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, 2015 | Committee Room | Regulatory Reform

Full MP3 Audio File

Alright [xx] is in. Welcome this afternoon to the House Committee on regulatory reform, I want to introduce to you our coach is here along with myself, Representative John Bale and Representative Dennis Radel both in my left. Karen Kirk Brown and Jeff Hudson is our staff members but I have also seen that actually have Misyral [xx] about here with us as well, and and Josh Perry as well, so, I appreciate them being here with us, our committee assistant for the day is Miss Vivian Sharrell, and according to the list here I got on house Sergeant at Arms [xx] Margaret Lee, David Libson and Charisma Kraken, just want to welcome all of them and their assistance here. The first bill that we will have before us, and I believe that Senator Garn is here to present it his Senate Bill 25, look forward to his introduction, then we'll take comments from the floor. Senator Garn you have the floor for Senate Bill 25. Thank you Mr. Chair, I'm glad to see everybody today before I get into this Bill and I'm. Representative Hager[sp?], why do you interrupt? proper time I'll like to move for a favorable. Noted. Thank you. I will keep this brief, but for those maybe that was not here back in 11, or back in 13 when this thing passed with overwhelming bipartisan support for ones in the House and ones in the Senate, I think it is certainly time in 2015 that we pass it through vote chambers with overwhelming bypatisan support. This Bill come to you for really the third time, first time back in 11 with which would have passed out with going on city votes second time in 13 passed out of the house with on the 18th [xx] so it had great bar support from day one. The members if you refer to your summary, the summary actually does a great job, am doing this, I just want to emphasis of few things then I will be gland to answer any question. First of all, let me let you understand that this general senate has never given local government the authority to regulate the aesthetics. And what we are saying is increasing amount of those municipalities and counties, imposing this type of restrictions on their borders and on their citizens. Senate bill 25 will remove any authority that the local governments currently think that they posses to do this. Quickly section one applies to cities, what it will allow say, it will say that they cannot apply these aesthetic controls to the subject, to the North Carolina residential code for one and two family dwellings that does include single family, duplexes and town homes. On lines 30-34 it about design, the building design almost cannot be regulated staff like exterior glen-ding material, styling material of roof, number of window poaches location of all who cant find those windows garage doors even goes into types of rooms an interior room layout which we have been seeing some of these applied on line 34 back on to page 2 and line 4 talks about building design elements they can be regulated I think this is just as much important part of this particular bill then the status[sp?] control because it's going to allow municipalities and counties continue to do what they have done and that is do hike, [xx], orientation, and location structure use of buffering and screening like they've been able to do to mitigate light and noise and other things, and it also will continue to allow use regulate, use regulations. This should take care of any other question about the boarding house argument. You can regulate use and they will continue to able to do that. Lines 11 through 22, or exceptions to senate bill 25 and this is also a very important part of this bill, things in the, I won't read them all but things like the historic district, the national register, historic places, anything that regulates safety codes, flood codes, or anything like that will continue to be poured off the legislation and has been poured previously. It does not apply to comunities

with governance as you know any by [xx] governor that's self imposed. Launch 23 to 30 in practical what this would do is they will say the cities cannot maintain extended control during resigning negotiation. However, land runners like they do now, in agreeing to the interatification that they will impose or not extended controls control is in negotiation process. Section two just a plus to counties with the same regulations as you saw with the cities and section three  is important, it talks about that is true become, this side become low and contains a foreign language, they have claviers and free space they entail and existing law and plus to odense adapted before, on after the affected date. I will make very brief comments and then I would like to open this up for any questions and answers for you support. First, static control via expensive, it's very well documented that builders and people building their homes had had to pay 1000s and 1000s of notes of 10's of 1000s of dollars to meet somebody's extended controls  and it's quite else he made it less affordable for the exact people any cases like when you are trying to help and that is a middle cliers[sp] when that American campaign drink is going to be relaxed will make Paracoat[sp] told me to be running upto price, You just rap smoke in sessions[sp] of people think about this if you can have a minutes of palate in canon and tell you have to build your house if you had a builder for example and had an unfilled lot and you wanted to build a house, and their going to come in and they are going to tell you how to build that house regardless of weather you think you can sell it or not. Have you ever seen a municipality want to participate in the financial risk of a house that may have been over price, I don't think so, and finally, and this to me the most important things, one of the fundamental principles of great nation is private property rights. We have great balance now and we already have in our existing ordinances, but we do do not need excessive control to infringe upon the very rights that are such a part of this great nation. Thank you for both, there was a that help me sponsor on the senate side, we had great support in the companion bill, and I appreciate that on the house side that has been be glad in answering any questions and I would like for your support, thank you. Thank you Senator Hart, any questions and comments? I see Representative Greg Mia has one. Thank you Mr Chairman, I would like to send forth an amendment. Your recognized To send forth your amendment. Ladies and gentlemen, members of amendment that's been distributed through Representative Browley's name on it, Representative is not being a members, the committee couldn't send it forward so am happy to do so I would ask the chair if he would allow Representative Browley to introduce the amendments to the committee. It is my understanding that you would like Representative Browley to act as your surrogate, that permission is granted, Representative Browley would you like to share a few words on your amendment? Thank you Mr Chairman and thank you Representative Miller for your help I was a former member of the Mathew's town council and we had a reputation of being the tough is zoning in Merkrenberg County and rather not quite that same they do have a lot of, they are very active. When I thot of first came to the General Assembly in 2011 Senator Crot[sp?] Felter[sp?] had brought forth this bill my first reaction was what's the problem Dan? I sat down with him for a long time and he educated me and I did realized that there was a lack of authority in the general statutes and ended up supporting his bill that run in 2011 2013 I was one one of the cost sponsors of house bill 150 which was essentially clock out as bill on pas the house and it fail on the Senate and interest before disclosure I'm cost sponsor of house bill 36 which is the companion bill this year. The question of whether or not the current statute gives any additional powers beyond what this bill of the lineates is in my opinion set of laws started decisively[sp?] as a result of the land veil decision in the North Carolina Supreme Court, however I have continued to have several discussions with my towns and one of the things that I had offered to town council of Mathews is once this the general statutes aligned with the land bill decision and we all agreed on what the law said now we can start the discussion on what additional powers the towns might have, what my town counsel and mayor had asked me to do intead yet was to offer some draft language that he

