[BLANK_AUDIO] [SOUND] We call this meeting Local Government to order, I'd like to welcome everyone here. We've got several bills to get through today and we'd like to do the introduction of pages and we'll try our best to get your names right. Maryann Boehm/g Weit/g county Caroline Gida, Mecklenburg, Dalsy McMillan, Wake, Sophi Mcleo, Irdell, Eddy Owens Catarrat, and Sonja [INAUDIBLE] of Wake, I'm sorry I'm not I know that wasn't probably close and then our sergeant at arms Young Bay/g, Jim Maran/g, Martha Gettison. And Bill Riley, thank you all. We'll get started with the first bill today House bill 1088 Representatives Frailly and Bradford gentlemen Without objection PCS is before you [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Thank you Mr Chairman, several months ago the director of the county board of elections [UNKNOWN] approached me about the difficulty they are having in finding people to work the polls for elections and some of the people that were interested in doing that are retired law enforcement officers. However they by statute were prevented from being able to work the post if they were retired and receiving a supplemental retirement benefit. That supplemental retirement benefit is money that you would get after a certain number of years of service and a certain age That isn't effected up until you are old enough to start receiving social security. So we went back and looked into this entire situation to see if we could add retire law enforcement work retired law enforcement officers to be able to work the polls, in addition to being a school safety officer. We gathered this through the league of municipalities, metropolitan mayors, the county commissioners, they've gone back through the treasurer's office, there has been an actuarial table worked up on this, the real cost can't be determined and I'd ask for your support. >> Representative Burr. >> For a motion at the appropriate time. >> Any questions? Representative Ager. >> Are there other categories of state workers that something like this could help as well or is it just retired law enforcement? >> This is just retired law enforcement officers. >> But this, excuse me follow up. >> Follow up. >> Are teachers or state employees they're not under these same restrictions as law enforcement? >> I can't answer that question, the issue here is that retired law enforcement officers have the potential to receive this supplemental retirement benefit. This allows them to work as an election official without losing the supplemental retirement benefit. >> Thank you. >> With staff like to. Go right ahead. >> David Bandweather/g form the physical research divisions, so teachers and state employees would had not have any restrictions to go work for a county in this capacity after retirement, a local government retiree who is not a law enforcement officer just receiving a local government [INAUDIBLE] would have to wait one month before serving in this capacity, they will be subject to an earning's restriction which if they're only working election day service, I think it will be very hard for them to hit. Thank you. Representative Fisher. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is for the bill sponsor or for staff. Are there any other states that have looked into doing the sort of thing where you can sort of reactivate retired law enforcement or teachers or sir whomever for election purposes? >> Mr. Chairman staff. [NOISE] >> Representative Fisher, we're happy to look into that. But we don't know the answer off the top of our heads. >> Thank you. >> Representative Burr. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I move that we give the PCS House Bill 1088 favorable report on favor as to the original.
>> You have heard the motion. All those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? The ayes have it. House Bill 1088 is passed. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> House Bill 1128. Representative Bradford And without objection PCS is before you. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I believe there's a map that's gonna be distributed >> We have some maps that are being passed out this time. >> Thank you. This is a bill for the town of Cornelius, that's part of my district. This bill takes a couple of parcels that are doughnut holes if you will and it will move them and next them into the town of Cornelius I should say. >> Representative Pendleton. Representative Brolly. Okay. Anything else? [BLANK_AUDIO] This has a referral to finance, so you won't make the motion? Go right ahead Representative Pendleton. >> This would make a favorable motion for the PCS, unfavorable to regional And be referred to finance. >> That's it. You've heard the motion, all those in favor say aye, any oppose? The ayes have it house bill 1128 passes [CROSSTALK] Senate bill 733, senator Smith. And without objection you have a PCS before you, thank you. >> Thank you Mr Chairman. What this actually the senate passed as two different bills a Vermont and Proctorville utility bill collection, the PCS just combines that into to an existing bill already, where there are a number of counties at. Both of these towns in Robinson County were having difficulties collecting water and sewer fees. And this is just to allow them to be able to follow the same procedure as collecting taxes for it and staff has suggested it would be a lot better to put it in this PCS with the other towns listed. So that it would be less confusing and easier to see what towns have the same provision. >> Senator Burr, how do you like that? >> [LAUGH]. >> Representative Burr, no thanks for a motion at appropriate time. Mr Chair. >> Go right ahead. >> I move that we give the proposed committee substitute to Senate Bill 733 a favorable report and unfavorable as to the original bill. >> And referral to Finance. >> Yes sir. >> You've heard the motion. All those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? The ayes have it. Senate bill Bill 733 is passed. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Senate Bill 852, Senator Hise, Representative Dobson and Representative Presnell. And without objection we have a PCS before you. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Go right ahead >> Thank you Mr Chairman. This bill has two counties involved in two municipalities Mitchel county and Bakersfield, and I'll let representative Presnell/g talk about the Haywood county property. There's a five acre plot of land in the corporate limits of Bakersfield. The land owner is requesting to be deannexed/g . And the town of Bakersfield is also requesting that and basically that's what that does and I'll appreciate your support for that portion >> And it's the exact same thing for town of Clyde has requested to deannexed/g one and a half acres Acres of land and the land owner is wanting it also and I certainly ask for your support. >> Representative Bowles >> I have a question for the bill sponsor, Are the cities providing any services or infrastructure for these property owners >> On the part in Clyde he was annexed/g because they thought they could get it to the top of the mountain and they couldn't so they both decided to beat the annex. And so there's no water and sewer. >> I can't say for sure Representative Bowles/g, my understanding is that is part of the same issue with the Bakersville property. There was a, not a disagreement but just a disconnect between what the town was able to do and the landowners. So my understanding is the same for Mitchell County, Bakersville as well. >> Representative Burr, you have a motion? >> Yes sir. Does this bill have a referral, Mr. Chair? I'm not seeing it on the bill Yes, to Finance.
>> I move that we give the proposed committee substitute to Senate Bill 852 a favorable report unfavorable as to the original with a referral to Finance. >> You heard the motion. All those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? The ayes have it. Senate Bill 852. Thank you. [CROSSTALK] >> Senate bill 330 and without objection you have a PCS before you on senate bill 330, representative [UNKNOWN]. >> Thank you Mister chairman and members of the committee, this is a fairly straight forward bill. What this bill does is that I have been working with Senator Magenes/g and this is a really good. Bill that brings transparency to public government. And what it does is provide for method for change orders on school construction projects. I have been working with the various stake holders to make this scalable across to all the different LEAs Regardless of science so they basically can adopt a policy by which change orders to construction contracts are adopted by the board. The board will establish a policy enumerating minimally those five items about how they've be handled, who have authority, what level of approval can happen, all the different aspects are there. And I ask for your approval for the PCS. >> Represent Fisher. >> Thank you Mister chairman, a question for the bill sponsor. Can you let us know about where. this is derived from? >> Yes, there was some instance, I can't remember if Senator [UNKNOWN] area where some change orders got approved, and increase the cost of a construction project by over a million dollars or some high amount, very high amount and the board Didn't feel like they were adequately involved in that process and so this is a way to tighten it up. But as you know one size fits all is tough to do and so what we do because various school boards have different levels of construction, what we did was work with stakeholders to make the principals involved that at the school board who has ultimate authority to the taxpayers for building that they have the review mechanisms in place to adequately review, change orders and adopt a policy for that. >> And just a quick follow up >> Follow up. >> And so this bill will apply to boards across the state, is that correct? That's correct. >> And on last follow up. >> Follow up. >> Do we have any input from NTSDA or any of the other entities that are concerned with the policy making part of school boards? >> Nice. >> I think this Bill was passed out of the Senate last year so we're So were picking it up this year. What I did was work with the State holders like the Architects, the contractors, the various group, they were concerned about it's original form,this is what we come out of as working groups. >> Thank you. >> Representative Holly. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman Mr. Chairman, I wan to say that what you've done, well done. This is how you fit it to try to make it fit. You give them some flexibility to establish there procedures and I like what I see. >> Thank you for that, I think the goal Goal was a mutually beneficial goal in that the school board is very transparent in handling these change orders with the flexibility necessary for the very size of the school districts. >> Representative Burr. >> Motion at perfect time. >> I think it's It' s time. >> Mr. Chair move that we give the proposed committee substitute senate Bill 330 a favorable report and favorable recess to the regional version of the Bill. >> You heard the motion, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose. The I's have it, SP330 passes Thank you. Senate Bill 774 and with that objection you have a PCS before you so Representative Burr and Senator Tucker. Senator Tucker welcome. That will work. That's much better than Representative Burt. [LAUGH] Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of Member of the committee. This Bill is to simple DN exceptions one is in Marvin and Uni County and let me just explain this DN Xaction to be clear and candid. Representative Burp and I represented a County with 14 Municipalities in it. A number of these municipalities are a mayor council of government
