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 | September 29, 2015 | Committee Room | Rules, Canledar and Operations

Full MP3 Audio File

Members if you make your way back to your seats we are going to move through the remainder of the amendments. It's the Chair is understanding that there was one amendment that was not photocopied and distributed so, have one more arriving at your desk that's why we tried do a little cross checking up here. Okay, so Representative Daughtry, you are recognized to send forward S119-8TD-128 version two which moves to amend the bill on page 51 lines 43 through 44, you are recognize to explain your amendment sir. Thank you very much Mr Chairman. Representative Brian who is back there, this is his bill without any objection I would like for him to explain it please. Representative Brian, tell you what Representative Brian come on up welcome to the committee on rules you are recognized to explain S119-ATD-128 version two. Thank you Mr Chairman, committee I think this is a I believe to be a technical change what you have in front of you is a little more help if you have the rest of the provision for this delayed sunset for the renewable credit the language that's required for tax payer to get this is the project be completed at least the minimum percentage of the physical construction that there has been completed at least the minimum percentage of the physical construction of the project when you look down so that's what is required to the tax payer when you look down to the certification that has to be given by the independent engineer previously used or right now he uses language that says the minimum percentage of the project was constructed and installed, so the language in the two sections doesn't match up and all this amendment does is make the language in engineers certification match the language that's required of the taxpayer Representative Stam, what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? To debate the amendment The gentleman has the floor Thank you Mr. Chairman, I agree the amendment is a good amendment, but let's just clarify some of the language that we had earlier this year, a law that we passed, the safe harbor law, I ask the committee to support the amendment Further discussion or debate?  Move adoption Representative Daughtry has moved adoption of S119_ATD_128, further discussion and debate on the amendment from the gentleman from Johnston, seeing none those in favor of the amendment will say Aye, those opposed will say No, the Ayes have it that the amendment is adopted. Members we're going to move Representatives Stam's amendment, this is amendment S119 -AMN-47 moves to amend the bill on page 51, line 39. Representative Stam you are recognized to explain the bill. Thanks Mr. Chair. Pardon me, you are recognized to explain the amendment. Thanks sir, several eons ago you remember we debated Senate Bill 279 on the floor, the corporate report, and I think this amendment just clarifies something that I think would be the law anyway, that is a specific statute controls over a general statute. But some folks came to me, I think they were Bill Raw from Justice Center whatever that his section is called that he could interpret that a particular Section applied even though but was not letting you act under another section minimum housing That's wasn't repealed and it was not the intent to not allow cities or counties to not act under statutes giving them authority without repealing them. So this just makes clear that if we haven't repealed something and if the city or county has the statutory authority to do it they can still do it. So whether or not you're in favor of 279 or not, I hope you all agree to this amendment so it doesn't have that unintended consequence which I don't think it would anyway but just to be clear. Is there discussion or debate on the motion from the gentleman from Lake seeing none the question before the committee is adoption of the amendment sent forth by the gentleman from Lake those in favor of adoption will say aye Aye Those opposed

will say no   In the eyes of the chair the ayes have it the amendment is adopted. Members we're going to move to an amendment sent forward by Representative Floyd this is amendment S 119-80W-47 version 1 Representative Floyd moves to amend the bill on page 32 line 27 through page 33 line 16, representative Floyd you're recognized to explain your amendment, sir. Mr. Chair, this is new language and the superintendent had no knowledge and no information about this, so I was asked to send forward an amendment to remove this section, but if someone from DPI, they can go in greater detail than I can. Representative Tine, for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? To debate the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you. This provision that would cut out the language that changes it from statutorily requiring us to work with ACT to go to a norm reference college admissions test. When we were reviewing these provisions during this process, it was brought to our attention that it's awfully difficult for an organization to bid down a company or to get them to give you a contract that's favorable to you and you are statutorily required to deal with one company. So, I think this is a good business decision to open up the process. If there is federal grants or other grants, they can take that into account and adjust for the way that it comes and build that into the process. But I think this is a good business practice to allow us to compare different testing systems and then make a good decision for the people of North Carolina, so I would ask that you vote the amendment down. Representative Floyd what purpose? To speak if there's someone for DPI in the audience? With someone from the department would like to speak to Representative Floyd's so you certainly recognized. If you would state your name and your affiliation for the record.  Rachel Boyle, Legislative for the Department of Public Construction and if I may have a copy of the amendment, I don't know what we are talking about without a copy of the amendment The chair apologizes Ma'am. Do you have the bill? members, we are going to displace the Floyd amendment for just a moment o let the Department review it. It would on page 32 and strike all of section 59. So we'll let the partner review that and we'll move instead to represent Johnson, who has an amendment numbered S119-ATC-125 version 1, moves to amend the Bill on page 51 lines 39 through 40. Representative Johnson, you're recognized to explain your amendment Madam. Thank you Mr. Chair. I'm just inserting Halifax County into the the STEMS Program that's in the North East. The money is in the budget. I included, [xx] Rapids, Weldon and North Hampton and just inadvertently left Halifax county out and I'd ask you to vote for the amendment. Representative Torbit is recognized for an inquiry. Representative Johnson, was your initial intent to maybe bind Halifax County by those other three that you mentioned? Was your intent to divide Halifax County among the three others that you mentioned  Yes. is there further discussion, or debate on the amendment from the lady from Caberas[sp?] Move adoption? Seeing none, the question before the committee is the adoption of the amendment to Senate forward by Representative Johnson, those favoring adoption will say aye. Aye Those oppose will say no, the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is adopted. Members we're going to go

