The first bill is very simple that it says that when a county decides to take over the erosion and sedimentary control from DENR that currently they can take it over but DENR can withhold some projects. What we’re saying is that if they’re going to decide to do it, they need to take over everything. This way that they will be able to look at everything and so they’re aware of certain problems that might arise. If anybody wants the details on it you can ask questions in the next few days. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Representative Brody. Representative Iler? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Move for favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Hold your motion. Do we have any questions regarding this bill for Representative Brody. Representative Hall? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just a quick question about what caused this to be the focus of your attention, was there a specific problem of sharing of information between the state and local? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Brody? [SPEAKER CHANGE] That’s exactly what it was. It was one agency was looking at the other and said they’re responsible and it caused a very severe problem within a particular subdivision and what we’re trying to do is number one, if this would have been in effect then when a particular gas and ?? would have taken over the sedimentary control program from DENR they would have discovered this, they would have had to deal with this long before the problem manifested itself, but your assessment is correct. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Brawley? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Question. In my district I’ve got a problem where the design of the water flow coming off of the highway and the development in the highway with the heavy rains we’ve had in the spring it’s created a terrible erosion problem on one man’s property and everybody seems to be passing the buck that it’s somebody else’s responsibility. Will this do anything to help something like that clear up? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I’d have to refer to staff to be specific to that. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Representative Brody. Bill Patterson? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Representative Brawley, I do not believe that this bill is particularly designed to deal with the problem that you’ve described. This bill deals with situations where there are land disturbing activities that’s under the regulatory authority of DENR and a local government. It decides to submit a program for approval by the sedimentation controls commission. Sometimes, as Representative Brody indicated, and in this case that was the subject of this committee study. Sometimes DENR will grandfather over existing projects, subdivisions, where there’s land disturbing activity that’s currently being enforced by the commission will be grandfathered when the local government takes over the regulatory function. This is designed to ensure that everything gets handled at the local level if they have their own program. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I support your bill. It sounds like a good idea to know who is responsible for what and if that’ll help us I’d appreciate what you did. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Representative Brawley. Representative Faircloth? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Representative Brody you mentioned in this particular case ‘this developer’ and that always troubles me a little bit. We’re not doing this for an individual, we’re doing this for the good of the overall programs. Is that right? [SPEAKER CHANGE] That’s correct. The problem in the existing subdivision is going to be there and there’s nothing we can actually do about it. What we’re trying to do is prevent something from happening in the future. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Any additional questions? Seeing none, Representative Iler is recognized for a motion.
The problem ?? Representative Brody's committee I'd like to move for favorable report to House Bill 1105. SPEAKER CHANGES: With referral to environment. All in favor of the motion will say aye. All opposed? Motion is adopted. Representative Brody, thank you. You're recognized to run your second bill, which is House Bill 1106. SPEAKER CHANGES: 1106 is on about the same lines. What it says is that if there is in, when person files for an erosion or sedimentary control permit, if one of the items that is required in this permit is structural, where it would require an actual footing and that, in that case would require the local building inspector to actually inspect it, that the, the two, the agencies would coordinate the deener or the county would be required to tell the inspection department that there is a structure going to be produced on that, on that property required by erosion control, and they are supposed to then inspect it. Simple as that. SPEAKER CHANGES: Thank you Representative Brody. Representative Iler? SPEAKER CHANGES: At the appropriate time. SPEAKER CHANGES: Please hold your motion. Any questions for members of the committee for Representative Brody? Representative Hall? SPEAKER CHANGES: Thank you Mr. Chair. Quick question about any creation of additional liability on the part of the parties involved, since we asked for an additional certification from the designer of the device? SPEAKER CHANGES: I'm going to refer to staff on that one. SPEAKER CHANGES: Refer to this to Mr. Patterson. SPEAKER CHANGES: Thank you Mr. Chair. Representative Hall, to the extent that the designer is a professional, which is I think usually the case, usually a licensed engineer. I think that the fact is this is requiring that person to certify to deener (??), that the device has been designed in accordance with applicable law and specs. And further, that it will be installed in accordance with the erosion and sedimentation control plan in the area where it's being installed. So, if nothing else it, it puts somebody, it makes somebody accountable for that being done. In this particular case, I