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 16, 2015 | Committee Room | Local Government

Full MP3 Audio File

Would everyone please take their seats on the committee? We OK with that [xx] file? Yes, [xx] I got the file recovered[sp?] At this time I'd like to call the meeting of the local government to order, I'd like to introduce the Sergeant-at-Arms, Charles Goodwin, Dean Mashprin and Ray Cook, we appreciate you being here, we appreciate what you do for the legislature also I'd like to recognize our pages Eli Hornback[sp?] from Rutherford County sponsored by Representative Mike Hager and Julian Luis from Surrey County sponsored by Representative I mean sponsored by representative Sera Stevens. I'd like to tell members of the committee we have 11 bills today, all of which have referrals that really need to get out if we can because of upcoming crossover so I hope we can kind of get through this like a hot butter through night I mean a hot night through butter. The first bill to be heard is clarify unmanned aircraft system law house bill 4 this is a PCS hearing objection, the PCS is properly before us, Representative Tobit[sp?], you may present your bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen chairman here we are again in front of you to talk about unmanned systems or drones as more commonly noted in the media. The bill was filed very early on in the session and about two days after the bill was filed, FAA came out with additional requirements, we had to pull it back and we pulled it back and pretty much went through the 90 I think it was like 95 page a document from FAA and made adjustments that would parallel the efforts of the federal government which we are inclined to do. Basically what this does, is it clarifies a date issue we had in the original bill that we hoped to have fixed in technical corrections in the last session, since we had no technical corrections in last session obviously it was not fixed so in essence what it does is that it provides the Chief Information Officer of the state or the State Chief officer CO, pretty much a no go for operation capability with governmental entities until such time that the test is online and people are able to go for much proof there's skills and operations applying these unmade systems. What it also so does it paralyze what the Feds did, for example the original bill said you had to be 18 to be an operator that would be a, the FAA has now reduced that to age 17, so the bill reflects that. They changed the height restriction it used to be 400 feet now they're allowing up to 500 feet. Let me tell you something else also, we had initially put in a licensing language because at that time last year the federal government did not have any type of a licensing language and to protect both the privacy, safety and security of our citizens we found it necessary that we pretty much knew who were operating these systems similar to a driver's licence license that we know who is operating an automobile. Since then, the Federal Aviation Administration has noted that they will be providing licensing so we have stricken the licensing language and simply reduced it to you must get a permit so the State will know who is operating this systems inside their boarders. Very simply put, in order to obtain that permit, you will have to prove once again that you have knowledge and skills to operate this systems. Now let me stop there and tell you that currently in all 50 states you can't operate one of this in a commercial venture without first receiving an exception from the rules from the Federal Aviation Administration period, so that rule still stands. Also some of the outcomes from the rule last year, said there was some concern over the privacy issues whether a person had the legal right to fly over a private group in the mix, just to tell you how it's explained. If I'm having a barbecue at my house and I personally invite 20 people to come to that barbecue, that is not a public event, that is a private event currently

that would be against the law to do, to fly a system and monitor that event. If I had a barbecue at my house and I advertise for all, open to all the public to come to this barbecue and that would now be a public event and then now would be okay for a news media helicopter, a police helicopter a Cessna 150 or a drone to monitor that event, and that's pretty much the break down. There was a lot of concern about that, if it is a private event no, if it's a public event yes, and the reason that says that because that's currently how it exists today for man-fly[sp?] and with that I think I've kind of touched on most of the issues and stand ready for any questions, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me, are there any questions from any member of the committee? Representative Warren? No questions sir, but at the appropriate time I'd like to be recognized for a motion. Thank you. Representative Fisher? