Section 1.4 eliminates the Lottery Oversight Committee. This is not the commission that regulates the lottery, that’s the Lottery Commission, but this is an oversight committee. And this provision was included last year in SB 10, which, as you know, did not pass, so is included in this bill. Section 1.5 A and B of the bill would amend the Administrative Procedure Act and the Tax Law respectively to allow small businesses to be represented by one or more of its owners in either a contested case or a tax appeal case before the Property Tax Commission. The provision defines the small business entity as a limited liability company or a corporation that is owned directly or indirectly by no more than two individuals. Section 1.6 amends the Real Estate License Law to exempt owners, officers, managers, and employees of a closely held business entity from the requirement of obtaining a license in order to act as a real estate broker in connection with property that that business owned or leased. A closely held business is defined in this provision as a limited liability company or a corporation with no more than two legal owners. Section 1.7 would amend a law that was enacted in 2011 requiring that state agencies report on the number, type, and use of mobile devices that are issued by the agency. Currently, the law requires that the agencies report quarterly; this would change the reporting requirement to annually. The next eight provisions in the bill were recommended by the Joint Legislative Administrative Procedure Oversight Committee. The Section 1.8 of the bill would repeal a number of obsolete boards and commissions. This provision was also included in SB 10 that did not pass. APO recommended this to the 2013th Session of the General Assembly. It did not get enacted, so it was recommended again by APO. Section 1.9 would clarify the process for re-adoption of existing rules under the periodic review and expiration of rule process that was adopted last year. That process has been carried out by the Office of Administrative Hearings so that agencies have gone through the process of actually reviewing their rules. This provision would basically set forth the process and allow the Rules Review Commission to set the date by which rules have to be actually re-adopted by the agency. It includes a provision that says that agencies may make amendments to rules in the process of re-adoption, and it also provides that if the agency adopts a rule without any change, the agency’s not required to prepare a fiscal note for that rule. Section 1.10 authorizes licensing boards subject to the Professional Corporations Act to adopt rules to implement the provisions of that act. Currently, licensing boards are authorized under that act to charge fees. However, those licensing boards do not have specific rule making authority with regard to setting those fees. This provision would give them that authority. Section 1.11 amends the reporting requirements for occupational licensing boards and would include several additional items of information they’re not required to report on currently, including the total number of licensees and the number of applicants who failed the examination each year. This provision also requires that the APO committee notify any board that fails to report, as required by law, and also requires them to submit the reports electronically. Section 1.12 would authorize the Office of Administrative Hearings to allow documents in a contested case to be filed and served electronically. Section 1.13 clarifies that the State Board of Education is subject to rule making under the APA. It also adds language similar to that found in 150B-18 to the education law to clarify that the State Board is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act in that policies not adopted in accordance with the APA are unenforceable. There’s also a provision that would amend the APA to clarify that a person who’s aggrieved by an agency’s failure to act may commence, contest, and case if the administrative law judge finds that the agency failed to act as required by law. The ALJ can order the agency to act within a specified time. Finally, the provision clarifies that the right to judicial intervention applies when a final agency decision has been unreasonably delayed. Section 1.14
Streamlines the rule-making process by eliminating the requirement that agencies obtain a certification from the office of state budget and management, or if it’s a council of state agency, from the rules review commission, before submitting the text of a rule for publication. The provision also provides that, changes the fiscal note section to provide that an agency must obtain certification from OSBM, that they’ve adhered to certain principles in preparing a substantial economic impact fiscal note. Section 1.15 of the PCS, I’m sorry of the bill, clarifies that the petitioner has the burden of proof in most contested cases. This is currently the law. This provision would also establish that agencies, the state agency has the burden in two categories of cases: one, in cases involving the imposition of civil fines and penalties, and the other in cases involving the demotion, suspension or discharge of a career state employee. The joint legislative administration procedure oversight committee is directed to study whether there are other categories of cases in which the burden of proof should be reassigned. Section 1.16 amends the law governing legislative appointments to boards and commissions. It would basically provide that in cases where the speaker or the president pro tem is directed by law to make a recommendation for the appointment to the full general assembly, upon the recommendation or consultation with a third party, that the consultation or recommendation is not binding. It’s merely a suggestion, and that the third party must submit their recommendations at least 60 days before the expiration of the term, or within 10 days of a vacancy. It also provides that failure by the third party to make the recommendation within the time provided by law, would be deemed a waiver of their opportunity to make that recommendation. The provision sets the same time limits and consequence in cases where the speaker and the pro tem are directed make recommendations from nominees provided by a third party. Similar changes are also made in cases where the legislator is authorized to make the appointment directly, so that it’s not required to be done necessarily by the full general assembly. That is the end of part 1. The first section of part 2 [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can we stop one moment and then we’ll go on to that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, there has been a number of amendments that are being put in now, we’re going to give it an extra few minutes. We move the time to 10:45 as the deadline for amendments. If they’re not here by 10:45, then they will not be considered in this committee. So we’ve extended it by 15 minutes. And it’s to be delivered right to our clerk. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Section 2.1 of the PCS would amend the administrative procedure act to create a new process for contested cases in which multiple licenses are required from an agency for a single activity. In those cases the head of the agency is authorized to issue a written determination. The agency decision is only reviewable on the date the last license for the activity is issued, denied, or otherwise disposed of. The written determination is not subject to contested case under this provision. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The next section of the second edition is section 2.2. This would amend the process for filing contested cases for air quality permit decisions of the environmental management commission. Oh I’m sorry I forgot to introduce myself. I’m Jeff Hudson, staff attorney in the research division of general assembly. Again, this is air quality permit contested case decisions. The amendment would provide that the filing for a contested case by a person who is not the permittee or permit applicant would not automatically stay the EMC’s decision which would be the case if the permit applicant or permittee were filing for the contested case. It also limits the liability of a person who is not the permittee or the permit applicant. To file the contested case to circumstances where the EMC’s decision would result in an exceedance of the national ambient air quality standard. Section 2.3 of the second edition would direct the department of environment and natural resources to treat a dairy waste containment basin, so a dairy waste lagoon, as closed and no longer part of animal waste management system and no longer subject to the regulations of animal waste management systems, if the owner of the basin demonstrates to the satisfaction of the department of environment and natural resources that the basin has been only used for dairy cows.