being prepared by the legal means aparities. So as the request of the mayors of Mathew, Men Hill and Palvo sending for the amendment but this is not my language and of course I think people would be suspicious of whether I will do a good job of presenting it since I'm also a current sponsor of the big language that we're amending. So I would ask the chairs and [xx] of the league who I believe it was the author or co-authored the league language on which this amendment was based be allowed to discuss the merits to the amendment. Is your remarks concluded their [xx] That would conclude my remarks and would ask what I would normally do in its planning the bill be done by someone who would be seen as a much, just to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest Understood. Ladies and gentlemen committee at this time I represent, or I'll allow Mrs Aaron Winnia to speak, for no more than two minutes, on the merit of the amendment, empowering up, is by the shares of permission or someone allow everybody opinion of the amendment offer by, what I believe is, I missed my carpenter from the audience, and that would be the actual I will have from the public at this point of the amendment, and we'll move forward with this at the public comment moving forward from there, so allow, Mrs Winnie you have the floor. Okay. Thank you Mr Chairman, Aaron Winnia with the North Carolina league [xx] polities. And I appreciate the opoturnity opportunity to get up here and speak on the amendments that's before you, and I believe it's one that incorporates several different ideas that are cities and towns have been talking with you about all session, the league of course has recognized that there's a significant momentum behind this bill find this bill, and so we believe that this amendment seek, to address cities biggest concerns of the bill, but understanding the need of it we'll still be intact, even if this amendment are passed. What the amendment will do, first would make sure that, inso an existing developments, that currently are in our cities and towns, that cities will still have the ability to require these building design elements on those trucks of land, and that's the portion of the amendment that you see and sub section seven and eight of H there will be new sub sections we are rely talking about small areas three acres or waste to be there are now existing each way as standards in place, what this are standards we do is allow city to protect the property value of an existing properties of the neighbors make sure the development is compatible with what currently existing other features of this amendment will apply just a single family homes I think currently drafted will also point town homes as well as [xx] a it you vote over am looking what you are looking at but the pushing of the amendment that talks about doors and the kitchen that was rely an attempt to leave the books of what currently drafted and tagged but allow city especially think of those in tourism based communities where they have these big vacation homes, they've lots of bedrooms, these communities have contacted us and said they are very concerned about their ability of their public for structure like trash collection, water and waste powder provision, they are very worried if they are not able to somehow regulate the size of these homes. This is the two minutes is up by the Sergeant-At-Arms if you don't mind. OK, thank you I'll just say the last one is about the effective day and it would apply prospectively. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Cavender you have the same amount of time, two minutes, you have the floor. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'm Mike Cavender, Executive Vice President General Council of North Carolina Homeowners Association. I want first of all to thank the sponsors and co-sponsors for bringing this legislation forward and for doing so for five years, I think we're going close to the finish line. Let me just say with respect to this particular amendment, I just want to emphasize again that it's very clear that Local Governments don't have the authority to regulate aesthetics. The General Assembly has never given the Local Governments this authority and as a result, what essentially what this amendment would do would be to provide local governments with the authority to regulate aesthetics, and I think that's an interesting issue that you all need to think about, as to whether or not you want to allow that to happen, it would create an exception for single family homes, our bill makes it very clear that they may not impose such restrictions on structures that are subject to the one into family code, which are single family duplexes

and town hunts, but this would make it very clear that they would have the authority to regulate otherwise. Also, with respect to infield let me just say very quickly about that no builder is going to build anything in a in field development that they can't sell. Just think about that, again to emphasize what Senator Gunn said, the local government is not participating the market based decisions here. They're not participating in a way, so you have to trust builders and land owners to build something that they can sell, so they're simply not going to build things out of character with the neighborhood that because it would have a very difficult time selling. This bill is a compromise, it has we have dealt with a number of versions of this bill over the last five years and we have some excellent language in this bill, and with all due respect we would ask that you all defeat this amendment, thank you.  Representative Harrison I actually have a list of individuals that have raised their hand, I'm actually going to go to the floor and get the opportunity for individuals to make comments and Representative Harrison that includes if you on the question, these individuals you have spoken as well. And if I'm reading your mind on that but Yes Understood. The first member who has raised her hand in regarding comments on the the amendment, again we were actually discussing the merits of Representative Myra's amendment, is Representative Hager. Representative Hager you have the floor to discuss the amendment.  Thank you Mr. Chairman, I had a question for Miss. Winnie Hubly.  Miss. Winnie I believe you're being address by Representative thank you for your time here. I had a question just looking at seven and eight it says if if the structure, the way I understand this if I read the wrong tell me, line 14 on the first page is three acres are smaller. Could that could or are we talking about a single structure on the three acre or multiple structures on the three acre you are talking about. Can you just explain a little bit sure thing, it could be multiple structures on the three acres but the intention was to try to come up with the definition that limited the size of it. So in other words if you are doing a large single family home development typically those around trucks that are bigger than three acres so this was just a small curve out for this small infill project publisher yes sir, for follow up Thank you, Miss William, now, inside the cities particularly you have got another exist[sp?] that's at least 20 years old. If you had, I don't know how you'd estimate this. What percentage? with this take up proposing within follow up under the current [xx] Right, I appreciate the question, I don't know that I can give an accurate answer to that if all the questions are coming from Representative [xx]. Alright, Representative Belly[sp?] you're next to comment on the, a minute. Thank you Mr Chair. Just to comment on the I know we've been dealing with this for a number of years and I just came before the house last year, and now number of committees are going through even get to watches I'm in the Senate committees, but my concern with the amendment is that it will always going to unroll everything that this bill has solely worked so hard to do, I think we got a great compromise in the bill I noticed there is no such thing as a perfect bill, but this group has really worked hard to get this Bill where it is, and so I ask that you defeat the amendment just based on the principle that we've completely enrolled everything is intended to do so I ask you to feed the amendment. Representative Radel, you have the floor to discuss the amendment. Thank you Mr. Chairman, think I will just echo chairman John Bells remarks, my father was a home builder, and where we grew up, there are a lot of aesthetic controls in that area and the bottom line was it raised the cost of housing. That was it. So, if you want to raise the cost of housing, pass the amendment, if the Bill, if you want to get people an opportunity for a housing that they can afford, that they are happy with, you need to defeat the amendment and pass the Bill. Representative Specialeh.  Yea, I think this amendment effectively guts the Bill here, is a relatively simple Bill designed to explain existing procedures. I mean, it's a simple Bill, if I own property I should not be restricted by the city or the county telling me what color it has to be, or anything else, it doesn't matter whether I'ts three acres, or a hundred acres this is cost a lot of people a lot of money, because cities and towns have been doing this, I had lengthy with one of my cities that