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative Torbett for bringing this to us, and I'm sensing that it's in better form than maybe it was when the study committee was looking at it, but I was not involved in that and I have a few questions I wanted to ask, if the Chair will indulge that. Yes Ma'am. Please Sir. I noticed in the new in the PCS, there is a lot of reference to state CIO having authority. Could you explain what that means and how many, OK well that's one question, then I'll follow up Thank you Mr. Chairman. Yes ma'am and specific to government entities and all government entities inside the state of North Carolina state government entities. There's the data collection piece, a drone is simply nothing else other than something flying around, but it's the sensors that are put  on this drone that collect data and the sensor could be a camera, it could be a have respect for imaging device, it could be all sorts of chemical detection sniffers for example, that's collection of data. Within the state law, the CIO is the central repository place for that data, and so that's where the CIO comes in, for the data collection bit. Follow-up. Follow-up, thank you sir. So up to this point and before now that the FAA is involved. How many drones has the CIO been responsible for licensing and putting in the air saying you are good to go. Thousands no I'm kidding it was a joke, I'm not aware of any of these current time except no I'll take that back there is a group and I'll just lower your name I know someone in attendance here there is an effort that involves the universities and they have several areas across the state they have active legitimate core up FAA approved air space deploying so there is I think they maybe have tree or four different types of vehicles for testing evaluations in this certain specific boxes. Sponsense a bale I'm sorry. Follow up? Yes thank you Mr. Chairman so in those boxes of air how much of that is the FAA overseeing and how much of it is the CIO overseeing? The FAA oversees anything once it becomes a put off the ground, the CIO is simply the permissive agency within the State that allow that operation capability with entities that are attached or somehow affiliated with government. And one last follow up. Last follow up. Thank you I noted I n your explanation that now we have FAA requiring a license that there are going to be the licensing entities, but the CIO was still be a permitting entity and my understanding is and correct me if I'm wrong you can have just to permit you have to have a permit and a license, I'm I reading that correctly? Yes Leba[sp?] let me just and to that just appear the current administrative of the administration of the permit in North Carolina will be administered to the North Carolina department transportation/ aviation division of which if they work collaborative with CIO for the data collection passe to make sure that the everyone understood from the governmental perspective if you are private citizen or a potential commercial user has nothing to do with that on CIO data collection phase but does have piece to do with the operational capabilities and laws of the land if you would through the division of aviation piece. Representative Fairclofe.

Mr. Chairman I don't think he answered the other question. Well I'm trying to remember what it was. About having one or the other or both, you have to have a permit and a licence. No mam you would have to have a licence first before a permit could be issued. Just one last statement Mr. This is the last one. Thank you I appreciate it. Yes mam. My concern here is as you can probably tell is the reason I'm questioning is privacy and I just want to be sure that is something that is uppermost in people's minds when they are using this and I don't have a huge understanding of them obviously, but privacy is the thing that feel is paramount in this particular issue. Mr. Chairman thank you and in closing to your remarks Representative Fisher[sp?] I assure you this first and foremost or we actually would be having any of these conversations right now. Thank you Representative [xx] did you have anything? Any other member of the committee have any question or comment? Representative Lukey[sp?] Thank you Mr. Chairman and Representative Tobit[sp?] you talked about the relationship between just now in response to Representative Fisher[sp?] the relationship between the CIO and the department of transportation. What concerns me a bit is that on line 20 of the PCS it says, states, when making a decision under this subsection of the state CIO may consult and I wonder if you just agree to the one word change there to shall consult, not may. Are you making an informal amendment? Well I' just asking if you will accept the amendment because we don't need to go through the whole process we don't have time, we could do it on the floor, but if. Well, but I. Yes Sir, I understand. Representative Torbett, would you like to answer the question? Representative Luebke, with all due respect. We looked at that and discussed that in depth, and in effort to not add Undo[sp?] we rely on both the integrity of the CIO and the rules governing the collection of data, as being kind of those one of those easy, Well, I don't need to really do this, so it's good to go, or Yes, I really need to focus on this, so let's bring it in. So we left the May in there. I might remind the members. We'll just, Mr. Chairman, we'll just, Representative Torbett and I will follow up. This has a referral to Judiciary I, so that might be able to be addressed at that point. Good point, thank