We want to thank you for being here today for our first Regulatory Reform meeting, we'll go ahead and make some introductions. First of all I'd like to introduce the coaches, myself, Representative Chris Millis, Representative Dennis Riddell. I also like to introduce our committee staff Kelly [xx] Brown, and Jeff hudson.committee clerks will be Susan Horn, Power Riddell, Vivian [xx] and our Sergeant-at-Arms today are Reginald Sills, Marvin Lee, Terry McCraw, and Chris McCrakin[sp?] Thank you all very much for been here. We also have some pages with us over here to my right and Corey Dee who is sponsored by Representative Brian Turner, and Steward Hays by Representative Susan Martin. Thank you all for being here today as well. We will go ahead and we want to reverse order on the agenda and so up first Representative Cleveland with House Bill 282. Streamline seized vehicle disposal this is agency bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman. House Bills 282 is going to move the program from the Department of Public Construction to the Department of Administrations. Presently the Department of Public Construction has two contractors. One on the western private state one and Eastern part of the state, that collects these vehicles, goes through the proper motions and sells them et cetera, et cetera and essentially we're supporting two contractors in getting little money into the Department of Public Construction from these vehicle sales. The new bill will clarify that the daily storage fee is 10 dollars per calendar day, it authorizes as state surplus property agency or a county board of education. We have one County in the state that has been pursuing this program within their county, and they've been perfectly happy with it and they're going to keep to sell a seized motor vehicle at anytime with the consent of the owner regardless of the clear market value of the vehicle. Provide the seized vehicles held by the state surplus property agency will be sold in accordance with statues government sale at state surplus property, all the notice requirements will remain the same as they are presently, and it's going to be pure provision that directed the department of public construction to assess certain administrative fees that were paid into the general firm, and makes conforming changes such as would DPI exist in the present law become the state surplus property agency and in a nutshell Mr. Chairman that's it. Any questions? Representative Dickson. I think it's the appropriate time is this a PCS no is not, but it does have a [xx] to finance I move that we give House bill 282 a favorable report with the referrals on it. Everyone heard Representative Dickson's motion all in favor say Aye, the opposed, the bill has passed will refer to Finance, thank you, Representative Cleveland. Thank you, Mr Chair. Next we have House bill 255 building code regulatory form before we get started with this bill as Representative Broody is explaining the bill, I would ask sergeant-at-arms to stand in the back I know we do have a number of people that they want to speak so for the next couple of minutes if you would like to speak on this bill for or against it please give your name to the sergeant-at-arms and I will call you at the appropriate time. Sir Representative Brody. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Before you is House bill 255 it's short tale is barely in code with regulatory reform, I want to let everybody know, I have been working on this bill probably for a year and a half now and what started my journey on this is, is I wanted to get an answer to a very simple question, at least I thought was very simple. Was why is it that if we have a uniform building code in North Carolina, do we have 200 plus interpretations? Otherwise every jurisdiction is taking the liberty of deciding which part of the code they want to enforce and which they don't. And that does the question that we're still looking for answers for and we tried to get it from as from many folks as we possibly can that are responsible for that. And we're still out there waiting for it,
while we're waiting we're going to take some initial steps in order to move this process forward. And I will go through the bill with you but Mr. Chairman may I first say there's an amendment. Yes if you would have finished explaining the bill, any of the other sponsor want to speak then we'll put it amendment forward after that Stan, if that's okay with you. Thank you, I'll go through look at briefly and you can make notes of questions as we go through pert one is a clarification of house bill 120 we had last year. The bill 120 designates seven specific inspections that are required and the reason we did that is because some jurisdictions will and a lot more inspections. What we said is that, and the law says that jurisdictions are allowed to do as many inspections as they want, and that was a and what we said was clarifying is the jurisdictions are only allowed to do the seven inspections as required by law but they're allowed to do online re-inspection, as they can re-inspect the property until it's white but and those are unlimited but they can only do the initial certain inspections and that is what this is a clarification about that. Section two, is very important and it's a study, and what it does is going to study alternatives methods in designs and end product. Every industry in this state has the ability to adopt their own advance [xx] within their industry. The primary we have in the construction industries although we also have that. We have to enter that into the code in order for it to be