has a historic district, and this doesn't apply to historic district but they want exemption for what they are calling out layers which is the outlying area around the historic ditrict and hen you are looking at out layers around the out layers because we want all to look the same, it's just ridiculous. It doesn't apply to historic district span if there are exemption in here it doesn't apply to contracts HOA's. I think this is a good bill, I think we need to pass this bill intact and move on Representative Harrison, you have the floor.  Thank you Mr. Chair, I did an impression for, one of the speakers would have think I'm I just, it seems like a very fair amendment at it seems like a good compromise and I'm far from an expert on this stuff but I just think that it seems a bit much better of a local government once and to the citizens and I will just encourage you to support it thank you. Representative Dollah you have the floor to discuss the amendment.  I will just a moment mention one thing a number of problems with the amendment and I would agree with the previous comments that it certainly the amendment defeats the purpose of the bill why we want to do that, the other thing if you look on the back at the top two lines on the back of the page, what you're seeing there is you're seeing the first, not first but it would be then in law efforts on behalf of some of the municipalities to get themselves inside the home and besides, how many bedrooms are you going to have? How big are they going to be? How small are they going to be? We don't need the big hand of government reaching inside of our houses and telling us beyond those things that do affect safety and normal building codes and tell us how we need to arrange our house. I would also just point out very briefly because Senator Gunn covered it so so are very well. There are a lot of supporters behind the home builders, behind the regulators but also in the past North Carolina Housing Coalition has supported this bill and we've had support from Habitat for the humanity for the same reason that Chair Radel[sp?] mentioned and Chairman Bill mentioned as well in terms of cost and making sure that we can have affordable housing for working people in this state Representative Stan, you have the floor to comment on the amendment. Yes, I oppose the entire amendment but I would like to mention one part that has not been addressed by anybody section the effective day change essentially not only grandfathers but great grandfathers in a lot of unlawful stuff this aesthetic design control has been unlawful from day one but ever since the landvalve decision they've known it was unlawful and yet this what this amendment does is say if they got some preliminary approval and certain years ago they can just continue doing it adding to the next decade or so, so vote NO. Representative Mcayreth[sp?] Thank you Mr. Chair. I just want to address what the city the city municipality said about coastal areas. Coastal area homes are really compelled to look at more the septic tank issues and so that limits the size etc and when you talk about trash collection, I was a town commissioner and a county commissioner you know what, those big homes bring in a lot of money to the town and if they can't accommodate a three month or four month pick up of trash from the bigger homes and starting to look at aesthetic control and how many rooms you can have, that kind of thing, we already have the septic tank issues that can control that. So I would say absolutely vote down this amendment. The last individual I have on the list to speak is Representative Hager anybody else raise your hands so be it after Representative Hager speaks, we're going to take a vote on this amendment. Representative Hager. Thank you Mr. Chairman,  I ask question, I ask for a particular reason. I guess I don't know who else in here I know Representative Brody is a builder like I used to be and develop property also in neighborhoods and I asked question about how what percentage of a lot for three acres in a County or City and of course is hard to tell that Welby, when I was [xx] ther think the biggest thing we did was 2 1/2 mayne three ares. I'd contend three acres piece in here probably takes in the book of all development in most counties and cities, three acres and under. So I think what this amendment attempts to do, is basically bring in the 95% of all the property being developed in the city where there is infill, out-fill, outliers or whatever you want to call it, probably encompasses almost everything done and can especially big kind like lake or [xx] in other counties. So I would tend to agree