you. Thank you, Sir. Representative Cleveland. I appreciate the definition splitting the public and the private areas, and what came to my mind is with the present day technology I don't have to fly over anything to really get information, and is there any kind of a set back from a private affair as you picked up barbecue I mean I can be quite some distance away from that and tell you exactly who's there what they are doing and everything else, the idea privacy here I think is going to become a fantasy. Very well stated representative Crevelin there is no additional requirement other than ones already in place so there will be nothing to prevent a helicopter or a manned asset a winged asset from doing that same data correction today so therefore there pretty much nothing in there for tomorrow. Follow up.  Just a comment. Yes sir. And I understand that, but we're going to have people using these things that aren't commercially inclined and I, it's going to be a problemary going forward I do believe. I concur. Any other questions or comments by the committee? Cary Nine, do I hear a motion. Salute. As in, is your motion that we, what is your motion? PCS, PCF. That is the motion before is a discussion by the committee before though, hearing non, all in favor say I, all oppose say no. That pass has been answered. Miss chair in the committee thank you so very, very much. Next bill to heard is Bill number 492, Rutherford City/ Rutherford Airport Authority Representative Haggle the floor is yours. Thank you Mr. Chairman. This bill comes from a resolution from the Ruther County Commissioners which basically wish to move the airport out of the Airport Authority arena into something that is sanctioned underneath the County government, and it's only counting as a public enterprise. Mr. Chairman it's time for questions. Thank you Sir. Are there any member of the committee that have a question, Representative Cleaver. For motion. Thank you. Representative Fisher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative Hager for your presentation. I wonder if everything is

cleared with the FAA on this item? Yes Ma'am. I'm assuming it is since I got the resolution through their County Attorney. Of course, as always I'm assuming all the Is are dotted and Ts are crossed. One follow up. Yes Ma'am. I know that when moves like these are made, often there are thunding[sp?] issues and risks involved in the loss of funding for airports if all the Is are not dotted and Ts crossed. Part of this Representative Fisher, is to get a handle on those issues, revenue issues versus, costs versus revenue issues and try to help it out. Basically this is aid, they're trying to help those situations you're talking about. Are there any other questions or comments by any member of the committee? Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak concerning this proposed bill? Seeing none, Representative Cleveland, I believe now is the appropriate time. Thank you, Mr. chairman, favorable report on house bill 492 was a referral to finance. As the motion before us, end of discussion before we vote seeing  none. All in favor say I all oppose say nay, passed unanimously. Thank you [xx]. Next item to be heard is house bill 392 that will chart us last PWC changes Representative Szoka, the floor is yours. Which one? This one right here is essentially [xx] Yes Sir. [xx] there is a PCS without any objection the PCS is properly before us for discussion. Representative Szoka, please present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the past 110 years the Public Works Commission of the city of [xx] is operated under Chapter 6 of the current charter. During that time the PWC has earned statewide and national recognition for its efficient operation of the utility. For full understanding of this bill you first have to understand that the organization of PWC is unique in our State, most utilities are either departments of a city or independent authorities. Fayetteville's Public Works Commission is essentially operated as an independent authority yet it is owned by the City, and that is a one of a kind in our State. What brings us here today is to update Chapter 6 of the 110-year old charter. It eliminates outmoded terminology such as resident freeholder and artisans employed by the Commission. The bill brings clarity to the responsibilities and roles of the City and PWC. For those of you who served here last session you may recall a local bill that dealt with the Water Authority. As that issue was ultimately heard in court, one of the main points of contention was taking without compensation. The bill before you today has no taking-without-compensation issues because nothing is being taken from the City, the City still remains as the undisputed owner of the utility. So, I believe that there are no implications in this bill that would apply to any other utility in the State. Representative Glazer, a well known attorney and sponsored this, also believes that the City Council is split in support of this bill, the Mayor is in support of the bill, the PWC Commission is unanimously in support of the bill and the Cumberland County delegation of which all four members of the House you see before you are unanimous in support of this bill. There's no