legal in North Carolina, but this study will do in a nut shell we say we're going to device the method by which we can enter that in a code that pretty expeditiously and get allowed to the public in order to put them to use that information. Part three is a clarification of misconduct for code officials. What we intended to do here is unlike some of the probably emails that you have read is anything in this six steps is currently is in the law, so [xx] any of these is already in the law. What we're saying is that we're pointing out six areas that we have to address, we have to bring all the inspectors with all jurisdictions under one roof and we're going to start enforcing some of these particulars here in order to accomplish that. Section 4 is eliminating inventory plan review. What the industry feels, I feel very strongly that plan review is an unnecessary step in residential construction only, it's very specific reason why is at the end of the day, every residential projects has to be inspected any way and has to pass code so what we are saying eliminate this step and it's going to save a lot of money, save a lot time, and still going to produce the same results. In that also is a the raise in the limits they limit on that is required from a permit from 5000 -$10, 000.5, 000 was something developed I believe in around the 1970's, we're just kind of bringing it up to date and it doesn't exempt any of the traditional things that normally would require pro med such as structural mechanical alterations. Part five is we're creating the Residential Building Code Committee within the Building Code Council. For those of you who don't know, the Building Code Council is the one that can only develop code what we're doing is we're creating a sub-committee within that group that will deal with residential issues in particular, the contractor representation in the Building Code Council is only limit to two possibly three of the 17 members. all engineers in specific fields, numbers of the public, and people who are engaged in some sort of government activity, whether it is the a county commission, whether it is the fire safety people so what we are saying if that anything that
deals with residential code changes or adjustments will begin in this committee and then make its way out that committee into the formal [xx] and pass. This committee does not have the authority to create code but only as a step to evaluate individual things that deal with commercial court. Part six states that the Department Of Insurance is supposed interpretations and any other evaluations that they on the website. This is probably the most important part of this bill because it 's going to allow the contractor, and the inspector and the inspector restriction to be completely up to date with everything that happens in the building code council and the building code in the industry, part seven deals in inspection fees and it says they need to be spent only in activities that are within the inspection department itself, part of the amendment will adjust this a little bit and what we are saying is that the inspection department is not a money making venture for a community, and we don't want the inspection department to create dollars, and then have the have the municipality sweep them out and use the for other funds. Possibly according to a North Carolina supreme court decision back in the 1990's which we can elaborate if we need to that illegal any way but the larger sections that actually use this to create money, and we need to put that in it's proper place section eight is based in the last section, and this is what we are saying we require that the inspections are performed in a timely manner, and inspections report will include all items that fail, and I can give you just a brief example of that what we are trying to do is when an inspector comes out to do an inspection of a job they're required to do a complete inspection. Whats happened is the impedes initially for this is that there are particular jurisdictions that will come out, and do partial inspections, and then walk off and say call me again when you get this done, and I will finish my inspection hope I don't by the way you need to pay an inspection fee, the inspection fee. So that was part of it we need to have the inspection done as they wonder their complete inspection, and then if their are some items that might fail that inspection the contractor can elect them and then call them for reign inspection and that have that complete instead of having continuous inspection and of course in some places continuous inspection fees and then the question before us it the effective day which also will be part of the amendment that July to soon we are going to be dumbing. Mr. Chairman please and explanation Thank you in this bill you should speak. Any question form the committee? Representative Moore Thank you Mr. Chair I wanted to know if there is any going from the department of insurance to have a field Marshall a couple of questions Yes sir please come to the microphone and state your name Mike department of insurance thank sir thank you Mr mike have you, have your department add more made your people feel capacity to admit the provision step that are in this particular bill or that we are about to adopt today. Yes sir, this time we haven't had time to do that we haven't this bill has come very quickly and it does need a lot of review a lot of folks, we have not brought the information, we've tried to get information out for awareness to the associations that as far as conducting a survey or anything of that nature we've not done that.