believe the subcommittee, I mean the study committee, found that the person who designed the retaining wall for this particular subdivision was never on site. It was not in fact installed in accordance with a design that was approved, and this would attempt to, I think, provide some motivation for a little more oversight on the part of the designer to make sure that the design is carried through and is installed as designed. SPEAKER CHANGES: Representative Avila? SPEAKER CHANGES: Thank you Mr. Chair. I just need to clarify Representative Brody, this here again we're talking about commercial installation design and installation? SPEAKER CHANGES: This particular one was a residential subdivision, but I would, I would believe that when you get a erosion or sedimentary control permit it, it doesn't distinguish between commercial or residential, it's just a land disturbing activity. So, these would apply to, to everything in those. SPEAKER CHANGES: Follow up? SPEAKER CHANGES: Yes, if I could raise a question in terms of like a lot of a DI wires like to do retaining walls. They're real popular in my area. What is the current control or procedures if someone wants to install a retaining wall, if they're not an engineer, and they just run out and lay a lot of brick and that sort? Do we have any kind of permitting or anything like for building an addition type stuff? SPEAKER CHANGES: The, the code actually provides if, if it reaches certain parameters, like certain month, certain height, then you would be subject to the code. But in particular in this case, what they're saying is that it would be a person who's required to build a retaining wall, for example, under the, an erosion control permit, and the difference in if somebody just wants to build one. Yeah. SPEAKER CHANGES: Representative Jordan. SPEAKER CHANGES: Very quickly, this may be a question for Mr. Patterson. It says here that this is only in the case where these walls have to be inspected and permitted by local government. So, my question is if it has to be inspected and permitted by local government, isn't there a local inspector that's making sure that it's been installed according to all the local ordinances? Why do we have to deal with this and bring in other people? SPEAKER CHANGES: Representative Brody, you want the question or would you like Mr. Patterson
?? to address her [SPEAKER CHANGES ]I think I'll Let mr patterson take a shot at it. [SPEAKER CHANGES ]Mr.Patterson? [SPEAKER CHANGES ]Thank you mr.chair. Representative Jordan, you are correct that this bill would apply when there is an erosion control device that by virtue of it's design requires something to be installed that would permitting for which and inspection of which would fall within the jurisdiction of the local building inspection department. The bill is intended to do two things, i think, one is to get the designer of that erosion control device on the record to certify that it's been designed and will be installed in accordance with applicable law and the plan. The second thing you will notice that is does is it requires Deener to tell the local chief building inspection officer for that locality to provide them with a copy of that conditioned permit, it's conditioning the issue and so if that erosion control permit on that certification so its clear from this that the local person who is responsible, it's not bringing anyone else in to inspect, but it's saying that whoever is responsible for inspecting the device is going to have before them the conditions including the certification by that engineer. i think that is what it's designed to do. [SPEAKER CHANGES ] Any additional questions for representative brody? Representative Cunnigham. [SPEAKER CHANGES ] Thank you. my question is currently where I live at there is a retaining law that was put there by the city and it is to retain sedimentation from coming down the hill and rolling into the road. If we already have in place the codes for that to be done at the city at the local, why do we need additional designer to come and tell them this is how you need to build it, when we already have people that know how to build it? [SPEAKER CHANGES ] Representative Brody? [SPEAKER CHANGES ] I think what you're looking at is , if you have somebody qualified that can certify within whatever the jurisdiction is that they're able to do it basically what this is requiring is that there are other entities that may require a retaining law such as Deener in a sedimentary control measure, and if we dont tell them that if this going to be structure or if its going to have a foundation and be inspected, then they might not do it. and if they dont do it, it falls which is precisely the problem we had,was it manifested itself somewhere down the road and it can be extremely expensive, so what we're doing is just saying is that you have to tell the person you have to tell the inspection department that this is there, and then the inspection department knows that they're going to have to go in and inspect. [SPEAKER CHANGES ] Representative Millis [SPEAKER CHANGES ]Thank you Mr.Chair. I just want to bring up in the discussion here one major point, and that is the bill currently is in the confines of the existing codes existing regulations and existing processes that already occur but the gap that's actually being filled is this, and its a very important gap,on behalf of public safety and public health is the aspect is that a design and a plan that is on a piece of paper is scrutinized and approved and that piece of paper sits in a filing cabinet. And what this measure does is to make sure that what is built in the field has been built according to the design, it is making sure that the intent of the design was carried out at construction on behalf of the public health, safety, and the environment. So i definitely commend this build, and i think it's a good measure to actually bridging the gap in a regulatory reform manner. [SPEAKER CHANGES ] Representative Ailer you're recognized for a motion [SPEAKER CHANGES ] I haven't seen the situation that we dont want to occur again. Move for the adoption of house bill...favor report house bill 11.0.6 [SPEAKER CHANGES ] We have a motion for a favor report on house bill 11.0.6 with a referral to environment all in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES ]Aye [SPEAKER CHANGES ]All opposed. Motion is adopted. Thank you to representative brody. We're going to skip to house bill 11.40 amend hotel carbon monoxide alarm requirements. Representative Samuelson you're recognized. To present your bill we have a pcs before us. Do we have a motion to adopt pcs? Representative Lucas moves that we adopt the pcs for house bill 11.40 all in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES ] aye [SPEAKER CHANGES ]Pcs is before us Representative Samuelsan you're recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES ] Thank you mr.chairman, members of the committee you all may require about a year and a half ago there were some instances that