I think this is a back door effect to try to kill this bill and I would ask the members to vote against it. Senator Golan, I want to give you the opportunity to address the amendment one last time before the vote. Thank you representative, chairman, I agree with a lot of the comments in here that this would in fact diminish, if not [xx] this bill. And I really do appreciate the fact that you've recognized that, and would ask once again that you do not support this amendment. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, representative Myra's amendment is before us all those in favor of the amendment signal by saying aye, all those opposed signal by saying no. The amendment fails, we're back on the the bill, any questions or comments in regard to the merits of the bill? Representative Buddy[sp] you have the floor. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I just has one clarifying part and just for a clarification probably for staff imagine me walking up to senator Gunn pulling out a gun and saying give me your wallet, he may think that he is doing it voluntarily but good defense attorney he might say he voluntarily gave it to me he just coaxed a little bit but I just turned around voluntarily did that and the reason bring up on line 25 in the last page two says that you can do new with voluntarily concerned and I want to ask you if you have some kind of definition how far that particular thing goes because if you're developing a sub division for example it is pretty expensive especially in the beginning and then you go into negotiation and somebody says well we of course we can't require certain aesthetics but kind of decide and say, If you don't you're not going to get yourself division. Is there any kind addressing of that or do we have anything other places that might address that I might be able to address this really quick and then start the, you have volunteered provisions now where you have a relay districts that if it's a hundred volunteer you can do, you can take a particular action also volunteers in terms of self imposed agreements that are reached between the municipality of the and the bill developer.  Representative Broody would you like the staff to follow up on that as well? maybe I understand perfectly that in the end what I'm getting is the cohesive ability of a [xx] to say that, you know what we can't force these things on you but you know what, you're not going to get your sub division unless you do and a lot of those negotiations happened prior to that, we don't really have any after the fact defenses as far as the developer goes to say, you guys you kind of forced me into this. I really don't forced me into this, you probably had [xx] for that Senator The only thing I'm saying is that is says we've worked on this bill for the last four or five years it seems like we have tried to be fare with the legislation, keep it focused, and keep it on these what we would consider the most egregious of uses of what municipalities have done, if someone wants to look at some of the other issues and legislation, but we're trying to be very focused on the most egregious issues that are clearly not within the municipality accounts  clearly do not have statutory authority to do it.  Senator Thad  Just one comment, I was a Mayor when this bill is actually first brought to us in our town, our community. Actually is one of the biggest of users doing exactly as you said Representative Brody, we would go through a CUP process, we're going through the finding of facts that they have to address, and I literally two great examples one we were arguing which color or person was going to be allowed to paint the facility and not only that we got into a 20 minutes diatribe between two counsel members of what shade of yellow I except where they were going to be allowed. The other one we had a seniors development going in a duplex and argued on the the door [xx] that we want them to have rectangle windows in their door [xx] or round windows? And it was all personal opinion what they thought which had no business dealing with and so yes is that a reason

you can withhold a finding a fact to prove in a CUP from being approved? Of course not. But can you find outer reasons then to deny it until they agree to something as silly as round windows or square windows? It happens all the time, this stuff needs to stop Representative Hegan you have a question?  Just a comment Mr. Chairman. In 2011 Representative Brownley and I found ourselves sitting in [xx] sitting in I believe it was in Davison and the town counsel were meeting on this particular issue ad I think some more councilmen men were in there, they used some councilmen in there and the comments that, the statement I remember nothing else except the comment into the said inside me not knowing I was a builder he said [xx] the days in councilor most days I can't remember he said we know what sells better than the builder does therefore we shouldbe able to do this. That tells you something right there with where their mind set is is this industry, the building industry, development industry has been more than anybody else's [**] for Representative, Broody  anybody by other sector business by the recession is the first one to go down, is going to be the last one to come by when you give this folks all the tools they can to sell their house, they have the money risk, they have the hundred of thousand of dollar risk, not the town, not the and is not me, and we out to give every tool they can their tool box to be successful. I support this Bill wholly, thank you guys for being as is you've been on it, when you keep bringing it back, I think it will help rebuild this industry. Any further questions and comments related to the bill? Representative Stern your recognized.  I very much support the bill, their things that you can do when they put unconstitutional or illegal actions on you, but as your right representative Broody, they can snick things back, people always want to try to tell other people what to do with that persons property that's just human nature, it needs to be stopped at every point and that's why am delighted I hear Senator [**] is going to take up our bill next week on this crazy super majority protest petitions which will really allow people to extort things from property owners, but if we get both of this bills passed, it will be a great day for property owners. Any further questions and comments, if not, I want to recognize Senator Gunn for the last comment if needed question before us, Representative Heger you want to say something? No I had the motion, go ahead. The motion, Representative Heger, will you make the motion for us? I certainly will, Thank you Mr. Chairman, I move for a favorable presenting bill 25. You have the motion before us? All those who favor senate vote 25 signal bars say aye all those opposed. The aye's have it senate bill 25 is passed thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair, I want to say one comment Bradley if he want to ask me to voluntarily give up my wallet, he is going to be very disappointed regime of committee, I believe we have this room until 4.30 and we're going to have before us for discussion house bill 805, representative Backwell[sp?] elsewhere representative Evrah[sp?] are here to present it. You all have the floor. Thank you Mr. Chairman. In looking at this bill it may on one hand seem a little inaccurate may seem a little aseteric. Let me give you just a brief bit of background as where the bill comes from and then I want to quickly run through the bill to see what questions you may have. Background-wise, about 20 years ago I was serving under the Buck county board of education and we decided we wanted to do a reduced class size program and our first second and third grade classrooms, we want to reduce the ratio so that it would be one teacher for each 15 students. That was going to cost a lot of money. We wanted to be sure when we got through doing the program, that we weren't just spending more money for the same student outcomes, but that we could actually feel comfortable that it was actually improving students outcomes that the student retained as they went through the school system in the higher grades. So, before we ever started the program we worked with an outfit out of you, and say green spar that I think it's called search, and basically it's a, I think that stand for something like South Eastern Area Regional Education Research. And they helped us to design from the beginning of the program.