known opposition from any organization or association ask for your support and a vote for a yes. Thank you any questions or comments by any member of the committee. General [xx] yes sir Representative Jailer[sp?] I do have one quick question. I'm looking at the bill analysis and I support the bill, I'm just asking the question [xx] anyway you all point, the mayor appoints a city council member As a liaison he's a non-voting member of the commission and he goes to the commission meetings and he's the liaison to keep the City Council informed of what goes on at the commission and that's nothing new we've been doing that for a long time. Well, Yes sir. I understand the premise, my question is why would the City Council not appoint the City Council versus the Mayor appointing or is that tradition unfavorable? Yes Sir. I'm not sure where that is in the bill. It's not a big issue. That's fine, I'm just curious. Back in my town of Huntersville that created all kind of nightmare scenarios, but I support the bill, but I just was just curious if that was. I'll find where that is in this six page document, I'll get with you afterwards. Thank you. Representative Langdon, did you? Representative Langdon, do you have a question or comment? I want to [xx] a motion [xx] Alright, thank you Sir. Any other member of the committee have any questions or comments? Seeing none, any member of the public would like to speak on this? Seeing none, General Pendleton, I believe now is the correct time. I would like to make a motion that this receive a favorable report, the committee substitute and unfavorable to the original. And referral to Committee on Finance.

That is the motion before us, any discussion before we vote? Seeing none, all in favor you please say I, all opposed say no, [xx] announced, thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is house bill 469, Sunset Beach Park you made proceeds, bill presented by presented by Representative Olive[sp?] and the floor is yours, your welcome. Thank you Mr. Chairman this is simple local bill for Sunset Beach they are convinced that they cannot use proceeds from their proposed parking they say we are in this early stages of considering additional paper working in community spaces to help manages demand for beach parking on our Island. The goal will be to use future revenues for this effort to have all set expenses of the community, [xx] for services along and their beach [xx]. Our current standing is the session law 1998-86 limits our town on any use of any potential revenues, the future paid parking, appreciate your help in [xx] is an authorised [xx] section to this legislation. This adds Sunset Beach to other towns which can use their proceeds for other purposes and they're going to be using that for tourism and beach, improve the beach services in their town, even considering lifeguards at this time I understand. Going to be using the parking proceeds to control parking as well as improve their tourism and economy. Are there any questions or comments by any member of the committee on Representative Warren. Just for a motion sort to proper time. Thank you. Any other questions or comments by any member of the committee. Seeing none. Is there anybody from the public that would like to speak concerning the proposed bill? Seeing none. Representative Wonably now is the correct time. Thank you move for favorable motion on House Bill 469 referral, referral to Finance. Thank you, Sir, that is the motion before us. Any discussion before we vote? Seeing none, all in favor say Aye.  All opposed say Nay. Passed unanimously Thank you. Next bill to be heard is also Representative Iler's bill, 478 Brunswick County Navigable Waters. Mr. Chairman this is pretty wide ranging topic however this is very specific local bill. Imagine yourself turning into a little creek next to what we call South Havor village and going towards the wildlife boat round and up to your right you'll see a little bay where there're people lured in there, their boats are anchored in there and they may have and there for months, going ashore is a county park continuous to this, they're going ashore using facilities in the park, they are out there in fact they may abandon the boats and maybe sinking, there's a couple last year they were sinking. So it's just a light next to a county park an area that nobody takes responsibility while I the corp, no one takes responsibility for it just allows them to come up procedures and everything that will allow them to enforce some kind of order for sinking vessels of people using the facilities and trash in the park and that continuous area. any questions or comments by any member of the committee? Representative Cleveland? Yes. Representative Iler, can't Wildlife provide relief for the problems you're having down there or they don't want to get involved? They don't want to get involved. The access to Wildlife is slightly removed from this little bay, so you can't get to the Wildlife boat ramp without running through these little boats, but they're right there very near to where they are. So wildlife is declining to take responsibility as well as the federal government. Any other questions or comments? Representative Floyd? At [xx] Yes Sir, any other questions or comments by the committee? Seeing none any one from the public that would like to speak concerning the proposed bill? Seeing none, I believe now is the correct time Mr. Floyd. Move for a favorable report of House Bill 469 with [xx] referral to Finance. I believe it's to Transportation. I'm sorry, 478. Yes Sir, and that's to the Committee on Transportation. Is that your motion before. Thank you Sir. Any discussion by the committee before we vote? Seeing none all in favor say I, I, all opposed say No, patient now. We thank you. Representative [xx]. Next item on the agenda is House Bill 503. Allow more county commissioners to redistrict other Representative Brondy with Representative [xx]. They'll be fine. The next item on the agenda I see agenda at the bottom, house bill 542,