Carbon monoxide poisoning and subsequent death in the western part of the state, and it’s actually happened a couple of times in other areas of the country, and so in 74 in the Reg Reform Bill last year, House 74, we went in and tried to make a requirement for public safety that you have carbon monoxide detectors. Well, after we passed the bill, it came out that there were some technical issues about it’s actually not a detector, it’s an alarm. It doesn’t do any good to detect something and not notify people. What you want is to detect it and notify people. Then there was a question about whether they were hard wired or battery-operated. Then there was a question of exactly who is going to enforce this and make sure that you have it in there, and some of that was set up to be studied with the Environmental Review Commission. They came back to us, we set up some task forces this year and sort of divided it all up, and one of the task forces that I was on was to work with the people who were in charge of getting all those details lined up. As it turned out, because of all the snow we had this year, they ended up meeting without us several times and were able to self-negotiate. That’s the great thing, when you can get the groups to get together and self-negotiate what this needs to be. What you have before you is a way to clarify when a carbon monoxide alarm, not detector, is required to be installed in a lodging establishment, what constitutes a lodging establishment and they define that and where they’re covered in various areas of statute. In fact, the PCS was to make sure that a type of lodging establishment that is covered in another sector, and already requires carbon monoxide detectors, that they weren’t covered by both of them, so that was all we did on the PCS was clarify it. Then, who inspects it? Candidly, the thing that was the most contentious was, if you fail the first inspection what is the follow-up procedure? We went through to make sure, if it’s one of those situations where there’s imminent danger there’s a fast follow-up; if it’s not imminent danger, give the people three days to figure out what it is they need to do, whether they need to change a battery or buy a new alarm. That’s the gist of the bill. I’m going to let staff address whether I missed anything on that. Peter? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, Peter Ledford with the Research Division. I think Representative Samuelson did a great job summing up the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Ledford. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, for the safety of the people all over the state of North Carolina, I would urge your support of this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any questions for Representative Samuelson regarding House Bill 1140? Representative Iler. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson, thank you for bringing this forward, but I’m concerned about the definition: it says seven or more continuous days down in line 34. Does this include, individually, on homes which are rated at the beach from Saturday at 3 p.m. to Saturday at 12? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. Those are the ones that when we—and staff make sure because this is the part of the PCS—I’ll let him describe it, but no. That was why we made sure that the PCS didn’t accidentally pick up things we didn’t mean for it to pick up, so Peter can address that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Ledford. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler, if you will look to page three of the PCS, lines 41-43. Subdivision six there says that properties that are subject to the provisions of either general statute 42-42 or 42A-31 are not subject to these provisions. General statute 42A-31 regulates vacation rental properties, which is a rather specific definition, and they are subject to different requirements and we’re going to let those requirements stand, and they would not be subject to these new requirements for lodging establishments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And you’re actually a perfect example of why we put it in there, because they were concerned that, when we had the language about the seven days, even though it quoted the statute, the average inspector may not go back and look to see. That’s why we added it, to make sure it was clear. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any additional questions for Representative Samuelson? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Reives, welcome to House Regulatory Reform. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson, thank you for the doing this presentation. One question I had was, do you know why the term dwelling unit or sleeping unit replaced enclosed space? I was curious about that change. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes because there was—and it’s a good question for a Freshman, thank you—because we found out that enclosed space could include things like if you had an open patio, and had one of those kind of like lattice roofs on it, that could technically be considered an enclosed space but we’re not concerned about that, because if you’re outside with a latticed roof you’re not going to worry about carbon monoxide so it was a term that we chose.