and have a planning board and ordinances. They provide no services, no water sewer as Representative Bould/g eluded to earlier. They do ran a deputy from Union County to patrol the area but it's really a Mayor council government. And to their prerogative they have very strict zoning in that area. The piece of property in Marvin, North Carolina is approximately 26 acres of which 6 acres is in Marvin and the balance of that is in Union County. And with Marvin's setback requirements, the property is severely restricted in development and we need commercial development in Union County not houses. This is located in the gateway to Union County from Mecklenburg in the Union County on a 4 lane highway. So what we're doing is we are asking that you approve de-annexation of six acres four of which are in flood plains. So net we are de-annexing two whole acres out of Marvin, that will allow 22 acres in the county that can be developed in to a very a nice pleasant looking upscale commercial development that we need. This developers also local and the group is about three miles down the road where they built a country club, and they have houses I couldn't even begin to afford to live in that has added about 400 million in tax base. But I will tell you that the town of Marvin is adamantly opposed to de-annexing in this two acres so just wanted to be clear and candid about all those facts, and then the asper/g de-annexation I'm of course doing this for Senator Tillman and the town of Asheboro has requested this to de-annex 0.456 acres is that everything staff/g? Okay thank you Yes sir thank you Mr chairman I'll be glad to answer questions. >> Thank you Representative Pendleton. >> Thank you sir. >> Representative Luebke. >> Thank you Mr chairman, Senator this is about the situation in Marvin where you just indicated that the [INAUDIBLE] That the elected representatives in the village of Marvin do not support this >> Yes sir. >> So who does support it >> I do for one ->>[LAUGH] >> It is a commercial tax base and again the town of Marvin, because of six acres is contiguous to 90% of the property that's in union county. Their zoning setbacks are too restrictive to be able to develop the property for That individual to build a nice commercial development and get a return on the investment the LLC that owns it. So they've been working with the town of Marvin since 2001 and they have done representative Lucky probably eleven different plans to try to develop this property and another property in Marvin. Marvin just doesn't want it and I will share with you about 200 yards down the road from where the entrance to this property will be, the developers already put in what I deem is something that I would wanna see as a gateway to our town but a very nice child development center with a light house and all the things that children like on it. He could actually put and I begged him not to Abo - Jungle/g there or McDonald's because the road frontage is in the county. Now with this [UNKNOWN] that group will be able to go in and develop this 22 acres In the county. And the county provides the water and sewer, the county provides the inspections, the county in Union County provides everything. Once again Marvin is a mayor-council government planned and board and a zone in administrator if you will, and they have some very strict zoning regulations because they don't want development which is, you know, fine for their prerogative but this would be a great addition, tax addiction to the county. And I've been very open with the mayor about it, he and I have had, let's say lively discussions about it and advocating his position. But moving forward because the county provides all the services and because we need commercial development and because 20 acres of the 26 is in the county. As I've stated before I think two acres of land on the periphery of that village or small town does not bringing into the world at all. Follow up? >> Follow up. >> Why hasn't the County Commission come out and [INAUDIBLE] do
they have a resolution in supportive of this scale? >> The County is not been involved in it, the land just sits there, are they in favor of more commercial development rather than residential development since we're bedroom community shallow/g absolutely my residents got approximate three miles down the road in Mecklenburg County spend their sales tax dollars at 131 Main Blakeney Greens and all the shoppers soon as they are three miles down the road in Mecklenburg, this will simply get tax base for Union Counties to help pay for our schools. But in answer to your questions non of the County County Commissioner have not. So I'm moving forward with this because it makes sense to me, it makes sense to other folks but I have not broached the County Commissioner about whether they're being favour or not typically they don't get involved in something until a resolution is brought to through the town and all the State. >> Thank you Thank you. Representative Brawley. >> Thank you Mr Chairman, Senator Tucker, as I recall isn't Marvin the town that refuses to accept any streets and demand that all residential development be private streets. Where the homeowners maintains them because the town does not do streets? >> Yes Sir, they do not do streets. Again we have a number of towns in Union County that are not much bigger than a subdivision in Raleigh and Charlotte and they have been formed to stop development, to keep green space and all of those things which is their prerogative, and the people's prerogative, we're fine with that. But two acres on the periphery here to develop for commercial does not seem like a big lift to me, and I shared this with the mayor. Actually even back to your question sir, I asked the mayor to talk to the developer to see if we could Because deannexation without the support of a town or village is an untenable political situation to be in and I want them to work it out and figure out ways to make concessions and do that. But after working with the town of Marvin since 2001, spending about $300,000 on various plans and not being able to move either way, which the town of Marvin would disagree with that statement saying that they have worked with the developer. It's just I can get communication and the mayor did not contact the developer. He thought the developer should come to him, which is rightly so. Nothing against the mayor or the town council but to take two acres out would help Union County's tax basin, that's what I'm about, instead of homes. >> Representative Watford. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I assume that the 20 acres is owned by the county now and it is owned commercial and the six acres is owned by the town and it's residential and it will be changed. Clarify the zoning. >> Actually if I recall, I think the property in the county, the 20 acres is the county, I could be wrong, are 40. One house per acre and it will be rezoned commercial. So the developer will have to go through the entire process with Union County and get all the appropriate approvals and everything before it even gets to the board. So, I mean it's still up in the air whether it will be disapproved or not, he'll just be working with the LLC that owns the property. It's a group here. They'll just simply be working with the county and there zoning and approvals versus the village of Marvin. >> Representative Hurley. >> Thank you Mr Chair, I have two questions if possible. >> Yes Ma'am. >> My first question is with the County, now you're saying mayor of County will then be responsible for road, sewage and all of the services provided, and they've no input in this development or Or the planning of this development and that gives me a little concern. >> Well let me help you with that, first of all the road the four lane is maintained by DOT, the County doesn't maintain that road. Water and sewer by the county is already there. So there's no infrastructure [INAUDIBLE AUDIO] or requirements from the County and generally when the county [INAUDIBLE] the developer will pay for that. If that answers your question. >> That answers. The other one was->> Follow up. >> Follow up the second question was of the six acres, I think you said four were wetland. >> Yes Ma'am you are correct. Four acres was in a flood plain, there's a creek that borders this property. So it's in the flood plain it's unusable. 6 acres is in the village of Marvin, 20 acres is in the county. We're deannexing/g 6 acres but net only two acres that's usable by the county. So the county will be rezoning and building commercial if they approve it on 22 acres. The other 4 acres is in the creek and will be left alone. >> But my question My question is->> Follow up. >> Follow up. The acreage that is abutted to the wetlands, does that have particular
boundaries or anything that's near any of the environmental impact on that particular property, that will change if the DNX section happens in other words if that the state says you can build for environmental reasons but it's acceptable in the counties, that's what I wanna know. >> I've really had no discussion about environmental is a creep that runs through a pasture. So if there environmental impact they'll still have to go through that with the counties as well. So one way or the other where the village of Marvin did it or, Union County I would suppose that there was environmental impact certainly they would have to address it. But it's the creek runs through a pasture, I've bird hunted that pasture probably 25 years, before there was ever a house out there it was just bean fields so I know the land pretty well. Thank you. Representative Leakey. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you Senator Tucker for going through this in such detail. >> Yes sir, I realized I'm in a house meeting not a senate. [LAUGH] I can't resist it sir. >> That was good. You said it, and you are you've mentioned the mayor and how the mayor knew of that conversation and you two being on the same page. What about the rest of the town council. This is mayors council I mean is this an issue that the town of Marlborough there's a lot of people who wish the [INAUDIBLE] would take place or a lot of people in the town Council. I mean where is the council on this? Are they unanimous with the mayor that they don't want a DNX? >> Yes sir. They are unanimous they sent letters to all the mayors in all the towns about this. In the letter it was stated that one of the owners of this Friend of mine from a business associate. We went to church together, vacation together, our kids grew up here. I told the Mayor all of that up front, that's where he got his information from. And he sent out a letter implying something about this deal smells, and I mean I'm not getting any financial benefit, from it. I'm just getting grief about it from the town and the council, and some people in the community but these are the same folks that ride by passes lane/g and they go three miles down the road in Mecklenberg spend their sales tax there and support Mecklenberg/g country schools. This will be a nice development in there. Let me just give you some history on this property if you wish. Now on the other side of the creek as representative Holly mentioned, there is a big housing development of luxurious homes, $500,000 - $600,000 homes. They are now. One of the plans was to develop backs since 2001 offered the. opportunity to set this up as commercial, set it up as apartments above the commercial property. Do R 20 and then R 40 wrap around and they developer had offered to build a town hall. Which the Marvin town council currently meets in a fellowship hall of a Presbyterian church. Develop that and put a library in and they declined that which is their prerogative. Just moving on here so after 10 or 12 years of negotiations between two entities and a consistent no. We're not gonna allow you to do anything and the need for commercial development in Union County is just taken two acres on the periphery not leaving a doughnut in the town, not impacting any kind of services whatsoever. But again I want to reiterate be candid they do not want this done, they wanna control that two acres which in turn controls the entire 22 acres. Representative Pendleton. >> Thank you for the explanation. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman I'd like to make a motion that we approve the PCS an unfavorable to the original. >> And a referral to finance. >> And a referral to finance. >> Thank you. You've heard the motion. All those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? The ayes have it, senate bill 774 is passed. >> Thank you. >> Senate bill 881, Union County School Funding, Senator Tucker and Representative Alp/g. >> Thank you members, thank you members of House Committee. I appreciate I'm gonna let Representative [UNKNOWN] handle it senator. >> [LAUGH] >> He'll get it done faster. >> This is a thank you members of what is this is a local funding, dealing with this is provides basically for one year. moratorium on law suits between then County Board of education and the school board. I mean, school board and the County Commissioners. >> We have a unique situation,
we have a fantastic school system in Union County, however as your well aware we've had some Issues regarding funding disputes. We have great advocates on the school board, we have great advocates on our county commission and we have a unique situation this year. And what this does is provide for a breather for one year. We have almost six, maybe now seven. Or six seats coming up on the school board, we've had two members resigned, our superintendent has retired. We have a lot of our senior staff that's retired. And so what we're doing is providing a moratorium for one year to allow The process to move forward and get new people in place without poisoning the water beyond that and just moving forward I'd ask for your support >> Representative Burr/g >> A motion and brief comments at appropriate time >> Go right ahead >> First off I I had the honor of representing the Union County for four years back when Representative Arp was a chairman of the school board and ever since he left and came to join us here in the House, their school board has sort of gone to the pits and things aren't quite where they need to be in my opinion but I think this certainly addresses an issue there and would have emotion at the appropriate time Mr. Chair. >> Go right ahead. >> Move for a favorable report of Senate Bill 8.81. You've heard the motion. We've already heard the motion. >> No Sir. When there's Go right ahead Representative Leeke. Go right ahead. >> To put a motion forward then I'd like to debate the motion. >> All right. You have the motion before you. Any further debate? Representative Luebke. >> Thank you sir. Representative Arp, whose idea is this? Is this coming from the county commissioners? Are they tired of the board of this the school board raising all these issues with them? I know of this generally because it's been in the news over the years but there's a problem. But this particular deal, who requested it? Who asked you to introduce it? >> Representative Luebke, everybody's tired of these lawsuits and the struggle and all the the taxing, toll it takes on the organizations and so forth. >> The County commissioners have asked for this. In my opinion there's not a realistic possibility of the school board suing, however, the County has asked for this and I believe for our community Community to have the assurance and everybody just say settles out that this is not still on the casp of issues that this is the appropriate thing for our district. The delegation is in support of it. I'm in support of this this because it's a measured approach to our particular situation. I will tell you I didn't want to poison the water with any further more thorium but provide the necessary stability for our community to go to to school board elections and go through this budget cycle. The County has actually already came out with a recommendation that they're discussing regarding that those are on going but if you notice in section two, what we have done is copy the language that is already in State law But it's about the joint meetings between the School Board and the County and in what we did in this language is change the word from may which is in current statue to shall for our situation that they shall meet together, they shall communicate, they shall develop a five year capital plan and they should do this. I believe that the voters are weary in union county and I'm not trying to take one side or the other. Advocacy for school funding needs are vital, our school board has done that, the County Commissioners I have been advocating for their priorities and they and have been faithfully doing that and the voters of Union County have elected both Boards so I respect that but I believe that this is a very measured approach for our unique situation in Union County and it gives us a breather. >> Thank you. Just quickly. >> Follow up. >> Yes. As follow up Tommy, not to go on for too long, this more term is gonna help in which way? I mean are we gonna have more time for x amount of time and then suddenly we'll have kumbaya between the Board of Education and
the County Commissioners? What is your scenario? >> Representative Lukey this This is a neutral. This doesn't help one side or the other, in my opinion, and quite frankly I expect elected leaders to behave like elected leaders that they've been elected to do. This is just short of that. That they advocate, and go through the process and serve their constituents I expect them to fulfill their roles just as people should expect me to fulfill my role here. I believe that this is a measured approach that doesn't advantage or disadvantage either way, and provides the necessary stability for our county and the residents and the voters that they can go Go through the process and elect their school board representatives, that they can select a new superintendent without the angst of any type of legal action as we get our house in order. >> Can you speak briefly? >> Yes, sir. I certainly appreciate Representative Arp, the amount of thought you clearly Clearly