First by identifying exactly what is it that you're trying to accomplish and that you want to measure and here is how you do it, and here is how you set up the program so that as you go along and when you get well into the program you have data tell you whether it's actually doing what you intended and we did that over a period of years and placed a report that years later, Search reported that they felt that there was a significant difference made that was retained by those students, and we have ultimately followed them all the way through the high school, we got written up in US news and world report for the benefits of the program, and also in the Chicago Tribune. Fast forward I come to the general assembly in my early days here I hear people talking about, well this is a database program, and we need to support this, this is research base. But when you asked for the data of the research rarely was it available. And we have pilot programs that we're constantly doing and if you ask questions about well, What have you done to plan to measure outcomes, generally well, yes we're going to do that, but there's not anything in place and generally a lot of what you get is reports from the people who run the programs or who proposed the programs or whose continued jobs existence depended on favorable outcomes. So what this does is attempt to setup a system that would allow the general assembly to have an option for obtaining what are called here, Measurability Assessments from independent assessors and that we could apply this technology or this system, if you want to call it that maybe more so than technology, to either an existing program that we said we don't have this information now we'd like to start to get it going forward or maybe it's a pilot program or a new program that the general assembly would say, We want to have that kind of data, we want to be sure that we're collecting it, and we'd like to have some independent feedback. So what this does is basically ask in the beginning of the bill that the general assembly can identify the program that it would like to use use this technique on, it can be applied to new or existing programs. It is something that ask them to tell us if the evidence that they're going to produce has been subjected to alternative interpretation or peer review, not just their review. How do you propose to measure the performance? What standards are you going to use? Have you identified the standards for doing the measurements? Are there any potential limitations in the evidence that we'll have available that somebody coming along wanting to do an audit and say why we can't really tell because they didn't do this or they didn't do that. So the program itself or the process itself consists of asking the office of state budget management. To do a pre-qualification of individuals who are qualified to do this kinds of assessments, and you sort of get yourself a group that's out there and is qualified to do these kind of work, and then as the General Assembly identifies a program that it wants to subject to this particular process, the Office of State Budget and  Management would identify one of those pre-qualified assessors to work on that particular program, to be sure that it was set up from the start with an identification of what it is you're trying to accomplish and how do we do that? For example going back to the Burke county situation I mentioned, we started out with as class size, we couldn't afford to start in all 12 of our elementary schools. That helped us in a way with the data because we had elementary schools that had first, second and third graders who weren't in reduced class sizes that we could match up with ones who were so that we could follow and compare the differences. We didn't set it up that way so that some would be deprived, in a sense, just to be able measure, that was the way it had to happen in order for us to be able to do it financially, it happened to be beneficial in the sense of allowing us to do that. If you're starting with a population to do a

particular program though, if there are populations that are outside the group that is receiving, I think what's sometimes called to as the treatment or the program and so forth, then there is an opportunity to try to identify a comparable population so that we can follow what happens to those people, whether it's education or something else. It could be in health and human services, in a medical care situation, or Lord knows we could use some good data in that respect! So essentially the question then becomes, how is it to be designed so it gives us accurate results? And the final point I'll make, which I think may seem insignificant in the overall schema which I think is important is the bill as it presently worded would limite these assessors from working on a program for the same entity if they had previously worked on one for that Greek within five years so they don't get into some sort of relationships which destroys the independence that you are looking for, on the part of the assessor so Mell Anon now if you want to say something at this point.  The reason that we have a need for doing this plans approach not only to the programs would have any existence but even more so in the programs that we're looking and introducing in the future is simply because we're dealing particularly in my group with the health and human services with evidence based programs and the only way you can have evidence space programs is to be able to have a setup in the beginning where you know what it is you're trying to measure, and it's not just the effect. Do kids get a better education? Is there a better health outcome? There's always the financial aspect expect of this and I thinking a lot of times when we put together pilot programs, we don't take the time and go into the detail enough to determine are we going to get the benefit financially as well as in proforma, and that's why I feel like this and he referenced the Kellogg's Foundation Logic Model Development Guide and that's basically, it's something that if you look at it you think well that makes sense its cleaning it ask it a lot of questions in the beginning what do I wont to do? What do I want the out to be? and in looking at all the factors that make it up, what is the situation that you currently have, what is it that you want to improve, what are your current expenses, what? will your expenses be based on changes and things of that nature? So as evidence based person from the tip of my head to the bottom of soles of my feet I really feel like that if we put this initial term and energy and effort into planning we will not only get improved current program, but I think will see a lot better outcome of pilot that we introduce. Am actually working with the results of a pilot that wasn't put together very well and we really don't have true evidence out of it from the scientific stand points statistic and things of that nature. We have [xx] and they're very positive and they're very numerous so we're moving forward on [xx] fortunately this isn't going to be the overhauling of the entire programme or department or anything of that nature but if we use that approach with something of a larger scale we stand a risk of wasting alot if money and also harming a lot of people if we don't know when we start out what we got and what we want to end up with. So I would just ask for your support on the piece of legislation. Any questions from members or any comments by members? I have Representative Speciale, I see Dollar, McElraft, Stevens. Representative Speciale, you have the floor while the other members continue to raise their hands so I can get everybody down. Actually I have a couple for him if it's alright. I see the General Assembly is going to require, would have to require, does that mean doing a bill each time we want to do something, or how would that be? It would be requested by the General Assembly. My expectation is that if we are doing a budget item, or a separate bill item that would encompass one of these types of programs then the sponsors, or anybody in the legislature would say, Well I think this ought to be subject to third and your fifth was approved to be