Representative Daughtry's amendment S1119-8 MN-45 Version 1. This moves to amend the Bill on page 16 line  two. Representative Daughtry you're recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you Mr. Chairman. As you know right now we're sort of in a freeze when it comes to appointing new judges, in fact not only new judges but other positions that we normally have appointed by this time and we have a very fine bench of score judge named Judge [xx] excuse me, and his term expires in February. In the event this matter has not been resolved at that time, we want to make sure that his term does not expire and this is what this bill does. Move a dodge[sp?]. Is there discussion or debate on the amendment from the gentleman from Johnston? Seeing none, the question before the committee is the adoption from general from Johnston, those favoring the adoption will say aye. Aye! Those opposed will say no and Chair the ayes have it the amendment is adopted. Members the Chair has been informed by Representative Floyd,  it is his intent to withdraw his amendment. The committee will be at ease for just a moment. Discussion and debate on the bill as amended Representative [xx] please state your purpose. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask some clarifying questions on the bill if I may The lady is certainly recognized. Thank you Mr. Chairman, looking at page 47 of this bill, it looks like we are creating a new party committee similar to like a caucus operation for all of the council estate members, including the governor all the way down. Is that what this language which is new does? Yes. What this does is define further that the and caucuses the general assembly may create a affiliated party committee for the purpose of raising and expending funds to elect members who would serve in that caucus should they be elected, it also creates the option and I would reiterate that, that is an optional thing it is not required and in fact at least from the majority party's perspective it's not even perceived that it will be used it also creates the same type of affiliated party committee, for members of the council estate. This would apply to the major political party, should they wish to create this affiliated political committee they would be able to do so, it would have most of the rights and privileges of the political party as a whole, there are restrictions in this bill, including being able to take contributions during session and I hope that what you asked, I'll be happy to try again. The lady is recognized. Yes mum. Thank you Mr Chairman, the last part that you just said, so could this new political committee take any money from corporate donors or from other. I'm trying to understand the actual limitations of taking money, receiving money and also giving that out. Yes mum, the affiliated political committee could take corporate contributions only to the extent that the political party itself could for instance the to establish a building fund. The lady is recognized. Thank you Mr. Chairman and another follow up. I know that this is optional so it's not a requirement but I'm trying to understand if the governor let's say wanted to take this option and it was just his position for the council of state is their language in here that says a majority of the council state members must participate or it could just be a party of one that has a separate avenue now is that an accurate interpretation?