Follow up? Follow up and so as of right now you don't have a gauge of whether these particular changes will either administer the effect or it would greatly enhance your abilities through this bill, you don't have an opinion one way or the other? Well, we don't have that information yet, Sir. Thank you. I understand that Representative Brody has an amendment before us, everyone on the committee should have a copy of that amendment, and Representative Brody, if you'd like to go ahead and explain that amendment feel free. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In an effort to reach out, I've been working on this for a long time, so there are very few people that add some capacity that I hadn't reached out to, and we did reach out last night with the leganist[sp?] PREs, the city of Charlotte, the County Commission Association then went through a number of items, if I can just expound just briefly grey if you look on page three, lines 34, what we're attempting to do, and this this one is for cities and next one is for counties, so these are identical, but what we're clarifying is identifying the that then we're taking out mandatory plan review, it's only for residential and it doesn't have anything to do with commercial or a multi-family which will be inspected under what we call the building code kind of strange but there is actually a code that deals with commercial. So these bodies and the counties still have the acquired ability to help plans, commercial plans while that family is still submitted to them. This just clarifies that the second one under, on page six, its actually the third one and the fourth one which are also the same thing dealing with one Counties one of the Cities with it was very helpful last night when we spoke about this to realize that different Municipalities fund the inspection department in different ways. So what we said was that instead of having strictly funding the inspection department, we would say this fees need to support the administration activities and activities of inspection, so if admini[SP?] probably has does their HR work. Does inspection HR work well that's actually a little piece of fee needs to go support that department and across the city or any other department that maybe within the city that supports, the inspection department doesn't necessarily part of the department they will also be able to get the fees. I;m not proving much, Mr. Chairman that's it on the amendments. You got a discussion on the amendments form the bill sponsors representative Charles Stephens for a question. Thank you Mr. Chair, I just was curious as to what else they had been using the fees for or what and to the fees, if we're now signing for administration and for using all for these other activities, have they just letting them just build up or are they intercepting them in some way without knowing the particulars of every 200 plus jurisdiction. I can pretty much sure safely say that there are some jurisdictions that have been raising a lot of money. in the inspection fees but not only that, what you don't realize is that re-inspection fees raise a lot of revenue, in fact I can just name one which I want, but there's one out there that has massive fee re-inspection schedule which amounts to a lot of money, so there's a lot of money being raised within re-inspection fees also so without dress that in and actually I do know what I'm hoping is that the drive to raise revenue through the inspections fees will probably stop, because there's no real necessity to do it anymore if they can't be used for other general funds Are they general reasons. Any other discussion on the amendment, Representative Browy has presented the amendment before us.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose? Ayes have it, the amendment is approved. Now we're back on the bill will Representative Hager Thank you Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good bill, I think Representative Brody and I are probably only two folks that have build in the past consistently and Representative Coffman knows he's been through a lot these issues with those with small businesses, I think it's a great bill, those with very [xx] I appreciate you guys bringing this for us, Mr Chairman at the proper time I want to move if favorable. Representative Stam. As I vote on this bill I want to just ask a question, it's on same bill on page six and seven where the inspectors will conduct a full inspection provided the permit holder with a complete list of all items and I can only compare that to maybe a title search that I do for land and sometimes I run into a major problem, and I'll report the major problem and I'll say, but of course I haven't finished the title search because I need to know if you're if you can satisfy this major item before I spend more of your money and I take a lot more time to do it. So my question is, I understand It, and it might be very good, but is that always the best thing to require them to inspect everything if there's a, and give you a complete list if there's a major problem that has to be resolved first. Yeah. That's a very good question and we all realize how good a question that is. One of the problems that we've which I stated right in the beginning was that jurisdictions are interpreted in the court in a lot of different ways. So what you end up with, and what you probably read in some of