a part of the program then it would be included, and this bill says that the bill would need to be include all the budget will need to include the funds to compensate and pay for it. Follow up. Looking at specific that you want to do this with.  No I din't introduce you with a specific program I am in mind but [XX] lot of programs that we do. We could go through the education section of the budget [XX] there is probably 10 pilot that would have at-least wanted to raise the issue as to whether that they would have ordered the subject to theirs but we will do it selectively is my idea. Is there a quick follow up parameter.  One last follow up. I think its good bill. Its a great idea, and I can think about a dozen programs that we can start with. represent dollar. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Quick question and if you don't have this ill get it for you, you may or may not be aware of the P foundation, I believe its P foundation has offered note the general of assembly and the governor, all expenses paid from there hand, training opportunity and evaluation opportunity to set of tools actual to I guess giving a part is a better way to put it, if we will, we as general assembly will commit a couple of staff members from the central staff, they will take them through and train them on, really what a must to results based evidence based evaluation tools of programs so that you can't come back and do what I think you always tried to do and is to say okay, we've got a program that we think is very popular down here maybe fly under the rate and results are tremendous and so like you say we can move actual make funding decisions based on what is really producing actual results based on what it is that goes on as objective also it's awesome, I don't know that there's anything in this building will stand in a way of moving forward on that it's my understanding administration is good with it we just haven't got it all coordinated with between the senator and the house, but the thought of staying willingly as they have done actual in some other states and offer that expertise and training to us no cost to us, just a commitment of staff time, and I don't know if you're familiar with that, I can get you more information on it if you're not. You have the floor to respond, briefly Yeah, I am me with that and I don't think this bill is inconsistent with that, we also have NC GEAR which has been making some effort at what I would call after for the fact evaluations, and I think the Pugh programme in training our staff, is focused somewhat more on looking at what you've got and trying to evaluate it. One of the keys here I think, is having programs that when they begin understand that we want them to go in a way that will actually produce information that allows you to make judgement Pugh can train our staffers, but if they come back to us and say; well the best we can tell you is this, because they didn't do this, and we don't have this, then that's the limiting factor that we're trying to be somehow more comprehensive in the approach representative menthiora[sp] Thank you Mr. Chair. I have kind of a two-part question, the first is, is there each any care on the compensation to the assessor, and the second part of that is I notice that you're charging the department that you're assessing the institution or whatever the program. We've a reimbursement challenge and also their administration fees, and so in budget time when you're already got them lean if you have four five in a department is there going to be funding separate for this to help them.  Okay first of all, the assessors under this particular program would be prequalified using a request for proposal on RF So, my assumption is always be

harmed with look at what those folks would propose to charge for it now how it's handled from a budgetary stand point after that, well after remaining I guess to be worked out My man although we can certainly try to come up with an amendment, but I would offer this suggestion, if the idea is this might cost too much for us to really be able to afford to know what's really going on I'm not sure that that's not being pinny wising pound foolish that we might be we advice to do less and to do it well and have results that we can have greater confidence in, but part of what we are also trying to do is decide when people whether it's DPI or whether it's HHS or DOT wherever it's coming from if the general thinks it is important enough we would say we want this to be a part of this process so you need to your light as a part of the cost of the program, what it takes to do this piece? And some of that will be available to them because the RFPs would have presumably already identified some of the cost factors and the concept it is true that so that we don't slow things down is that the OSBM would pre qualify they would go ahead and get a group that are sort of on stand by so that they could be assigned to these programs, but I think there would be adequate time to assess the specific cost of things and presumably, hopefully it would bear some relationship to the money that we would be putting into the overall program. If you're doing a $500, 000 deal, maybe you might say well it's my and we'll just sort of see what people say, if you're doing $10 million then we may want to set up something to try to get some better feedback in a program designed to produce measurable results. Representative [xx] you have a [xx] for a comment   Expand a little bit on that sometimes the ballot bills around here are kind of like study bills, I can't get my legislation pass to list to a study, or I can't get my legislation pass the list of the pilot, and I can think of two or three times right of hand where this state had done a pilot that was based on this type of development. We wouldn't have a lot of the problems that I take a long with my [xx] and NHHS and mental health for right now. A lot of conventional wisdom is the [xx], if we did this it's going to result in this. Well it might result in that, but it's also going to result in those, them and the other that's, that we don't consider because we don't sit down in the beginning and plan. So maybe we should do fewer pilots, but do them well so that when we do change things we get what we hope and pray from an effective as well as economical stand point when quick for the comment much of the staff that would comes to us come from the proponent, from the bill sponsors from the agency one of the attractive things I think about this registration is the effort it makes to find independence and pre-review for they are saying that we are not limited to just the folks that are the cheerleaders for the very thing we are asking to be evaluated. Representative Bishop. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I wanted to offer to a comment may be end with a question. This reminds me I was a county commissioner from 2004 to 2008 and a couple of years before I began that and continue with his death that they had a system they called managing four results. As in for the ballots score card, and periodically report results of various programs in the game in the green light, yellow light or red light according to whatever measures had been selected. And part of the staff of the county manager's office was assigned to do these reviews or programs periodically, and in concept I think it sounds like a very good idea and probably is now saying what but I think it is a good idea like many things I think it doubles in the details I saw in the quarter there was you can if you particularly doing the program that could be sorry subjective in term what the toner would be the selection major, majoring factor could, they puriatanulated [sp],