I've been informed by Representative Brawley that that bill will not be heard today place in view of the fact that there was a senate bill that is dealing with the subject matter that is moving forward, has already come over. So that will be all. The next item would the house bill 538 clarify warden [xx] authority powers Representative Millers[sp?] There is a PCS for this, without any objection the PCS is properly before us for discussion, and there is a serial referral if it is favorable to the Committee on Environment. The floor is yours, Representative Millis. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you committee members. This bill here just does exactly what the short title says, we're clarifying water and sewer authority powers. This was brought to me by the Onslow Water and Sewer Authority. I've also bounced off these language aspects with the NC Water Quality Association, among other stakeholders. Section One, we're basically trying to basically bring some sections that are separate and basically bring them together under water and the sewer authorities. They currently have the clear authority to adopt ordinance when it comes to sewer, but they need the clarity to provide ordinance when it comes to water. So, that's what we're doing in regard to that section Section two, whenever municipalities were given the ability to do what's currently called as Developer Agreements dealing with infrastructure, they were allowed to do that, but the actual Water and Sewer Authorities were carved out of that. So basically is that, this is a clarification that of course they can do developer agreements. This is a good thing for your constituents, it actually allows the infrastructure to be reimbursed on a certain aspect for what developers are putting in and turning over to the Water And Sewer Authorities. The very last thing is that, they currently do not have statute authority to actually issue rewards for someone who would vandalize or to harm this infrastructure that is owned and operated by the Water and Sewerage Authority, we're just giving them that power so that they're actually operating properly. Any questions you guys may have, I'm happy to answer them. Any questions or comments by any member of the committee? Representative Cleveland. For motion. Thank you, Sir. This time I'd ask is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on the proposed bill? Seeing none I believe now is your perfect time. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Favorable report for the proposed committee substitute house bill 538 on favorable to the original bill. That is the motion, Referral to environment. Thank you sir. That's the motion before us, any further discussion by the committee before we vote on the motion seeing no, all in favor say I, all opposed say nay, that's enough, well thank you sir. Next item on the agenda house bill 530 local government inspection bill and structures. Representative Brawley will be presenting the bill, the floor is yours sir. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Once again this is Deja Vu all over again, this bill passed the house as HB77 three in 2013 where it languished in the senate. When I requested this bill I asked them to take the version in the senate and draft it into a bill. This is addressing rental registration ordinances where people have to pay a fee and take on additional of responsibilities for law enforcement to be rental property operators, it also reduces inspections to those that are absolutely necessary. There has been opposition from the league of municipalities and also concerns expressed by the metro-mayors. I have agreed to meet with them and I'm hopeful this time we will negotiate more than we did last time, I believe Rose Von Williams will be here to speak against it because she has to, so I'd ask you to recognize Ms Williams but Mr. Chairman I'd like to move ahead and move for a favorable report with serial referral form. Are there any questions or comments by any member of the committee? Representative Lukey. My question for Representative Brawley, is this not the bill that we had quite a discussion about concerning the ability of cities for example my city to engage in inspections of property this is that very same bill, Sir and as I recall at the time what you wanted was the ability to impose more restrictions on property owners in about 30% of your city and where we left it was at 5%, and I'm still willing to discuss the number, but 30% will be too high. Follow up.