the emails was that, the inspection department may be creating what we call, Punch List. The list of things that need to be done in order to pass inspection. And there may be a little bit of the to do that, not every contractor is top contract in a field just like every other industries has theirs that are somewhat questionable. But what you see and my answer to that question about Punch List this is that the reason, the major reason I believe that we have this, generating this punch list is because if you build in 1 town, in 1 jurisdiction and you successfully complete a home in that jurisdiction, the contractor will generally assume that they, re going to manage jurisdiction, if they follow the same pattern, same rule, same structure that they will also pass, and what happens probably 9/10 in this, because we've this just at once is that they don't. That's a punch list, it creates a punch list in the contractor may look at the punch list and scratch his head and goes what's wrong with that? I just completed pass my inspection here, that now you're telling me over here because we crossed a Municipal boundary? That this isn't good enough any more. This violates the code enough to were it will not pass the code. So, that's where a lot of this comes up, when people say well we're going to create punch list. I personally believe that if we can uniform the inspection requirements, and get everybody under the same booth, that punch list thing would go away dramatically. Because time is money in the construction industry. A contractor does not want to fail inspection I'll be happy to answer a question. Representative Jones. Thank you Mr. Chairman and I to think this is good bill I just want to commend Representative Brady and all the bill sponsors for arraigning this I think it will be something welcomed by many citizens. A couple of questions as you go over section four you mentioned the cost the figure going from 5000 to 10, 000 and I think you said that perhaps the 5000 thousands may have been set back in the 70's and I guess I just wondering if you think you are going to hire [xx] and maybe sometimes even as my buying, you get a building can easily cost $25000 and I don't know if I'm given a lot of fault to that particular behavior or if you might be in the minimal of
thinking maybe going from [xx] if you are looking this for the first in for 40 years or so are you really going on [xx]. Depending for us that may be possible in your example of you building a bar or something you may learn in construction issues which will require [xx] any ways, but you may be right you just raised it, no more question Mr. Chair. I just wanted to ask you, you are talking about [xx] inspections in a time that matter I just wanted is there anything in the law, anything that puts in any [xx] for that is there any definition any where or we say a term that matter? I don't know. I am saying that is just vague and there is no real legal definition for what part it will be, but may be stack if I speak for that it is for any [xx] to that we are just putting more thing or what has to be done probably matter or is it just a suggestion that we would really recognize sometimes in reasonable time. Thank you. Representative Dave, do you want to answer that, or do you like for Staff to answer that? If Staff wants to take a stab at it, go a head. No? Okay. They reject it. And in number eight we said a timely manner and if you are in in industry there are probably, general timeliness things that will be required to do, attorneys have timely do things and they're not defined, but they know they have to do them, inspections requirement, just to give you a quick a potential example is, we are coming out of the recession, so we session a lot of inspections department cut back, if you start getting exceptionally busy, but you don't want to add on staff you may somebody may come and say look, I can't wait four days to get inspections anymore, this just isn't part of business. We have to ask our self the question and that example is, does industry have to confirm to the speed of government or should government confirm to the speed with industry Just by coming out we're from the same page, we want to see it done in a timely manner and my main intention was the wording [xx] repeat to that so I understand. Thank you. Representative Hagger. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'll just going to answer Representative Stam's question If you would be so inclined Mr. Chairman. Absolutely, thank you. Representative Stan, what I think what Representative Rose is also saying, is there's been several problems that we've had there when I was building, you'll have an inspector come out, and they would inspect until they found something whether it's minor or not, it didn't really matter, and stop right there and then you'd fix that issue which may take you an hour or so, a couple of hours. But you'd have to have a plumber come out or electrician come out, whatever, if it's that issue. And then the next time you come back it's stopped till they found the next minor issue, where you could've just done them all in one time, we had them come out one time. And this happened to me, as you move in to a new county you'll find out sometimes new builder treated different than old builders in a county. So I think that after about the fourth inspection I asked him to see a supervisor after