so you might have a negative poverty  program and the major the number of families solved which might be of more breed have the number of families achieved in the benefit of the program as a major that one cannot back [xx] it seem to me they were important of things they were analyzing a lot of were good that you had a nice promotion of peace for governance and away because we honestly in parable a lot of green likes on things and in of the major assurance in most cases are not very exact acting or not really domain have access to the program sort of created some a no shape[sp] have a time of continuation and so I'd say one thing I always wondered about and never really could figure out as a policy maker there was whether there was some better way to give a [xx] and in that situation we'd something and if the assessment device or the measuring evaluation was not, we tried to attack, we felt like it wasn't really bringing cryptically analysis bare with us, something else to be considered but I just do thank be a consequence of failure if you're going to have that otherwise what you're left with perhaps os just a shell where you have kind of a wait up pat by the goverment on the back as opposed to something really makes a critical difference.  Representative [xx] a full respond. Thank you Mr Chair. My question to you is was it the county manager's office set up the program. And this why when I look and this goes back to a comment that representative Blackwell made, we're looking at a the independent third party that has a reputation as an independent third party to turn out good results, so in that aspect, I don't think that it's just kind of, go along to get along and everybody is on the same page kind of thing, there is this kind of tension between the people who develop what we're hoping to find as well as the people that are going to produce it in the pilot. Floor to follow Mr. Chairman? You have the floor for thank you I think that's a very good point an at this instance right the county manager's office of the people who were part of the assessor team we thought of him like an internal independent audit team and they had in their design have some independence which I think worked okay I do note that in the context we you've got independent assessors particularly if they're sort of a stable of them, they have a stake in the program. That means so to the program being used and the assessors are being engaged then you hope there'll be integrity in what they report but they certainly do have an interest in there continuing to be an assessment process.  Brief comment representative Yes, quickly if it comes out the way you suggested it would be complete failure and certainly the opposite of what I think now and I have in mind. As I mentioned earlier, we're trying as best as we can to deal with what might be an natural tendency of a contractor or vendor to want us keeping doing business with somebody. I like them to feel like their ability to continue to do business with us as an independent assessor, is entirely dependent on there demonstrating their independence and not on simply agreeing with everything they're sent and that's one of the reasons that we're saying if you do they're is meant for letters IDPI and a program it's running then you can't do another one for them for five years. would you like a follow up or we move on? I think if I could just one last, I'll just finish and say, as I say and I want to emphasize on this because I think overall it's a great thing. I think the management John he did it with Harry John they are from America they were very good friend of mine I think they are a nice manager and overall was great I am just saying and you wrote your comments indicating your thoughts are in that direction which delves into details and [xx] like that will make all the difference. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Representative Starm you have the floor important as [xx] you mind going to her first. Well again if you all recall there is hands up all over the place so. That's right, alphabetic. I'm going to hear the alphabetic first. But give me [xx] Representative Stevens has the floor you do not. Representative Stevens. Thank you, I just do want to be able to look at this corner. The request for measurability[sp?] will be from proposed or existing programs and I think I'm focusing a little more on existing at this point, how will this must be different from program evaluation and oversight committees that we have and the things we've seen in the last, you know he'll do evaluate, how will this be different from those programs? Yeah, the four.

 I would try to answer that John Turcotte who is the head of program evaluation is here, helped us with this legislation maybe I can let him explain the difference which I think is significant. Mr. Tricot, you have the floor. Thank you Mr. Chairman. The difference is in and program evaluation we're like a consulting firm that goes in uninvited and the structure of the reviews, the scope of the review is to determine by the questions that the legislators are posing about that particular program and may not be always whether the program has results or and one problem PED has is and I might say a lot of organisations like ours have is when you as legislators pose those kinds of questions and Senator is in and then we hit an agency or program that does not have that kind of information then we're forced to come back to you and you don't like to hear this, I'm, sorry sir, madam they didn't have the data that was necessary to make make that determination or we looked into data and it was crummy, and was not compound very well. So, our group is capable doing this very thing right here on a case by case basis, but I think and I'm want to make a distinction here, the kind of work that we do is very expensive and time consuming, and we're limited in a number of the reviews that we can do and they're better off being targeted toward programs that are problem. What this would do is give the General Assembly a tool to maybe see if what's out there in terms of dare, and process, and methods, and then if it may not be necessary to send us in. It may preclude some of the problems that you all complained about [xx] I don't know if that's held for or not. Follow up Representative Stevens. Follow up, Thank you. Retreats me to our next question one of the first program I learned about when I was here, first came was program evaluation and I was very impressed with the latter reports they put out, but there frequently haven't been repercussions for the reports if they have put out. They did a wonderful program on children's programs, and they've asked for evaluation and they did follow up and still have programs that are not giving evaluations, so are you going to build in some repercussions so it's clear upfront if people are not cooperating or not gathering the data would there be something sort of built in that there will be a repercussions such as your program will be discontinued or contingency part of that? representative you have the floor. Those repercussions are not built into this particular legislation, I suppose something could be added, but again I think we need to keep in mind that these represents a different, I think new approach, somewhat like what representative Dollar was talking about with pew, I think what representative Bishop was referring to is you go back and you sort of take a look at programs tat have been going on and say what can we tell about it? but one of the crucial pieces here is the design of the program upfront is supposed to identify what you want to measure and that you go about it to collect the data that will allow you to make that judgement, now ultimately it will be up to the legislature whether it responds appropriately to data that's more reliable I hope that it is provided, if it refuses to do so when it's more interested in sustaining programs because of people and where we represent and those kinds of things, then I don't know that we've solved that perfect problem but the idea is that with a better design with the independence that maybe that will allow more cloud to the results then PED can get when they go in and take a look at something that's been going on for a number of years and come back with a report Follow up. Representative [xx] do you want respond before the follow up. I've got to respond that particular question, I think you'll see the direction we're starting to move there in HHS we took the zero to five age range in children put a number of programs into what we call justification review, and this first year it's going to be up to them to show us what they do, and we'll be looking at their data at the end of that first year to determine, are we getting the evidence based results that justify you continuing to receive money, and