Yes, Sir. Why did you think 30% was too high? And the reason I say that is because unfortunately we have a lot of property in Durham that is not up to code, and the local ordinance allows the city to inspect properties, and essentially the question is, why not let a local government do what it feels is right? The local government can inspect property where there's reason to believe it's not up to code. What the local government cannot do is inspect every property, every year and charge a fee as a method to raise revenue.  And that is the reason this bill, they can inspect up to 5% of the they can enforce rental registration with a fee on up to 5% of their property offers, but to charge everyone a fee every year without a reason to believe there is a violation, is an overreach, and that's the reason there are restrictions on this. So the ability of Doram to inspect 30% of your properties for building code violations will not be impaired, the ability of Doram to force 30% of your rental properties to register with the police pay a fee be under penalty of law for not preventing crime on their property, which I believe is personal, which I personally believe is a responsibility of the police power of the city to enforce criminal laws with the police force rather than put the responsibility on the property owners. There has been a tendency in some of the cities recently to hold the landlords accountable for the crime committed by criminal's reigning property I think that is a misapplication of the way the city should operate, if frequently the landlord is not a core criminal, he is in fact a victim of the criminal. We had a Nuisance Bill for gangs, which had a language to hold the property owner harmless if the property owner would cooperate with police, the Rental Registration Ordinances that have been enacted do not hold the property owner harmless, if they are innocent. So you have a situation where a landlord is confronted by armed and dangerous criminals, who are using his property for crime and rather than the city helping the landlord get rid of the criminals, the city will hold the landlord responsible for the criminals and put in fines based on that criminal activity and this bill is to put the responsibility for our own reinforcement correctly belongs, on the legestation and also to use resources within a code enforcement branch to enforce codes rather than generate income, and that's the intent of the bill, Sir. I'd like to remind the committee we only have 15 minutes left and we still have three or four more bills, but you have a follow up, Representative Luebke? Follow up. I think my City Council has a different interpretation of the situation than you do that's, I think, clear. I'd like to talk to you more about that gap between 5% and 30%. There's also a referral to Regulatory Reforms, so there will be more opportunity to talk about this and handle that. That's correct, and Representative Luebke, I will personally commit to you to sit down and talk with you. The fact that your City Council disagrees with me, I think is reflected in the fact that your City Council represents a group that would have elected you, and not me. Representative Ross. I'm not sure I follow that, but thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm glad to hear the bill's sponsor is willing to talk more about this because I would have to say to my city council also would disagree with definition. and especially the 5%. In my city I know, I don't have the exact figure, I can probably get it, probably will try to get it before the next meeting, but I can assure you the brightened areas we have real drug problems, and gang problems and issues like that are lager than 5%, and there are number of cases where I can show you the landlord is not a victim, the landlord knowingly rents properties to gangs, or drug dealers even after they have been repeatedly advised that, this is going on. I think I understand where there can be abuses and, because you can abuse anything, but I think the stipulation set forward in this bill are a little bit too restrictive because at 5%, I know at my

city and my city is certainly as large as Shelley but in my city we have worked hard to try to clear up blight when your dealing with drugs and in some of the criminal activities and some of the things that go on you use every tool you can possibly find and I can assure you my police department is not abusing any of it's power it's working as hard as it can to make my city safe and I'm hopeful if we can continue this dialogue and work in some changes to some of this numbers because five percent is way to low and just may work in some of your cities and wont work in mine I'm just voicing the opinion of myself and my city council this is an issue that really representative if I may correct because you've somewhat mistaken the position of the bill if you want to respond please be brief I will the five percent is on inspections without cost where there're are reported violations are obvious violations are not subject to any limitation. OK, I understand that and I'm going to stop the discussion and like I said this is a serial for we all have plenty of time to work this out I'm not trying to be rude. Representative Floyd. I just want to be s you miss a cheer removed to be worn uniform meeting with all who have a sign adjusted before we go. For the sake of time and I'm sorry for those who we're just running out of time I've got more bills