that, and then he found everything that they, so we'd not have to worry about that. That's kind a real inspection punch list issue that you need to have. So I had four trips out to this remote site, and electricians and plumbers had four trips out to this remote site when it all could have been done in one. Representative Queen. Thank you. Just stop, I'm an architect so I'm in the building industry, work with contractors with building inspectors, work with the owners in the construction process and the Punch list is a very particular thing is the building industry. Architects don't do Punch-lists, contractors do. So when I contract as an architect with my client for architectural services and I help them administer a construction contract with the contractor who's doing the work and the building inspector is coming on the site periodically to do their inspections for the health and safety of the community at the end of the job when we get to the Punch list problem. The Punch list is a specific thing that's done by a contractor, gives the architect 1 can give the building inspector 1. These are things we're finishing up on. The building inspector, what you don't want to do is ask the building inspector to do your punch I don't think that's what we're trying to do here but I'm just trying to articulate that's not the language you use for a building inspector. A building inspector comes, has a general observation of the project, he has access to the plans and specifications, he should
know his code and so forth so he should come up with things. The issue is will he gave a full review and observation of the whole project and give his comments in a clear organized way to the contractor or the owner of the business who ever [xx] the permit? And can do that rather than one time and leave, another time and leave, another time and leave. That's just a very bad practice, if they're doing that in your jurisdiction but they're doing a punch list. The punch list has everything from scarfs on the wall to cracked cover plates, allow things that the Bill Inspector hasn't. You don't want the Bill Inspector doing the punch list, you never get the job done, is all I would say. So, that's sort of a general comment and as to the $10, 000 limit, it strikes me that's even low, I mean going from five to ten is probably low. I think that's one of the better parts of this bill in the general economy of construction. One of the things I'd also say is all of this look like on little things that would hit the 10, 000 or the 5, 000 dollar cap, if their is a little piece of electric work or a little piece of plumbing work or something all done by licensed constructors they should be and as long as it falls below a certain threshold in residential things, that should really be adequate, it's kind of maintenance. You don't really need to bill a department out every time you do a maintenance job on a, when your talking about $5 and $10, 000 range, those are just really on a maintenance thing. They are not big capital input I would say, so I just make that comment as to that threshold and used they are licensed constructors, I mean the licensed Plumbers, Electricians so forth up to a threshold just to get done keep business moving. It's being done by licensed contractors on very small things and you really don't need to involve the city departments on those kinds of things in my opinion Representative Brody do you want to respond? No he said it very well thank you. OK, I couldn't tell if that was a question or a comment, but, Representative Myer, Representative Stam. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want go back to the question that Representative Jones asked and refer to part 3 on line 48, this is on the section on clarifying misconduct for code officials includes the same language of timely manner, the lime is habitual failure to provide requested inspections in a timely manner. I'm no lawyer but my guest's lawyers might be a little bit troubled by the term habitual failure as well as the term timely manners. So I'd love to know Representative Brody if could provide any clarity on how that would be measured, and enforced. Yes, I do just, I think I can answer that speaking from personal reasons in the licence returning also, but this whole search is currently in law, even the last one is currently in law, what we're doing is actually putting it before the qualifications board, that's the board that licence inspectors we call it the Q board, we put it before the Q board and say these are specific things we want to address, and the reason is because this is what's causing a major part of the problem the variation of the code is that the individual inspector might be the jurisdiction is stepping just a little bit out all the way from the code and which is causing its variations across every place and we want to bring them there. So this language is nothing the other thing I want to say is, because these are legal terms, these are things that would have to be proven in front of the of the board itself, so there's a burden of proof to address those things the idea of habitual and timeliness is something that's going to be individual case specific, but I want you to take an example and imagine that any particular profession or trade that we licence now, plug that into that very best one you'll see that this is common for every single trader licence.