put into this and the situation that you have in your county. What's troubling to me, and this is not just about your bill but generally. We have elected bodies that pass certain policies that are bothersome to some people in the community or some people in other parts of the state or wherever and instead of letting the The elected officials serve out their term and then if they're seen as bums by the majority, then the bums have been thrown out, we intervene and we as the General Assembly have been intervening,and that troubles me here. If they both got elected by the voters, well let the voters tease it out in the Elections. That just seems like a better policy even though I acknowledge how articulate you've been about why you have a different conclusion so for those reasons, because of the general interventionism that I think is not right as opposed to letting the voters speak out. I can't support your bill, but thank you. >> Rep. Holly. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman Chairman, I'd like to make a comment too. What it does to me, it diminishes the authority of the people in the school board that were elected and they have a right to their year of authority and you're taking away part of their authority for another authority. And we're only talking about a one year period of time in which an election so it's like you're waiting for an election to change things, you can do that without this bill. I think we need to let this fall at election time and determine it, but what we're We are doing is we're predetermining something and we are taking away somebody's authority who has it and I can't support this. >> I understand. >> Representative Fisher. >> Thank you Mr chairman, I have a question for the bill sponsor, you mentioned in your earlier presentation that you will represent the bar mentioned, that you had been on the school. School board. I wonder if you see this as a sort of you swapping of the school board authority and how would you feel as a former school board member, were you a chair of the board? >> Yes I was. >> School board chair, if the legislature came and did. Did this to you because the way the bill reads is that the board of education shall not. It doesn't really speak to what the kind of commissions will do or will not do and I wonder if that makes you concerned for the action or lack. Lack of action on the part of the county commissioner that you may experience in Union County toward your schools. I mean funding is a huge deal for education and I just wonder. I wanna make sure you've put yourself as former School Board Chair, in the place of those board members that the authority of, seems to be used up in this bill. >> Yeah, thank you for that, Representative Fischer. I was chairman of the school board for six years and vice chair for two years prior to that, and so in total eight of the 12 years I was on the board, I was there. In fact when I was chair, we went to mediation because of the advocacy roles. However, I will tell you again the reason it's drafted the way it is because the right of action to pursue courts is vested with the school board and although the school board initiates the action and that's what this prevents, In my estimation, this is a measured approach that is for our county, that is a unique situation. I will tell you there is certainly some there in the county that don't want this, but the vast majority in my estimation are very tired and weary.
Our board that we've had two members resign from the school board, we've had our senior leadership and our school systems are fantastic. We're one of the top performers in the state as a large district, we're one of the lowest cost per student in the state in terms of efficiency in what we do, and we have very zealous advocates, on both sides, and I respect that, and before I haven't supported [INAUDIBLE] but in this particular case I think it's a measured approach that doesn't use up authority. They're already going through the process right now, what this does is provide certainty. I don't think that the school board is pursuing charges I mean, I'm more [INAUDIBLE] in it and so forth, but what this does s provide some certainty to the citizens who're weary of the struggle and it's a measured approach that allows and Representative Howley I certainly respect your comments there, because of the resignation of some of our school board members and the certain reelection process that will come about, we're gonna have a new board and my point is to give this voters of Union County some certainty, let the election take Take place however it may and get us through this next year, and let the elected people do their job in both advocacy and trying to balance that. >> Representative Szoka. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Not being an attorney I've read the bill summary, I've read the bill here several times and section one it says shall not file any legal action. I guess because we're hearing the bill, I guess the answer it is legal to phrase it like this. I just like to have staff comment on that because, again not being an attorney are we within our rights to deny access to the courts by doing this? >> Sir, the local government under the North Carolina constitution are creatures of the General Assembly, and the General Assembly can determine what they have the authority to do and what they don't have the authority to do. So yes, sir, the General Assembly is within it's rights to restrict the Union County Board of Education from seeking legal redress under those statutory provisions. >> Thank you, Representative Szoka. I think what we're talking about is that they don't have legal authority to not pursue any challenges under the authority set up in those In those specific sections. >> The motion is before us from Representative Burr for a favorable report. All those in favor say aye, All oppose. >> No. >> It appears the ayes have it, the ayes do have it. Senate bill 881 has been passed. We are adjourned. [SOUND]