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 | April 14, 2015 | Chamber | House Finance

Full MP3 Audio File

Ladies and gentlemen could you take your seats please. Welcome to House Committee on Finance, I hope everybody is well rested after week. We have four bills on our calender day. First I'd like to introduce our Sergeant at Arms. Today, serving us we have Leggie Seals[sp?] Marvin Leigh, Turner McGraw and Christia Cracken. And we have two pages with us today, So we have it here. We have Jillian Louis, please stand so that I can see. And now Christian McCain. Thank you. And for staff today, we have with us on the dais [xx] Trina Griffin, Rodner Bissel, Gray Grony and Caren Cackron Brown. The bills we have four bills here today and they'll be heard in the following orders House Bill 356, House Bill 81, House Bill 255 and House Bill 303. Representative could you please to present house bill 356. Thank you. This bill passed unanimously out of the public utilities. What this bill does is it session law 2014-59, it reduced the regulatory fee for competitive telephone companies over then ext two years. At that time we promised to go back and reset the utility fee that was charged to the companies in order to support the utilities commission. This bill fulfills that promise. The current fee is. 135%, the new regulatory fee would be established at. 148 and that keeps the North Carolina utilities commission revenues equal to what they are now. What this bill also does is adopt a regulatory scheme much like the banking commission, as similar to that and is to ensure that they have enough revenue to fund their operations. Right now, they're very variable in terms of what they do and in fact they've even had to borrow from other commissions to make a payment since the reserve is swept up so we are going to set up a structure that would allow similar to the banking commission where they can adjust and lower their rates within a certain threshold to ensure that they have the reserves and revenue that they need to operate. Any questions? Any question from the committee? This is probably the appropriate time. [xx] Motion before us is for favorable report on House Bill 356, all in favor say aye "aye" All opposed no like the bill passes thank you representative this spell before us is house bill anyone and there's a proposed community substitute donors, so much to fulfill Thank you Representative Wan there's much before us to hear the PCS [xx] will say aye Aye Opposed No   BrustonForest, Please present your bill For decades, no machinery companies manufactures fabricated that's got 1%-$80 privilege tax sometimes during the last decade the DO determined that many of them should not any longer start paying 6.75%, and what this did was immediately made the month competitive with states such as South Carolina and North Carolina, just to give you an example of what they are facing. If in South Carolina, just say one example provided to me, we bought two million dollar piece of machinery. In South Carolina, since they are deemed to manufacture, they'll only pay 609 dollar  Virginia would pay $16, 000 but North Carolina, they're not deemed as such to pay 149. This has done a lot of damage to the industry and we want to put that back in the right place, bring them back to the 1% and eighty. That's the first part of the bill. The second part of the bill is a study which goes back to that 1%  eighty number and determine whether or not that's correct or whether or not it should be raised and what we should do with that, that's the bill, answering the questions.   Steph[sp?] would you please explain the bill? Sure, as representative Malon[sp?] said, the bill consists of two parts and the first part is an expansion of

our statute that provides a preferential rate of 1% within $80 per article cap on and equipment that is used by a manufacturer, and the way that it expands the current statute in two ways. Under current law the rate applies to a manufacturer who manufactures goods for sale, in this circumstance the items being used or the reference to the fabrication medal work. This would allow companies that use the product for their own use in the fulfillment of a performance contract to have their equipment qualify. It also would allow fabricators which traditionally has been distinguish from manufacturing to qualify for the 1% 80. There are a couple other differences compared to our current law for many of the companies that General Assembly  has added to this statute there has been requirement that the company be primarily engaged in a particular activity, this particular statute would not require that the company be primarily engaged in the fabrication of metal work it could simply be component of the overall business. And in the second part of the bill is direct revenue loss to study this issue the 1% 80 has been a very complex area of the law on a statute is pretty vague in terms of what qualifies at least the original statute, doesn't define manufacturing, it doesn't define mere machinery and so over the years the department has through both administrative interpretation as well as there been innumerable  cases on this issue have had to develop the law over time, and so it has been an area that is probably in need of study, especially in of discussions in recent years about tax reforms so the second part sets out some criteria for revenue laws to look at in terms of the overall preferential rate. Representative Warren Thank you. Are there any further questions from the committee? Representative Warren you recognize your motion? I'm sorry, representative Jordan Thank you Mr. Chair, just a quick question I guess of staff. Looking at the new number six on page one, if there was a local company then it was engaged in fabrication of metal work, but only had receipts of you know, 2 million. Will they be taxed at a higher rate, a different rate or there just not eligible? How will that work for a different slightly different situation. This bill does require to have a thresh hold of $8 million derived from the fabrication of metal work, so if you had another metal fabricator, for example, and their gross receipts were last and they we'll have to the pay full sales