The timely architectural services, timely services. These all have certain effects but they are adjudicated within their licencing board itself, and the licencing board will expand on those rules. This is a general term of legislature we do a lot of general terms and we require the particular licensing board or somebody to specifically it delve into the particulars of it. Representative Meyer, staff[sp?] has a response to your question as well. Thank you Mr. Chair, Representative Meyer, I'd just add that this board has rule making authority and part of their duty in interpreting the statue that they apply is to clarify any and ambigousthese terms in the statute with rule making so that they can further define what that means to rule making. Mr. Chair Thank you, so final question for staff, do we've an example from this board or another board of what the burden of proof has been for habitual failure? I'm not aware of it. There may be boards that have had to define that term from the statute. But I don't know one right now, I could try and find one for you. Thank you. Follow Mr. Chair. Yes Sir. I would just comment on that, but that seems even if that's what's already in statute, it doesn't mean it's the right thing to have in the statute, maybe we can have some clarity there. But another question for the bill sponsor, I can understand why seems unnecessary to have a planning department review another proposal for a 2000 square foot house. We've seen hundreds of these and the next one can't be that different from the one before. But that there's some middle ground between the illumination of the requirement for all one and two storey structures, and the maintenance of commercial structures, what about non-standard residential construction does that those type of projects still deserve some additional review. I have to probably ask you what none standard consumption might be before I go [xx]. Can take assumption that may be if you do mulit-million dollar project that has quite a bit of work in it you would have a lot more structural things if you are going to do that the time inspection department [xx] that's common and they can multiple inspectors time to view a number of different things but the basic of the dissolve are the same and if you for example run into an issue the inspector run to the issue where they more will always have the authority to ask for an engineer report on it, and [xx] they don't hesitate to do that if they truly need to. So anything that they understand they can inspect if they don't understand, they can ask for help and bring in reinforcement from the engineering community one more follow up Mr chair amendment Thank you Representative Stam well you just follow up and they will recommend you for the amendment Final question for the bill sponsor in creation of the a new committee underneath the Council. My understanding of the word council is that it's designed to be a group that provides some balance between the industry the officials and the government officials. And I think that [xx] appropriate that we have figure out what is the right balance the health and safety concerns that the government is responsible for and productivity concerns the industry is responsible for. To new committee doesn't seem to have that same level of balance, it looks to me like it's five numbers of industry without representation the government responsibility for health and safety, is that something that you think we could address in our future versions of this bill? If it becomes part obviously we can always address anything in the bill but I want to say though that in that there is a misconception, if you look at it it says the committee is consist of residential contractor and a residential counsel contractor dealing with cost of properties and it goes on to say we need the three engineers, structural, mechanical and electrical in there and there's no particular reason why if good code potential code comes through, that these particular engineers and their expertise would say well I don't want to do this because I represent residential. The three engineers represent the
industry itself, including the commercial industry. So the idea of a balance is if you're thinking about residential versus nonresidential, that's splitting the committee as a 3:2 in favor of the committee and also, everything that goes through this committee has to go through the main committee which at that point everybody in that committee really could counsel Representative Stam you have a minute. I do, if the sponsors would like to introduce to or I, d introduce to this changes to 10, 000 every word to 15, 000 and I'll introduce it, and if one of them was to sign it. Go ahead and introduce it Representative Stam. [xx] is the reasons given by several other members I won't profit unless the sponsors agreed to it. I don't want to mess up their bill. That's it We do not have any objections to that Mr. Chair representative Stam good mornin we can just get our part side now it is a long way to go you need to talk to people out there they get nervous they get nervous and they start [xx] Thank you representative Jones thought we had an action going on here for a little bit who have moved the amendment all in favor that will discussion of amendment representative Balar[sp?] I think the amendment is fine, I think I had a question that Representative Queen's conversation earlier which I think relates dispose the amendment first and then recognize you Yes it does relate to the amendment and I guess so if you don't mind give me this I won't take long we give is all he needs. Thank you for sharing that Mr. Chair. There