that's going to be an interesting proposition at the end of the first year when we start on the budget in the short session because those programs are going to be closely looked at in terms of what do we get? And is it something that is necessary and beneficial and we'll continue with it, so I think those are the kind of directions that you will begin to see how we can put some teeth into we've got to get results. Follow up I think it's just good if we put a repercussion here for one, new programs and you have indicated that you're going to do that, that's going to be a condition of starting the program. But for the existing programs, if we put a repercussion, if you're asked to do this review and you fail to provide data, fail to cooperate, could result in the termination of you program. I think that up to clearly be stated that we expect results, and we're not getting them. Representative Stan. Important discussion, just a random thought, am wondering if this might just be another not another but a off ramp of a way to delay or defeat things, and I'll just through this out. First of all whenever I hear a requirement that something that something be evidence based, I want to scream because it implies that we're spending money on things that are not evidence based crazy, am all in favour evidence based. My experience is when you present evidence to large groups including is not persuasive, for example, incarcerate we have lots of supposedly, this passionate evidence things of make a decision, incarceration notes, they will tell you to the pity what it will cost to prosecute things, but they can't tell you whether they'll be one prosecutions or ten thousand prosecutions. We've a fiscal notes that will tell you to the penny, I'll just give you an example, I worked for a bill for 15 years what it was that mattered, they got all the information from the AOC, and were told for years it will cost a million Dollar, so that was used to say point of order against them. So finally many years ago we got the feeschool, and I would say we're 60000 therefore we went through point of order against them and few years later was actually pay asset. In retrospect they discovered that the actual cost was 6000 a year instead of the projected million dollars a year from the professionals. We have actuarial notes, we have program evaluation division which Representative Stephen says is strictly based on evidence but generally the Assembly ignores it, and so I found one way to do is I just call the University, I say I want to do a certain project, can you find the professor that will do an independent study or find some doctor or student who'll do it, and sometimes they say, yeah, yeah I'll do it. In other words, if you put this in I bet it would be used like, oh we'll further in the study, or oh we'll send a legislate research commission, or education oversight and you know how much study occurs in education oversight, or other oversight committees like Zero, so I'm just [xx] is used to be used as another delaying tactic for things that are to be happen, if it's used at all, and I'm not against it, I'm just cautioning that I would use it to try to stop [xx] from their policy Representative [xx] do you want to respond to the decades of that Representative [xx] has towards your bill Representative Stan toward your bill. Maybe there's something here we always talk about unintended consequences, but I don't think the problem that you're identifying is suggested by this particular legislation, and I'm wondering if either we haven't drafted it clearly or if you're misapprehending the approach it takes, rather than doing a study here, to decide if you're going to do the program the concept is you decide that you're going to do a program because you've been satisfied it sounds like a good idea, but once you've started the program, you want to be sure as you get down the road you got the gut that tells you, did it accomplish what it set out to do and this sets it if that's the purpose then upfront as a part of the start up, not before you start up, but as the part of the start up the independent assessor helps to develop these measeures and

to identify the goals that becomes a part of the programme from the get go so rather than delaying I would say hopefully that will help us judge whether to continue either an existing program that we apply these two the first time or to a new program that we start up. It's intended to give us more reliable staff based on the actual operation not based on a prediction of what might happen Representative [xx]   thank you again my question is when you go to these universities professors do they use the logic model and is that why they for better than what you 've gotten in the past because that's the key I've found in getting somewhere that you know where your are, but it is a very murky invisible path that you have to travel down between point A and point, but you do know what you got, you do know what you want, and in between there you can read the paths of you do this, and this will happen, and you do this that will happen, and be able to judge when you get to point B that is in fact doing what he thought was going to do in the beginning so its a University Professors who do research, do a lot of what's contain in this talk of an approach in significant amount of planning and information gathering before they walk off, and put something into practice Representative Radel and i representative Conney Hilm now conclude the comments of this discussion bill. Representative [xx] before Thank you Mr. Chairman.  I would like to make few. This is a good bill, and I think representative black bringing this out. Measurability, assessments accountability, benchmarks, efficiency, to summarize it, it's stewardship. That's what we're working towards, good wise stewardship of the we take from our citizens. If we take a dollar out of taxpayers pocket, they deserve back at minimum a dollar's value in services from their Government we initiate sometimes very well-intentioned programs that's what they lack this kind of measurable, accountable, programmable, result in place, so I thank the bills sponsor for doing this, this is one of many step we need to take. Ladies and gentlemen to ensure that, we are nicely, behaving as good stewards of the tax payers dollars, and if I can make a cross commercial message, next meeting after the 16th of this regulatory reform, committee will be taking up house bill 813, which is in North Carolina ability act, which is kind of the second shot to drop on this, if we want to be wise stewards, if we want a crown that those tax payers dollars that are kind of floating and disapearing from our budgets, we need to have not just this kind of program mes but we need to have the resolve in the wheel, to execute them. So thank you Representative Blackwell and Avila, look forward to working with you on this and perhaps with Chairman Dollars agreement, we can move this bills through to appropriation. Thank you. Representative Caningham[sp?] you have the floor. Thank you. I would like to thank Representative Blackwell and Representative Avila as well. I am very evidence based as a nurse the first thing you do when a person walks through the door, you do an assessment, so you know where you are starting, and then you look at where you want to go, and how accountability, and how you get in-senile from decreasing nasal course of infections. It's a process but it has to be some measurebility so that you can have accountability and I hope that in the future, you will look at how you can use this test rank, to see what agencies are functioning well, and which one are not, and who we don't need to keep finding because we do need outcomes. Thank you. You need very very very brief comments left, Representative Avley[sp?], you have the floor. A moment I think Representative Bishop touched on it as well, one of the things Mr. Parker mentioned it too, the problem is we have a lot of terms, we got to measure the effectiveness of our programs is we don't have the data, one of the things this program can do is not necessarily to wipe out the programs we've got, what it can help us to do is to adjust them to find out what data is missing that we need to begin to collect to find out if in fact this program is effect and I think we'll find out some interesting stuff when we begin to get the

right data, we've a lot of data, unfortunately a lot of it is absolutely no use to us. There is a lot of data out there that we could use. Thank you representative Valvla[sp?], representative Bugwel[sp?], members thank you for taking your time on this beautiful June afternoon to discuss this Bill and other stuff things as well, this meeting is adjourn.