tax rate of their machinery, and equipment. Now they may also, depending on what other activities they are engaged in if they otherwise meet the definition of a manufacturer or, you know again it largely dependent on the activities, at the establishment, and how the machine are used and so there could so other scenario where there machine qualified for the 1%, but just in terms of a pure metal fabricator this does have a threshold. Any further debate, discussion, questions. Yes thank you Mr Tea. So, what we're doing is we're giving a tax break to fabricators now as opposed to just an industry. So we are opening up another whole category industry that is going to get a tax break, is that what we're looking at, do we? Thank you the question. The really important piece of this as we went through it, is that it is so unclear of who qualifies and I think that the basis models have changed significantly. So where you have companies fabricate and metal work that would be like duct-work and they could sell that directly to a company who then would use that in a process, and so then it would qualify, or they have a more integrated model where they're doing the performance contract, and they're installing and in giving an end-product, and right now our tax code does not tax that piece. So now they're saying well they're not a manufacturer. So they are manufacturing these metal work that can be either used either in a performance contact or sold directly.

So if they sell it directly it would qualify if they are integrated and now, many companies have that integrated model, and that's really what the study will do. So this is very limited just to that metal fabrication where it's kind of mixed but yes we're looking at, how do we get in the long term to a fair and equitable model for all business inputs and making it attractive for companies who are making significant investments. So the equipment that they use could be millions of dollars so there's a significant difference between $80 or 6.75% if there spending millions of dollars on equipment, which is why North Carolina is maybe not as competitive as Representative Maloney[sp?] was talking about. But yes, it is an expansion, but we think it makes, but definitely further study. Further discussion, Representative Moodkey[sp?]  Thank you very much. My question really has to do with follows up from representative Collie's[sp?]. When you're thinking about this, how does this relate to the general tax policy that is been passed 2013. To flatten everything out, to have no exemptions. Well, I'll tell you this. I looked at a little more narrowly than what you'r talking about. I know that we're flattening it out. I didn't go 2013 to look for any inspiration or through the experience of what we went through 2013 and what we were doing here. What I looked at was companies that would come to me and talk to me and said, for decades we've paid one percent and eighty, and all of a sudden, just like that coming in we're doing audits and we're saying, it's got to be 6.75%. I can't do any work in the state of North Carolina anymore. I'm doing all of this work out of state, but I'm not doing it here, we've got companies from Massachusetts coming down here. They're not paying these taxes, and you weren't here for some of the numbers I was for quoting, but there's a vast disparity in taxes. What we pay in South Carolina Virginia. So what I'm trying to do is make them competitive again. A number of these companies that we're talking about right now, they're moving over to South Carolina, they're moving over to in one case Rock Hill and other case Florence, South Carolina. They haven't made that move yet, they're still wondering what we're going to do here. The point of what they want to do is, they're going to expand our operations a little bit, for out of state work, but they'll probably do the procurement there too and we're going to lose that tax anyway. So I want to maintain the expansion here in North Carolina and I want to see us remain competitive and so that's what the whole point is of this and if I could [xx]   Representative Mark Yes I think that's a very fair question and we did work with Representative Louise to go over this to make sure as he's been primarily the lead over our attachment form and he is fine with this modification, but as we talked about their DSCV more clarification. I think this is a step along the process as we look at the whole business input side and that we should have a broader strategy going forward so that's why we're including the study component of it. Paul? Only to ask on this point whether there's been and in consideration to where the revenue is going to come from to make it up. To make it up, well the Representative Thomas  Yeah, that's where the study committee comes in that we don't think there is any magic in the $80 figure. I think if you've heard Representative Malone numbers earlier for that same $2 million piece of equipment probably the cheapest anybody would have got away with it was like $649 in South Carolina. So I think the 1% is fair, the $80 I think is an old old old number, maybe that should be $500, maybe that should be $1000. It certainly doesn't have to be stuck at $80 for a $5 million piece of equipment, so perhaps the study committee will balance that out by either making a sliding scale, maybe 1% up to a certain amount and then 3/4%, 1/2% or else just raise that cap from $80 to a higher figure and that way we'll be collecting more money on the big pieces of equipment although it won't be anything approaching six and 3/4% If I can make another comment, I had the same question and I called Senior Chair, Representative Dora to ask, would this have to go to appropriations because you see the fiscal note is $4-$8 million a range, and he said go ahead and pass it out, and then it will go, even if it goes to the other chamber, before we have everything on the table, we'll have our full budget and all of the different things that were looking at like store tax credit, house bill 117 that are in play and to see whether it would come into the final package. So that was the strategy Thank you very much. Further questions twist the bend these are emotion, please everyone.