are a number of items that included, I think representative Queen raised the point that some of this small planning items or other things actually, they should be excluded as well but I think this bill only, this permits would still require further is that correct and is raising it to 15, I mean there's nothing that addresses some of those small all of the items that Representative Queen raised I've seen definitely. I understand what you're asking representative Clint definitely has a comment since dealing with these but the problem you have when you start dealing with little things is if you happen to lay out some just a little outlet wrong you can create a big problem, so I understand where you are going, it sounds logical but the reality is one out of 100 or 200 that cause the problem will be problem representative Steves[sp?] made an amendment before us the amendment is now before the committee it's [xx] discussion all in favor aye, aye, any opposed? The motion is approved, it's a chair's intention to take a vote on this to [xx] you have the amendment from the public that we'll like to speak, so I won't butcher your name or your title if you just have [xx] to speak [xx] there and sergeant-at-arms who gives them numbers of the Public Committee to speak, and draws the committee bill, we'll take avail in this attentive. Thank you Mr. Chairman I'm Johanna Reese with the Association of County Commissioners, and Representative Brody did spend a good amount of time with us yesterday, and listened to our concerns, we really appreciate that, and the amendment does address a couple of things, I thank you for that. Our counties do have some strong reservations on other parts of the bill, I'll talk about the two biggest concerns. We think existing statute both the Inspector Licencing Board, and county and municipal statutes adequately cover misconduct on the new language is unnecessary, and what particularly concern over the definition of timely manner and I appreciate some of the other committee members bring that out, how would that be defined particularly since you are talking about misconduct here and the elimination
of the plan review court requirement is another large concern it creates the potential for a needed to correct corrections would be called during the planning stage and easily fixable to not be called until you get into the construction phase where and just take about more time may be a lot more expensive to wait for the contractor and delay for the home their is a question on whether that would increase insurance rates and I would like the opportunity to hear more from latter on from the department on insurance whether that's the case so thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Chairman I going to be really brief I'm going to go to Rep. Meryers point on part five of the bill which creates residential code committee which can you state your name? Yeah I'm sorry I'm David Crofferd I'm the executive vice president for the American institute of Architects North Carolina one of the things you need to know their are already residential committee and a building code committee on the building code council now what this does in the heart of the amendment that really changes what this community does, is on page 5 starting on line 5 which says no revision or amendment to any of these codes applicable to residential construction may be considered by the building code council unless recommended by this committee what that automatically does is it sets up an uneven playing field between the residential code in the commercial code and those individuals that do sit on the building code council that represent those different sectors of the building community, so what we have here their is the residential folks essentially I call this the meddling amendment, meddling in the commercial side yet their is not a section that allows the commercial side to do the same on the residential side, so. Thank you, Sir. [xx] work with the sponsors of the bill to work on on and maybe in the playing field between commercial and. Thank you, Sir. Indeed, it's time afraid the committee ask if the amendment are allowed to speak, if you email the Chair and the committee we will do the distribute the comments to the members of the committee and at this time Representative Millers, 32 seconds. Real quick that's what a public thing Representative Brody for bringing this bill before our committee, this is exactly a type of regulatory reform that our State needs regard to making sure that we uphold the protection of health safety in our environment but to do so in a way that's more effective and more efficient. We don't have this invisible tax of unnecessary regulation regulation before us also too I'd like to address the aspect, that's to say your bill likes to look at the end result that is what is actually building the ground versus having all this scrutiny on a piece of paper like I said in a draw I never hid the end result is protected that is the home committee build the code and I fully commend this bill to the rest of the committee and I ask for your support. Representative Heger and we're working out the promotion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On a bill number here, I am favorable on House bill 255 I believe it was we had two amendments so maybe. Amended lowered to new pieces. You heard the motion before you we'll announce, on favorabled to the amended version. May I ask a question to the Chair and to the PCS to remove the vote All those in favor will say, Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. The ayes have it the committee is adjourned, thank you.