Definition that more correctly got it what we’re concerned about, which is places that are completely enclosed and often where people are going to be sleeping or staying for a long period of time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any additional questions for Representative Samuelson? Representative Iler, you’re recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move for a favorable report for house, proposed ?? substitute for house bill 1140 ?? to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion being properly before the committee. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed. Motion is adopted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Next up, for everybody keeping track on your agenda, the burden of proof in certain contested cases will not be heard today. We have a little work left to do on that particular bill. At this time I’d like to recognize Representative Stevens. She’ll be presenting house bill 1170, disapproval of a funeral board rule. Representative Stevens, you’re recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, this was on a part of our Administrative Procedures Oversight Committee. We had ten people file objecting to a petition by the funeral board to increase their fees. As we got into some of the details of this analysis, the funeral board had a lot of money in reserve. They had made a tremendous expenditure buying, instead of renting or leasing, they bought a million dollar condo to house their facility, and they want to get that paid off in eight, eight or ten years. They’re getting tighter on funds because of that over commitment they made. They could do some refinancing, and we were just opposed to allowing them to expand the fee for that purpose, and therefore. The fee had not been increased in a long time, but they still had more than enough money to operate. So, we didn’t feel it was appropriate, and this was the pathway for the funeral directors to object at ?? Fort. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any questions for Representative Stevens? Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. What was the fee for? I didn’t quite. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The funeral board directors have a fee for the licensing fees to become a director, to become an assistant director, the various arrangement of fees that they charge for these people to become licensed and do business. So, it was a business affiliated fee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Shepard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What is that fee? Do you know is it the same fee for all situations? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff has that, I think. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ms. Karen Cockenbrown. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. The fees that were being increased by this rule included a fee to an application for establishing a funeral home was increased from $150 to $200. The annual renewal fees for embalmers, funeral directors were increased from $40 to $75. The total fee for an embalmer and funeral director, when both are held by the same person, was increased from $60 to $100. And the annual renewal fee for a transportation permit was increased from $40 to $75. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any additional questions for Representative Stevens? Representative Iler, you’re recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m overwhelmed by the generosity of the Chair. The motion is for a favorable report for house bill 1170. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ? Referral on this one? No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion being properly before the committee is for a favorable report on house bill 1170. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed. Motion is adopted. Thank you, Representative Stevens. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right. Here we go. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In regards to house bill 1136, authority to adopt certain ordinances, we will not be hearing that. Representative Farmer-Butterfield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, I just wanted to acknowledge that some of us had a judiciary seat committee before this one, and because of the conflict, we are, some of us are late getting here. And I just wanted to make that comment for the record. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Representative Farmer-Butterfield. Regulatory form is a more important committee.