I can make a motions for a favor of report to PCs of hospital 81 and favorable to the original. And second, I'm saying  second Much of the forces are unfavourable for the original for hospitality 1, in  favour of most of the PCS favor just say hey, unopposed, the bill passes Next one in the agenda is House Bill 255, going code [xx] form represented by Brody and this again is the PCS to have a motion to hear the Bill.  Representative Warren hope makes a motion to hear the PCS, all in favor say Aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Representative Brody please present your Bill. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'd like to present House Bill 255, with my co-sponsors Representative Watford and Dennis Riddell, and Patricia Cotham. Before you is the PCS, and just basically I wanted to let those who were in Reg Reform, this past Reg Reform, that the provision on a planned review has been pulled from this Bill which is what generated the PCS. I'll just go briefly through this because it does have eight parts. The first part one is Compliance with Building Code Inspection Requirements, which is a clarification of what we run into, we run into a problem with House Bill twenty yesterday, I'll ask it here, the [xx] is a study on alternative methods of designs and materials. This is really essential to the construction industry. Every other industry in the nation has the ability to incorporate designs and procedures into their business. The problem with building industry is that, most of it has to go through court compliance in order to be entered in, so this study will help streamline their process. Partly as clarification of official misconduct for court officials just want to let you know that, this is like a clarification part. This isn't any new law being presented strictly verification. Part four is to raise the building permit threshold from 5000 to 15, 000.5000 was the number that was developed probably in the 1970s I beleive, it's just time to upgrade that. Basically, you can paint your house and reach inside your house and reach that 5000 level. So we thought we really don't need to get permit for something as simple as that. The part five is we're creating two subcommittees within the Building Code Council itself, and one of them will deal specifically with residential issues, the other with commercial issues. And everything that passes those sub-committees will then go before the full committee of the Building Code Council, and you can see in the beginning part of that, part five, that what the actual make-up of the Building Code Council is. So it's quite diverse in the construction industry. Part six is probably the meat of this whole bill here and and this is to create a website and approve a website from the building division of the Department of Insurance to get information out to contractor. represents inspectors about any new products, designs any appeals, decisions, interpretations within three days of surely, one of the major problems with, not only contractors but billing inspection departments is that they don't often know whats happening, what these interpretations are? So when you get on in the field, a lot of conflicts between contractors and inspectors are just basically this there has been an interpretation, but the information has't gotten out. This is real key to the bill itself and will be a little benefit to the industry. part seven says that inspection fee should be spent only for activities of the inspection department no longer are we going to make the billing inspection department the cash generating part of the local government is never was that way this is backed up by North Carolina's pre code decisions problem is

over the years is it's kind of developed that way and what we are saying is strictly for inspection department and the support departments that do support the inspection department. And lastly we are requiring that the inspections be performed in timely manner and a complete inspection. And the reason for this is that what's happened because some departments view the inspection department as cash generating, a lot of inspection re-inspection fees were charged so what we are saying is that they are taking instead of a way you can't charged re-inspection fees just to generate more income when inspector goes out there they need to do a complete inspection and so everybody knows what, the contractor knows what needs to be done. and lastly, the effective date is October 1st and that's important because of these changes we like to give the municipalities a little bit of time to adjust and of course lastly, is the fiscal note that you probably have got and you can see that the current bill has it stands has no physical or financial impact at all. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Representative [xx]. Hey guys have seen your hand up yes, a promotional factor Is there any other discussion to representative [xx] Good morning. I just have a quick question, is there a definition for timely manner and section 8? inspection party, I know it's this timely manner, but is there a recommendation? Family Manner was developed because, this section aid, it deals with the inspection jurisdiction, the department itself, and a lot of industries have timeliness bases of attorneys especially timingness is the key part, but what we're saying is that, in the SME Inspection Department, you need to be able able to accommodate the industry that enters into your jurisdiction. For example, if you're a one man operation which a lot of small communities are and you all of a sudden start to grow. Timeliness may be an issue where you would, instead of waiting one or two days to get inspection, you start waiting in a week didn't get inspection. That's a timeliness issue. That would be brought up basically to the municipality and addressed in that fashion, it's not like the timeliness in the previous one where that's targeted strictly at the inspections itself. Representative Martin. Thank you Mr. Chair. I just want to point out that on your bill summary says effective date July 1 in a language that is October 1st, so on that technical correction might want to be made to keep it clear. The bill summary   [xx] it says July. Thank you. Representative Connie[sp?]