I need to get out with all those who are here in the support of the proposed bill please stand. Thank you. A count of three with all of those who are here against the bill please stand. Thank you. I cannot afford, thank you very much, I'm sorry for the time I was trying. Representative Floyd probably now is your appropriate time. OK I move for a favor report, with for seal referral to, excuse now. I didn't realize representative they've already made a motion. There is motion before us for a favorable report with a referral to the Committee on Regulatory Reform. Is there any discussion by any member of the committee before we vote? Seeing none, all in favor say Aye. Aye. All opposed say Nay. The Ayes appear to have it, the Ayes do have it. There will be a favorable report with referral to Regulatory Reform. The next bill on the agenda is House Bill 503, Allow more County Commissioners to Redistrict. Representative Boles, I believe you'll be presenting the bill. The floor is yours Sir, welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What this and McNeal[sp?] it would just give the county commissioners the ability to re-district. After the last election because most of everybody's counties we have a disparity of upper and north and south, and we found out after the last elections that four of the representatives came from the south and only one from the north and so what this does give them the ability to rewrite that and will be based on the geographically that there represent this will. Are there any other questions or comments from any member of the committee. Move for favorable report before we do this, anyone here from the public who is here to speak for, against the proposed bill? Seeing none, is a match before us for a favor report with the before tyo the committee on elections. Mr. Chairman, Yes sir, May I ask a very quire question representative Bolt, are you comfortable with the different criteria that are in there in terms of compactness, county duties and communities of interests, is that basically what you mean by North pole for South in Mule County. Geographically correct, alright, And we know that it's more than 5% that's why we are here OK, thank you sir. You're welcome. Any floors is cast for a vote, seeing none, all in favor of the motion say Aye, all opposed say no. Motion passed, thank you. Next bill will be discussed first don't go anywhere representative Boss, is house bill 506, 911 in front distribution representative Boss, the floor is your now. OK. Thank you I haven't served in the over side of the JPS. Some questions came about, there's also some concerns from the County Commissioner that come about only 911 funds and as I talk it will become more confusing to you as it has to meet. But the 911 funds

that are collected, they are collected through a 911 commission which is under the office of Information of Technology services, and the funds only pay to receive the phone call, and it stops when the 911 dispatcher hangs the phone up, as far as when she has to mash a button to dispatch the call that those funds, that's not covered. So what the county commissioners and some other stakeholders have, what we talked about is the redistribution of some of the funds that will help 911 and counties to be able to purchase portable radios, mobile radios et cetera, which is on their burden now. There's three parts to this, one is in the PO process for the 911 board and there's no objection of that. The second is they require a study for the structure operation 911 board, and there's no objection to that, because we need to look at future revenues coming in. The objection is number two, is extended eligibility expenses and talking with the 911 board, they've indicated that they've had the, since 2010, and if I'm mistaken speaking, I wish they would correct me, that since 2010 they've had their rules submitted to the Office of Administrative Hearings and that they haven't gotten anything back, and that they're waiting on the office OSBM prior to filing. And so I got a copy today, to date the [xx] has not officially filed any rules for publication with Office of Administrative Hearings for review process, and that the Board did request a preview of the proposed rules, but it has to come from OSBM. I raised this concern in the Summer, this past Summer of Oversights, some of you all were probably on it, and it's concerning to me that we do not have a county-wide, a statewide 911 system. So if I'm in Haywood County, it would be different from Durham County, which would be different from Moore County, and it could be different from New Hanover County and it's concerning to me because we have a state board that controls the money and we don't have a state standard throughout out the state. Representative Boles I don't mean to be rude, but we only have five more minutes, is there anything else you'd like to say? Well, I would like forward to go to the next stale, the next stale with the stakeholders. I hope they will come together between now and then and answer some other questions. There is a reform to  Right and I can move it long. Are there any questions or comments by any member.   