 It's my understanding representative that it could not be a party of one as that would be a singly controlled candidates committee. There's language in the Bill that requires certification with the state board to make sure that that is not the case. thank you. Further discussion on the bill representative Jackson what purpose shall you receive recognition? I had a question for the lady from DPI about that SAT section. Miss Billy I think representative Jackson has a question for you, would you pause the mike and the gentleman from wake is recognized to propose his inquiry. Thank you Mr. Speaker Mr. Chairman my question is as I read this we are going to open it up to competitive bid and I would just like to know what other factors be able to be considered other than price and compete a bit be a process? Rachel [xx], Legislative Director for the Department of Public Instruction with a bid process there are a number of factors entertained other than price, yes so the short answer to your question is yes. Follow up. The gentleman is recognized. Do you know some of those other factor might be. No I do not. I can just speak briefly on that. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you Mr Chairman. I would just say to the committee this is a policy that I guess describes me as a something we should really consider as a pen of a high school senior, I know there're differences between the SAT and the ACT, they go further than just the price of the tool. Some students do better on one worse on the other one. And I would just hate that first to pick a test based on just a price and not consider these other factors if we're all going to go down the road of opening up the bill process so, for what does worker who did PL[sp?] consider that. Representative Corney and may the chair say what a pleasure is to have you back among us. I'm sorry Mr Chairman I was not here when you voted on this bill but the other night but if you I would like a couple of questions. The lady is recognized. Does this affiliated party allow fundraising within the building? No madam. Okay. But it does allow the receiving of contributions during the session if you become unaffiliated part of? It would not allow the receiving of any contributions that would have otherwise been prohibited which means Robias store, things like that. And the Chair not wanting to refer to Robius things I use reservoirs for much of the press. Through the chair would point out a commonly with a larger room so. Is there further discussion or debate? If not, Representative Torbett moves that the proposed committee substitute for senate bill 119, as amended be rolled in to a new proposed committee substitute, and that proposed committee substitute be given a favorable report unfavorable to the original bill, and the staff further be authorized to make any additional clarifying technical changes to the amendment regarding page numbers, etra. Discussion, or debate on the motion from the gentleman from Gaston, seeing none, the question before the committee is the motion from the member from Gaston to give the proposed committee substitute as amended, loaded into a new proposed committee substitute favorable, unfavorable to the original bill in favor of say aye? Aye! Those opinion will say no? In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it, and the motion is adopted. Mr. Chairman Representative Torbett. My guess is that one of the first questions people will be asking is when will that new wrote in copy be available? Do we have any idea when the amended version be available. Representative Torbett, the Chair thinks that that's an excellent question and this certainly an urgent matter to be considered. That's why I appreciate the committee's expedient work on this tonight.

I believe everyone wants to get this done including the staff, but I do not have the timer at this time. Members, we have two other bills. We are not going to take up, a previous committee notice listed Senate Bill 508 that will not be considered tonight. We will be taking up the proposed committee substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 721, the adjournment resolution. Please take a moment to look at that. Without objection, the Adjournment Resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 721. The proposed committee substitute is before the committee. Without objection. Seeing none, the bill is before the committee is there discussion or debate or questions? If so, we recognize Ms. Goldsmith. If not, Representative Torbett moves that the proposed committee substitute for senate joint resolution 721 be given a favorable report unfavorable to the original bill. Is there discussion debate on the motion? Seeing none those favoring the motion will say aye. Aye. Those opposed to say no. Opinion of the Chair the ayes have it and the Bill will be reported favorably. Members early in the evening the house referred to the committee on rules a proposed conference committee substitute for senate bill 279 the Chair will remind the members that this is a proposed coference committee substitute therefore no amendment would be in order at this time the committee can certainly discuss the bill and or we can accept a motion so the Chair is going to recognize representative Stam to speak on the conference committee report and the Chair saw Representative Jack is on  as well. Mr Chair members of the committee as you see here for sconsideration and inspections will be allowed the same we can recommend adoption, we can recommend not adoption we can send forth without prejudice if we do nothing it can just be sent back to the floor by the speaker so my thought is I'll be glad to answer any questions and then at the conclusion we just report without prejudice. Wo we don't have to spend an hour discussing it. I have as I mentioned on the amendment on 119 that we adopted this amendment would solve most of the practical problems that I heard about, it will not solve the problem of people who don't think the bill is a good idea, but it will solve what I think would be some people's perception of unintended consequence. One thing it doesn't do, is deal with what you may have heard about, the [xx] B and B question and the senate general council and our leadership have agreed that, that will be a select committee to report back in April. So that's really all I have to saying but I'd be glad to answer questions, and I do have with me. By the way this reminds me of third grade when I was always sent away from the rest of the class, so I wouldn't bother sitting up here, but I have my I do have my lawyer with me. Representative Jackson for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition. Inquiry to the chair.  The gentleman may state his inquiry.  I understand probably what the majority of the members of this committee want to do at this point but I'd ask that staff explain section six, seven and eight to some of us some of us don't have the assistance staff to go through this and representative Stam's explanation is great but I'm hearing my emails are four. I'm seeing a lot of other comments and it does more and, I would like to get a staff explanation if we could Mr Chairman. The Chair would like to ask which staffer is ready to explain section 6, 7 and 8. Miss Churchill you are recognized to respond to Representative Jackson's inquiry.  Thank you, I think Mr. [xx] he's going to tag team with me when I get stuck. Representative Jackson, Section 6