. I'm just trying to go back to grasp the timely inspection. If the bill's not sent they have to do complete inspection, so they come out and they find things wrong, ten items. How long does the person seeking the, that requested the inspection, how long before the next round of inspection to see if they completed those ten items that had failed? When the inspector leaves a list it's up to the contractor then to take the initiative to go the next step. You can often times you can do it. Sometimes it's been done the very day. If you can do things in the morning, sometimes you'll be able to call these inspectors back and they'll come right back and  do it. Other times you have to go through the process of calling in and actually setting the appointment [xx] of a kind particularly you have to call in. They won't do that but the initiative would be up to the contractor because you don't know what it is that needs to be done. If it's a framing issue, your framers can't get there for two days, well then you just have to wait. So it really isn't a time period what we are saying is there isn't a time period that you have, it's you as the contractor to decide when they want to call when the things are supposedly completed. If they are not completed or if they are completed then the inspector comes back and then they can start charging re-inspection fees because you're supposed to have those done when you call again.

Representative Adams.   Thank you Mr. Chairman. In our area where I live, the common problem we have is that we have goes to the site, does an inspection, prepares a report then another inspector does that the next time and contradicts the inspection report of the first inspector. So any requirement that the same inspector  be used for each inspection no there isn't, I guess we're now touching on theory of Uniform Building Code. That is one of the problems that gets pointed out is narrowly between jurisdictions or within the inspection department itself, let me tell you this is a bill to begin the process of getting us into a single Building Code interpretation mode and this isn't the complete but those are definitely issues that are prevalent in the industry, yes. Thank you. Any further questions? is there a debate from the committee? Representative Warren,  I've just two questions basically, one on section 4 regarding permits, in my understanding and correctly that if I have one or two renovator built a room in my basement and the total cost was going to be less than 15000, and maybe I'm going to serve out the electrical. I don't have to get a permit for any of that. This could be under 15, 000. Is that correct? there are certain restrictions, you did mention one the electrical, there are other restrictions in there but if you don't, if you are not involved in any those other restrictions and this is strictly a re model that you want to do then you if it's under 15, 000 you won't have to get a permit for it I guess Thank you excuse me that's why under section seven and I agree with, I think I understand what you are trying to do there and I agree with that my question is, if this was generating revenue by repeated and perhaps unnecessary repeated inspections where was the excise money going and if the expense cost expenditures of having the department has pretty much fixed costs. Is it possible they can actually generate revenue beyond the cost of operating that department so where does that, do they build up a reserve a surplus or does it go back to a general fund or what? I guess if I was an imaginative administrator of a they had been expelled, they had inspections you would have it's not actually possible to predict to the dollar or to the penny how much you're going to need for your department so that may actually end up with more money.  But we don't restrict you from using that to to set up an account e. G to change technology later on down the road. What we're trying to prevent is this party from coming and seeing a large sum of money and sweeping it out using it for general funds. That's what we are trying to do. Further debate discussion within the committee, I understand there is a member of the general public that would like to comment. Any more committee questions? Sir, if you'd kindly approach the microphone, turn it on, state your name for the record and you also tell us who you're representing, you have three minutes. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'm Tim Bradley, Executive Director of North Carolina State Firemen's Association we represent approximately 50000 firefighters in 1300 department state wide We applaud the sponsors efforts to get consistency in code reforms, one of our major concerns was, when I joined the fire service, in 1974 four decades to go we're losing practically 1.8 firefighters to 100, 000 residential pass today in 2000 we're losing three firefighters in residential pass, that's almost double in the 40 years that I've been in the fire service.  UN in the National Institute for Standard and Technology has done extensive studies and all the problems deal with the increase in plastic palmers and those tight things but also long and construction, white way construction, engineered trusts as engineered power systems. One of our major concerns with the bill is you created a residential subcommittee that according to page 5146, the Building Code council itself can not hear any amendment to the residential code when it