I would respectfully disagree. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, we will now have House Bill 1109. Representative Moffitt please present your bill and, members of the committee, this is a PCS. Representative Martin moves to have the PCS forced for discussion only. All in favor say aye. All opposed. Motion carried. Representative Moffitt. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, the next series of bills are all Administrative Procedure Oversight Committee recommendations. They’re fairly technical, fairly wonky, so we’ll try to make them as interesting as we can. This particular bill is clarifying the existing rule readoption process and, essentially, if the rule’s review commission feels as if one of our agencies is failing to follow the procedures, they are directed to refer that to our committee so we can address that and they’re also directed to establish a date as to when certain rules need to be reviewed. This is all kind of an extension of the rule making process that we did in House Bill 74. I won’t take you through that but, as these things begin to unfold, we need to tweak them as we go, so I move for a favorable report on the PCS, unfavorable to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just had one quick question, and I don’t believe anything’s in here on this, but what are the consequences for not filing your annual report and not getting it in? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, if you could direct that to Ms. Cochran-Brown. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ms. Cochran-Brown, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Representative Stevens, the process that you all created last year for the review of existing rules provides that, if an agency fails to conduct the review as required by law, their rules will expire and will be taken out of the code, so the agency will not have rules that they can operate under. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further questions from the committee? Representative Stevens? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just move for a favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further questions? Members of the committee, you’ve heard the motion for Representative Stevens regarding the PCS for House Bill 1109, unfavorable to the original bill. Any further discussion or debate? If not, all in favor say aye. All opposed. Motion carried. Thank you members of the committee. Representative Moffitt, House Bill 1152. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. This is a bill that has already cleared this committee. Actually it’s cleared a committee previously and has already cleared the House. This is eliminating obsolete boards and commissions. This actually got caught up in Senate Bill 10 last year, and a consolidated effort to do a lot of other things, so this is actually doing the responsible thing and eliminating things that we no longer need as a state from a board perspective. I can answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Part nine, I think I’m on that commission, which hasn’t met in many years: how do we know it still exists since it came from the Chief Justice? As somebody from staff, I think it morphed into something else. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ms. Cochran-Brown. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Representative Stam, you’re correct. In 2006, the legislature established by statute the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission and that really is the entity that would perform this function now. The Chief Justice, by a resolution or some kind of a document, created the actual Innocence Commission. This is worded as an encouragement to the Chief Justice because it might be a separation of powers issue for the legislature to try and repeal something that was created by the Chief Justice. It, however, still seems to exist and we’re encouraging the Chief Justice to take some formal action to eliminate it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That was my question, because I think I was on the successor. Do we know it still exists? Has there been any recent communication from the Supreme Court that this actual thing exists? Go ahead and pass it but I think, before it gets to the floor, we ought to find out for sure that it actually exists so that we’re not asking them to do something that’s already been done years ago. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We wouldn’t want to do that. Thank you Representative Stam. Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. I wanted to ask, you mentioned obsolete, how you determine that a committee is obsolete? You can answer that first and then I’ll follow up.
Representative Adams. This is actually, we’re just picking up a bill that we argued through the house last session, so a lot of the preliminary work I did not participate in so I’d like the Chair to direct that to Miss Karen Cochran Brown. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Miss Karen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Representative Adams, in 2012, the joint legislative administrative procedure oversight committee studied and reviewed these and went through all of the outstandings for the boards and commissions and checked when they had last met, whether they had been appropriated any funds basically trying to find out any information about them. These were the boards that we found and if you look in the summary for each one of them, it indicates that they haven’t been active in a number of years. In some cases, they’ve never been funded. There have never been appointments made to some of them. So basically all of these boards and commissions were the ones out of that review that seemed not to exist in any way currently. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to comment because I was not on the committee for dropout prevention and certainly involved in that and I guess the question I think it did good work and it did exist and so forth, but funding was not appropriated for it and so it was just kind of eliminated by this legislature, which I didn’t necessarily agree with, but anyway. The question I have is on some of these and that one in particular, is the work being carried on in some other way? Maybe that’s not the business of this committee, I’m just curious about that. Miss Cochran Brown may know that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t know that, Representative Adams. I can check that for you and find out. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Baumgardner. [SPEAKER CHANGES]?? when you need one. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you. Representative Horn. Representative Queen. Representative Harrison. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Just a quick question to I guess Miss Cochran Brown. Do we know Blue Ridge National Heritage Area was established? That’s number five eliminating the national heritage area designation commission. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I honestly don’t recall, Representative Harrison, whether it had ever existed but it hasn’t for many years functioned. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, further questions? Representative Hall? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this is a question about the repeal of the small business contractor act and the small business contractor authority. Does anyone know the history on that other than the fact it wasn’t funded? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Miss Cochran Brown. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can’t recall, Representative Paul. I’ll be glad to check that for you. But as indicated and this information was culled during 2011 and 2012. Nothing has happened since then in any of these boards and they hadn’t for a number of years before that time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, just as a matter of information, the Blue Ridge National Heritage Area Commission did do their work and we do have a Blue Ridge National Heritage Area established. So there’s no need for this because we have succeeded in it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Further questions, comments from the committee? Representative Cunningham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moffitt do we know what the savings are on these commissions for the ones that was funded, the finances, because when we serve on the commission you do get a travel and a state, do we know what that savings is? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Rep. Cunningham. I don’t I know when this review was done as indicated by Miss Cochran Brown that no money had been appropriated there. I’m not sure if any expenses were incurred or not. I’ve asked the chair to redirect that question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Ma’am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moffitt is correct in most of these cases these boards have not met in many years, so there had been no expenditures for them for a long time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, any further questions. Representative Baumgardner. ?? motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Favorable report for this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, you’ve heard the motion of Representative Baumgardner. All in favor say aye. All apposed. Motion carried. Thank you. Representative Moffitt, you’re recognized for House Bill 1153. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, this recommendation was brought to APO by the office of administrative hearings. Essentially this authorizes them to file their documents
... electronically on contested cases. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Questions from the committee? Representative Stevens. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion for a favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, you’ve heard the motion on the floor. Is there any further discussion or debate? If not, all in favor say “Aye”. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed? Motion carried. Representative Moffitt, you’re recognized for House Bill 1163. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members this is again our effort to continue streamlining the rule-making process, and essentially what this does is eliminates the need to certification in regards to moving through the process of rule adoption. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Questions or comments from the committee? Representative Bumgardner. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion for a favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, you’ve heard the motion on the floor. Is there any further discussion or debate? If not – [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair? I’m sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Ma’am? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Over here to your left. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry. Representative Harrison, pardon me, I’m sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m sorry, Representative Moffitt, this certification process, was that something that we’d had in last year’s bill, or is this something that’s been longstanding, the certification process we’re eliminating? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I don’t know the particular history in it. I just know that it became an issue in regards to rule-adoptions – that certification became one of the sticking points in regards to adding a lot of time and money to actually moving through the rule-adoption process, so seeing as it was not a necessary thing to have, eliminating it should streamline the process. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall. Further questions or comments from the committee? You’ve heard the motion from Representative Bumgardner. All in favor, say “Aye”. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed? Motion carried. Representative Moffitt, you are recognized for House Bill 1165. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chair. For those of you unfamiliar with APO, essentially we had oversight responsibilities for the executive branch agencies as well as the occupational licensing boards, hence the reason why we’re eliminating a lot of the obsolete boards. In regards to the reporting requirements, in an effort to continue to streamline, there was some confusion in regards to whom the occupational licensing boards should submit their annual report to, and when we asked for those annual reports to be submitted for review, some were actually sent to another entity and that entity did not exist, so this is really kind of clarifying what the reporting requirements are, and there are some – I guess there’s probably three components here in regards to what should be contained in the reports. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Questions, comments from the committee. Representative Lucas. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moffitt, do you know of any opposition to the abolition of this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m not aware of any opposition. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. Representative Lucas. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Move for a favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, you’ve heard the motion on the floor. Any further discussion or debate? If not, all in favor say “Aye”. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed? The motion carried. And last but certainly not least, Representative Moffitt, you are recognized for House bill 1173. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is again… APO is only moderately more interesting than General Statutes Commission, and when you’re looking at how the APA rule-adoption procedure is implemented, there are certain things that are really unclear, and this particular issue regarding rules for professional corporations indicated that we needed to kind of fold into the statutes that govern them the process that they need to follow. I hope I explained that sufficient. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Questions, comments from the committee? Representative Moffitt, you’re recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move for a favorable report of House Bill 1173. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, you’ve heard the motion on the floor. Any further discussion or debate? If not, all in favor say “Aye”. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed? Motion carried. Members of the committee, I’d like to thank you. I’d also like to thank the public, and for those of you who have not seen your email, please extend your sympathy to Representative Starnes. His father passed away today. This meeting is adjourned.