would prohibit local government from an enacting would clearly say that the provisions of the wage and hour act adopted at the state level would supersede and preempt any ordinance or resolution adopted by a city or county that purports to regulate or imposed any requirement [xx] business pertaining to compensation of employees, such as wage levels of those employees hours of labor, payment of earned wages, benefits, leave or the well being of minors in the work force. There are some exclusions to that, the local government would still be able to regulate the compensation and the control of it's own employees. The local government being the city of the county would still be able to do economic development in centers under the 1NT program. They would still be able to do economic development in centers awarded under the local development Act. They would also be able to do anything that was required by the community development block grants that the federal has established. They would also be able to do anything under programs to benefit community development programs that are for low to moderate income persons, that are very specific on GS153A or 376 or 168456, and I do not know how many counties or cities are actually doing those today. But they would still be able to continue those. In Section 7A and 7B, would deal with rights of the landlord and tenant. 7A would specifically state that the counties and cities would no longer will be able to adopt ordinances, or resolutions that purport to regulate, or impose any requirements upon a business pertaining to housing practices. However, that would not apply to the county, or city adopting any policy, or practice with respect to property owned by that county, or city. Any ordinance that is adopted with respect to fair housing which is particularly limited to cities of 90, 000, or more that have trade events, or trade shows that the definition of trade shows is one that has actually been involved in that city for at least 10 years and it involves temporary comment that for at least 50, 000 people. The only place that I can think of off the top of my head that occurs is Harpoint[sp?]. So also exempted would be again the Federal Community Development [xx] and re-development projects that are done under Article 22A of Chapter 168 and also the local government would be preempted from doing any ordinates or resolution that regulates and imposes upon any business, any requirement pertaining to the right to DDF Landlord-Tenant. Exempted from that would be building inspections. Where the [xx] of building obviously is health, safety and welfare of the building including anything that would be involved in condemnation. It's I'm save as well as some of the regular inspections programs with some of the  cities have engaged in promoting unit facilities where the landlord has actually had some reporting of unsafe conditions over a period of time. I think some of the largest cities may be doing some of those. Also preempted for the counties and cities are any ordinances that promote large cities landlord and tenants. Section eight is the county, section nine is the cities that would preempt any ordinance to regulate the employment practices of a non-governmental business, the exemptions from this or regulation of the oriented business as provided in the statute already, regulation of solicitation campaigns, free markets or general merchants is already provided in the statute, and again in this federal community development backgrounds, also no ordinances that would mandate or prohibit the provision of goods or services or accommodation to any member of the public except as provided and Brad you're going to have to jump in and help me with this laundry list of statutes and I have to apologize, I don't remember what they are. But the same provision will be added for cities. I do remember with the cities, the laundry include taxi cab drivers and laundry Representative Jackson. A quick follow up. The gentleman is recognized.

Ms Churchill can you give us some examples of things that cities and towns may currently be regulating it, they will no longer be able to regulate by passage of this? Mr. Chair if I could follow up. It's recognized. Since one of my emails said that in a landlord tenant requirements it would that be collect Miss Statute. I think unless for some reason that was part of the building inspections and what was going on with those periodic and inspections that were as a result of the multi family dwelling that had resulted in the need for periodic inspections. Yes. They would be prohibited from having that ordinance for coal and heating. Representative Fraley Yes. I have a question, I think, for Representative Stam. I'm getting emails from municipalities in my district saying that there are questions about whether this would preempt a town's authority on fair housing, the ability to create affordable housing, to establish minimum standards for habitable housing, prohibit discrimination in public accommodations and such things. Did I understand your amendment correctly to say that the amendment would not preclude the municipalities from enforcing statutes, or things that they already have in place? Well it wouldn't stop them from doing things that they already have statutory authority to do, and what the amendment that we adopted here on the last previous bill says, except as otherwise provided by federal law, or by more specific state law. So if they have statutory authority to do any of those things they can continue to do it, for example minimum housing, periodic inspections. Representative Fraley is recognized for a follow up. Thank you. Representative Davis. Thank you. Mr. chairman if I could I'd like to ask either Miss. Churchill or Representative Stam the two questions if they could answer them and, these are things I'm being asked by the city Wellington and you may have touched on it just a second a go, but in particular, would this legislation inhibit the city of Wellington's to maintain minimum housing and rental code. Representative Stam or Miss Statue   Miss Statue So I think the minimum housing standards are not specifically excluded which would mean they're falling over the prohibitions and so I think the city's counties will probably be prohibited form doing anything with a minimum housing standards at this juncture. I would disagree with that and make sure that we were looking at the amendment that if the technical amendment bill passes specifically says if they have a specific state statute, that's okay. And minimum housing is a specific state statute and that's the reason we offered this amendment here for technical amendment. The amendment is still if you'd use your mic Representative Davies it'll be appreciated, but the gentleman is recognized. Thank you. The other would be would this legislation inhibit the ability of city of Wellington to regulate short term rentals which might impact their are tourism bed and breakfast and hotel industry. I think the answer to that is if you talk about Airbnb phenomenon Yes and we've committed to an LRC study to bring back in April a recommendation for state wide bill establishing what cities can do on that. Further inquiries on the conference report I'd move that we report without prejudice on the floor. Motion stand is moved that the proposed Conference Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 279 be reported from the committee of rules calendar operations of the House without prejudice is there discussion or debate on the