comes to this committee, and this committee has no representation from power service. The Building Code Council does the dies committee does not so any partial concerns now we understand bureaus know how to build buildings really well, engineers know structural stability but nobody understands how a residential structure reacts in a fire like a firefighter does or a fire the experts, so we would encourage and request the house to consider the heading of persons representing that sub-committee representative will be replacing one of the building representors. We feel it's imperative that the persons concerned on residential buildings construction B implemented at the earliest stages because if they're not considered by this committee, then they can't be considered by the General Assembly, I mean by the Building Code Council. Mr chairman, I appreciate your time. Thank you Sir.  Representative Heager? Thank you, thank you Mr. Chairman. Just real quick, I think Representative Battican answered this question if I'm mistaken. I think on line 12, page five, it does have a fire one active fire service with expertise in fire safety, does that fit that Bill Representative Brody? Mr, Chairman, if that's okay Representative Brody. Could you repeat that page again. Sorry, page five, line 12, Yes Nine,  page numbers mess me up It's OK. Now, Representative Brody. We always appreciate the Fire Service giving their input and we do seek this, and I did seek the Fire Service comment on this. We do, the Building Code Council has a Fire Service Representative on it, the Commercial has a Fire Service Representative on it, and what the relationship with the Building Code Council,  they've always worked very closely with the Fire Service. As a builder, I can honestly say that there's a good portion of my time, especially on review of residential houses, that we just look for fire, fire, what we call Firestop Issues and Fire Issues. So nobody ignores the Fire Service, and everybody realizes how important they are, and they do play an integral part in residential building, not necessarily need them on every single committee but, because we all generally respect what they do and their expertise. Any further discussion? Yes. Representative Walkin. Thank you. This is a question for the speaker, for the gentlemen. Mrs. Beverly [xx] stage name and what you represent. Thank you Mr. Chairman Team Braily I'm executive director of the North Carolina State Farmers Association. Representative Lucky. Yes thank Miss. Chairman it was just reference that on page five line 12 representative Pager[sp?] talked about one active member of fire service my question is whether you're actually referencing the residential code and whether we need make a change there or make an amendments so that a firefighter is on the residential court, it's a to mean that the residential code has got of gate keeper for things going before the building code council, can you speak to my question? Thank you representative there was that concern the residential subcommittee created about this bill makes recommendations to the Building Code Council they have part of representative but the Building Code Council can't hear an amendment to the residential court unless it comes through this committee and while people may consider all extraction are problem our big power problem is residential, most of the responses instruction power of residential [xx] that where we are hurting and killing most fire fighters. Yes. Follow up.  Well my follow up would be so what actually you're asking us is whether we would amend the bill to ensure that a member of the fire services on the residential is on the Residential Code, is that correct? That's correct Sir. Then may I ask representative Brody, would you be [xx] to an amendment that ensured that a member of the fire service was Residential Code because it is a gate keeper as you've explained, it's gate keeper really like subcommitteE seems to me the gentleman makes a good point, and it seemed to

me also it would be a minor amendment to do so. Representative Luke, I appreciate your inquiry, but I would oppose such an amendment, and it's not because that I oppose the fire fighters or what they do, there are much deeper issues that the speaker knows about and that we have to the purpose of the fire department pushing the fire service on this board has very little to do with the actual incorporating essential fire techniques into this bill. What specifically this is, this is residential sprinklers in residential homes. That's what this is and the industry is opposing sprinklers in residential homes because it's too expensive right now and the fire service is just plain bent on incorporating them into residential homes. by doing that, they are going to, as much as they possibly can, force all new residential construction and all significant every Mali to have sprinklers in residential homes, so I would oppose that. Just asking my final question, would you say that's a fair representation of the power houses position that you wan sprinklers in every home. Chief Pari please answer not respond more than three minutes. I'm sorry. I say you please respond, but please don't take more than three minutes. No, that's not our concern. Residential bankers issues them before the only code council on a number of terms. Our concern more than to solve matter based on US studies, in this studies a large firm construction, engineer trust as replace heavy temple, large fan floors seems to collapse, a structure by the day or 40 years to go to 20 minutes, 30 minutes to get into a fully involved stage. Today's studies are showing that's reduced to eight minutes because of plastics and materials, and buildings. Our concern specific to this committee is not restricted to papers, that's such a large issue that this committee is not going to handle it. Our concern is that, when you look at the engineering and design residential structures Firefighting aspect need to be taken into consideration, and I respect the sponsors, commence