I would like to make a motion Sir. For favor report at the opportune time. OK. Representative Floyd You Representative Brig Gen, We keep extending what we do with the 911 fund, that indicates to me that we're collecting too much money through the 911 operation, almost for the last three four years we've had several bill expanding what they can do with the 911 money, now removing the bill out to anti antennae buy base stations et cetera et cetera, that disturbs me. If Representative Cliff, if I could give you something else to not let you sleep at night. The 911 commission has got to empty their buckets each year, and I'm just a simple business mayhem, if I collect$1000, they've got to dispatch $1000 and they've got to spend it all. And so that's why I'm saying that there is some work that needs to be done because I feel like they're just getting it in there, the call in there and the call not being in dispatch, there's too much money on the front and I do have a problem you have to spend all your money. Follow up. That leads to what I've just said that if they have to spend all the money, they're collecting too much money not being enforced to spend it, and now we are expanding it. As far as the statewide system is concerned, the federal government is in the process of building a countrywide system and North

Carolina is up to do ear listening and regarding, I think at this point somewhere around if not a million dollars to start the planing for it, so that is coming. That the fact you took forward and fascinate or new gene.  Okay. Thank you, any other further question comments by any member of the committee. Seeing none, is there anybody in public that wants to come forward and speak in favor of the bill? Ma'am, I'll give you one minute, I'm sorry to be so brief. Thank you Mr. Chairman, consider the scandal with the County Commissioner Association, we appreciate representative Balls running this legislation for us, as he indicated under the statute now. The funds are restricted to the use when in the piece up the public safety answering point and furniture and equipment within that piece up, what we're asking is that the fund be allowed for dispatch of a to the information or 911  emergency information from the piece up so that we can get the emergency response to the citizens at need and we feel that the county commissioners are in the best position to know how those funds need to be used to service their citizens, so we thank you very much for the time to speak, and for your support of this Bill, thank you. Thank you Graham, is there anyone who would speak in opposition? Once again I'm sorry for the time restraint, you can have two minutes as the most I can do, if you identify yourself off the record please. Thank you Mr. Chairman, my name is Richard Taylor, I'm the executive director for the 911 board and just a couple of corrections for Representative Boles, the 911 fee does pay for pushing the button to dispatch. Everything that's inside the number one center that requires the ability to dispatch is paid for. The money that's left over in the fund each year is used to help 911 Centers to improve their centers through the grand fund. We have a lot of rural centers that those funds each year have help since 2010, so they said that money is not just thrown out there and wasted, that money is used to help rural centers. to not just money that we spend just because we have to that was established by the legislature for a grand funding and help rural centers, so it's used for good purposes. This bill the way it's written right now scares the daylights out of 911 board because, it will pay for everything under the sun when it comes radio systems. One radio system would delete in one year all of access funds used for grants to help rural peace apps. It would take every bit of money out of that 911 fund, and if every 911 center in the states decided, if this bill was passed as it's written decided next year, to buy a radio system which this would allow, we would not have enough money to pay to operate our 911 system. Anything else sir? And our standards. Please help us with those standards. We have not been able to get it together to the Rules Commission, because they are hang up in OSPM. We submitted  to them again yesterday and we were told it would be at least a month, before they would be able to take a look at them again through OSPM, we have to get through the physical note which is the physical impact of what those standards will do. We have been working through those since 2010 Mr. Chairman, and it's in a process. Again, we support representative Balls on what he's accomplishing, we would like to help but I think there needs to be some new language, some different language and we'd love to sit down and work through that, but the way it's written right now, we cannot support this, because it would hurt all of our 911 centers in North Carolina Thank you sir and you'll have that opportunity because once again it will be referred to finance. Representative Sets, I believe now is a perfect time Thank you Unless there are any other questions questions or comments from the committee? Seeing none, yes sir. I move for a favor for the house bill 506 and as a member of finance matched my sorrow you referred to the committee on finance. As a fellow member of finance, I'll say there's no more discussion before we vote Seeing none, all in favor of the motion say, "aie" Aie All in oppose say, "no" No Well, the aies appear to have it. The aies do have it, we see the favor and be referred to Finance. That brings us down to our last item which is House Bill 128, but unfortunately we don't have the time to do that, I apologize to Representative Speziale, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.