motion, the gentleman from Wake, members the chair realises that the hour is getting late, the chair has been made aware of two individuals who asked to have have a comment on this Bill. The Chair will recognize them for time not to exceed two minutes, but we really want to get through those as soon as we can, so if those individuals are here if you see the sergeant at arm before we vote. okay Miss Statute if you would state your name and affiliation please. Sure, I'm Chris Crow, I'm the executive director of equality North Carolina the state's LGBT Advocacy Organization. This Bill would have a significant impact on gay and transgender North Carolinian's in municipalities that have enacted protections for members of our community. In places where these ordinances have passed they have been carefully vetted by City, or County Attorneys and are within the scope of Municipal Authority. And they're protections are vital for members of our community. A super majority of North Carolina residence support passage of anti discrimination protection for LGBT people. Aside from it's impact on the LGBT community SB 279 will have far reaching consequences, you've heard from mayors and council members from most major cities across the state today, in Greensboro where I live this would overturn ordinances protecting people against discrimination based on race. These protections were passed in the wake of our historic sittings at the Woolworth counter, and I speak 279 could have returned those, yes some protections do exist at the federal level but only as related to interstate counters and countless municipalities across the state have thought it important enough to pass easier to enforce local ordinances. I have heard representative Stance Mz and then language but impact is unclear as of yet, please support local control closest to the people of North Carolina and do not append decades of civil rights advances, please vote on the motion to recommend adaptation of the conference report, thank you. Was there an additional speaker? Miss Williams if you would state your name and your affiliation please. Thank chairman Louise, my name is Rose Van Williams and I'm Director of government affairs for the North Carolina League municipalities. We represent 540 cities and towns around the state, and appreciate Representative Stam attention to some of those concerns has been spending whole day listing to cities around this state in concern from various interest, about this bill and as the hard part, it's doing some of things important so quickly the minimum housing standard for pill portion of the bill was a very significant concern, and I appreciate very much the amendment in the prior bill 119 to try to address that, I've not seen that amendment yet, I don't know if it addresses all the areas that would need to be changed in the conference report including 42- 14.5 to make that effective, and of course we hope that, if that went then that provision will pass all the way as well the air being B provisions are a big concern to our tourism cities and we look forward to having that study and appreciate that if that would happen however in the meantime this law would still go into effect as we move to April as the effective date, is now on the conference report. The final part of the Bill is the general ordinance provision I think the concern there is just the broad way that's written, we're trying to get feedback now from the school of government and continue to hear from city attorneys around the state about terms in that portion of the bill that may not be intended may not be as written but as lawyers look at it and try to interpret how that will be interpreted and what that might prohibit it raises concerns, so our hope would be, excuse me, that you would not adopt the conference report I will appreciate this opportunity to speak. The chair is only made aware of two individuals. Are there additional individuals? Seeing none the committee will be released for just a moment is there further discussion and debate? If not, the question before the committee is the motion from the gentleman from Wake that the committee moves to report without

prejudice the proposed conference committee substitute for Senate Bill 279, those favoring the motion will say Aye Aye those opposed will say no. No Those favoring the motion, pardon, those favoring the motion will raise their hand, help me please, one, two, three, four, five, six seven, eight, I think one, two, three, four, five, six it's okay. Those opposed please raise your hand Members, by vote of 7-14, the motion is not adopted, the committee will be released Members for your planning purposes is the chair intent in a moment to put the committee into recess. The Chair has been advised by the speaker that the house will also be in recess until 7:30 pm. It is the Chairs intent report on this bill at this time the committee may reconvene and consider an additional motion later in the evening, but there being no further business before the committee at the moment the committee on rules stands in recess.