it's true that there's been a major issue in the fire service, fire service supports it and that's not our concern. Our concern is the design and structures. Representative Stern Yes from page 5 to 1, 46 to 47 no revision, or mere maternity caused for [xx] resident to construct may be consider bar building code counselors recommended by this committee. Now I'm trying to think and practice for example no bill raising taxes can be later on the house floor unless it comes from the Finance Committee. Does that mean that if it goes to the Building Code Council that they can't change the Building Code Council couldn't amend the proposed [xx] or does it just mean that it has to be initiated by the Residential Construction Ministry, is it an up and down vote when it gets to the Building Code Council with no possibility of amendment, what is intended there? Representative Bradly I will have to refer Steph so they can Steph can you clarify that? Karen Clockrin Brown is here on this bill and she might be able to address that Thank you, Mr. Chair I'm Karen Clockrin Brown with the research division, the provision Representative Stamme refers to indicates that, amendment or a revision cannot be considered by the building Courts Council unless recommended by the committee. So I don't think it's limited to just initiations by this committee, I think anything that would change those codes has to come out as a recommendation of this committee before the For cast Council can consider it. Follow up. Yes two follow ups I understand that but it doesn't answer my question, the question is, if something comes from this committee to the Building Code Council, is it a take it or leave it up or down or can the Building Code Council tweak it, change it amended? Stern. Is it an or do you just don't know? Well I don't think anything in this provision changes the authority of the Building Council Code once something comes to it. So I think the Building Code

Council retains the same authority they would otherwise have to consider something that comes to it. Follow up. Yes at some point I'd like to whether here or on the floor make it clear make that clear I know in my own bill drafting I usually go through team versions before it gets right, and I remember once, one bill I got passed was on the 29th version. So, the Building Code Council should be able to tweak the recommendation and I would like to make that clear on the text. Do you have any objection to that representative Barley? No we wouldn't have any objection to that. Further discussion representative [xx]. Thank you going back to the farmers, his concerned the fire Chief representative, his concerned about safety and I hear him but I'm concerned that it's just another level of safety if we would get an amendment in, to take care of there suburbs, so that they're not having to be looking at the loss of life because they're not included on the committee that could not, kind of supervise the fire issues So, what do we think about the amendment? I know we spoke on it before, but wont there not be another level of safety? Thank you for that, I'd oppose that amendment, now, you've got to remember, they're still on the Building Code, the Building Code Council, the big committee, and if we clarify like Representative Stern say that they can go through and tweak anything that comes out, or make amendments, however we're going to work that out, I think we're going to accomplish that very same thing without adding other people. Because you can actually go through it, list every single one of these and say, well shouldn't they belong on there, they have concerns. So, we are just kind of limited, but I think  what Representative Stern is, for what I understand, he is trying to get at, I think will probably be unable to address that. Thank you. Representative Bass What's the name on page six line 14 is it not I'm not reading Fire Service Representative is on this Residential Code Commitee that's the alternate committee for the commercial side. There are on that committee not the residential side Follow up. I just have a question it does make me nervous that there could be concern about fires that I can tell you is the father of a five year old who sleeps upstairs, fires are one of the things I fear the most and I'm thinking I've got to hear that smoke alarm go off, and I got to get out of bed when I'm sleeping, I got to make it up those stairs make sure that girl gets out that window on the little ladder we've got out there and eight minutes doesn't sound all that promising to me and I'd certainly be willing to pay a little extra cost for the security knowing, my daughter is secure at night when she is sleeping in the bed The guy who represent Hegor?   Thank you Mr Chairman. Let me see if I can clarify make sure I understand what we are doing here representative Bradley, hope you don't mind endorse me for a few seconds the residential council will look into residential issues, and if there's need to be a change that will throw those up to the larger building call council who then we think with representatives stamp[sp?] clarified it can amend can put in the fire code issues if they want that level into what the Residential Code folks end up to and I think that's clarification we're looking. So if that's true I believe the fire code issues are a duress that the building call council since they have a fire safety personnel man would have been great. That's what would determine correct Thank you. representing. David Chung I had a conversation off and I maybe the only firefighter here on the committee and I had a discussion with chief Bradford. I think the safety concerns are real and discussions need to be held.  We agreed to talk afterwards and see what we can work out, and see what we can get to so that helps alleviate the Committee's concerns we'll go from there. Thank you Further discussion, further debate, representative figure.

Thank you Mr. Chairman I'm here for a [xx] to the P. C. S on house bill 255 and five rule to the original I believe it goes to [xx] We have a motion seconded by representative Martin all in favor say I, all opposed say No the I's have it bill passes.  Thank you representative Brody. Thank you Mr Chairman. Next on our agenda today is House Bill 303 Representative Davis please present your bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief house bill 383 is entitled Dispute Resolution Amendment and what this bill does as you will see yourself worth little more detail and the summary that's in your packet and you also have a copy of the legislature fiscal note in your packet basically what this bill would do they punish falsely representing than an individual is either solidified mediator for eligible to be a certified mediator or falsely representing the mediation training program as certified, or eligible certified as class two misdemeanor, he will also authorize a dispute resolution commission to issues cease, and desist letters to individuals who falsely represent themselves as a certified mediator, or eligible to be a certified and to impose a civil penalty not to exceed $500 per day for the violation, you would also revise the manner in which mediator certification this will maintain under the Judicial Department and it will also make other tend toward conforming changes to the law, it pass anonymously our Judiciary three committee and now Mr. Chairman I will like to recognize Mr. Eddie Little who has passed chairman of the Dispute Resolution Commission if there are any question. Thank you. Are there any questions from the committee? Yes. Representative George. Thank you Mr. Chairman. My questions are going to be relative to the fact that the Dental Board versus F. T. C came down and I want to know who makes up the Dispute Resolution Commission? So Mr. Chairman could Andy Little please answer that question? Absolutely. Sir, please present the mic turn and state your name and position you represent for the record and you have three minutes to answer that question. Turn the mic on please. Sorry. Immediate pasture of the Dispute Resolution Commission. The commission is set up, bass statue has 16 members, there are two District Court judges, two Superior Court judges, one Court of Appeal's judge, one clerk of Superior Court, two family mediators, two Superior Court mediators there are three appointed by the speaker of the house one by senate [xx] one by the governor I think I've about to get them all. Thank you I guess I like that staff Mr Corckwell[Sp?] I guess is over there what would be the possible interaction with issue and [xx] versus FTC and active state supervision? Mr Raney[sp?] would please answer that. At the very basic level I think what that case was about was as [xx] was all [xx] and so they were regulating themselves, and the federal government successfully argued that they were impeding competition. So the wagon on all the Manusha I mean here I would hope that maybe it wouldn't be the same thing because as we're not, at least the board will comprise of people that are only benefiting without being mediators. We've got the judges and I was sitting here with my fingers thinking of what doesn't sound like the majority of the board composed of people who're actually numbers of group that would possibly be trying to control competition. But that's a very recent thing that the Supreme Court did and so I think the parameters that are yet to work out but then Denis tried to clearly was trying to prevent competition coming in and they're certainly other people that engage in mediation services, and people were free to mediate their things all they want to it's just when they bring a lawsuit the State becomes involved, and so we, ve these mediation rules that come into play before you start taking time from the Judicial System in the state of North Carolina, so I do think you can make some arguments to differentiate the situation, one of the main ones being that you're free to mediate all you want to outside of the court system to resolve your dispute, and so this mediation is really just a gatekeeper to when you've to come before

a judge Representative Starn. I have two questions missed a little, there's a rumor, or reputation that you have a 100% settlement right in your meditations. Is that true? Completely false. And the second one? The only reason I ask is, it he has 100% right with mine. Thank you, Eddie. Thank you. But the second thing, has anybody made a motion yet? Not yet, no. May I please make that motion?  At the appropriate time any further discussion debate questions? Seen that Representative Starn you're recognized. For favour of the report? Motion for favour of report for a second all in favor say I, all opposed say No, the second are large, representative Zachry. thank you Mr Chairman, thank you members     Hand the bill and the bill passes. Being no further issues before us, this committee is adjourned.