It was constructed prior to 1967, it’s not been used to contain dairy cattle waste since September 1, 2006, the only liquid currently in the basin is from rainwater or rainwater runoff and the nitrogen levels in the basin do not exceed 40 parts per million. Section 2.4 would amend the process for filing contested cases regarding Coastal Area Management Act or CAMA permits. These permits would be decided on by the Coastal Resources Commission. The change would provide that the filing of a contested case by a person who is not the permit applicant would not automatically suspend the permit. Section 2.5 would authorize the Governor, during a state of emergency, to issue an executive order to waive permit or environmental document requirements under the State Environmental Policy Act, the state Sedimentation Pollution Control Act and the state’s Coastal Area Management Act – again, CAMA – under these circumstances: It would be for the repair, protection, safety, enhancement or replacement of a component of the state highway system that provides the sole road access to an incorporated municipality or unincorporated inhabited area bordering the ocean or a coastal sound where the bridge or road conditions, as a result of the emergency event, pose a substantial risk to public health, safety or welfare. The executive order must include the duration of the waiver and the activities to which the waiver applies. The provision also provides that replacement of this infrastructure isn’t limited to the exiting size or location, so replacement could be larger or more capacity or a different location. Section 2.6 would repeal the fee for under dock oyster culture permits. These permits authorize the holder to attach up to 90 square feet of oyster cultivation containers to their dock. I believe last year, the session before ya’ll established a 100 dollar fee for that permit. This would repeal that fee requirement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m Peter Ledford. I’m a staff attorney with the Research Division. Section 2.7 is something that passed this chamber in SB 6-12, during the long session. Under current law, cities are authorized to lease property owned by the city for up to 10 years, and certain cities are authorized to lease property for the purpose of citing and operating renewable energy facilities for 20 years. This provision would allow all cities to lease property for up to 25 years and would remove the restriction for certain cities. Similarly, Section 2.8 also came from SB 6-12. This governs businesses liquidating inventory during a going-out-of-business sale. Under current law, the business must obtain a license from the Clerk of the city or an officer designated by the local board of county commissioners. This section would amend that law to say that the license would be obtained from an officer designated by the governing board of the city. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.1 would amend our regulations for impacts to isolated wetlands in a couple of ways. First it would increase the number of isolated wetlands that could be impacted without a permit from one third of an acre to one acre for areas east of Interstate 95, and from a tenth of an acre to one acre for areas west of Interstate 95. Right now you can impact up to a third of an acre east of 95 and a tenth of an acre west of 95 without having to get a permit. This would change that so that you could impact up to one acre either east or west of 95 without having to get a permit. It would also decrease the amount of mitigation required to compensate for impacts to isolated wetlands and would direct the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to study the regulatory thresholds which apply to mountain bogs, which is a specific kind of isolated wetland. And then my colleague Jennifer ??, who’s over on the side, is going to do the next one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chairman. I’m Jennifer ??. I’m an analyst on the staff in the Research Division. Section 3.2, the second addition, would authorize the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission to grant a Brewing, Distillation and Fermenting course authorization to a college or community college that offers the program as part of its curriculum. This would be similar in scope to the authorization for college Viticulture programs and courses that was enacted back in 2002. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.3 of the PCS would amend the requirements for carbon monoxide alarms that are applying to lodging establishments that were passed in last year’s Regulatory Reform Bill. This provision includes technical revisions and directs the Building Code Council to amend the code accordingly. This would also establish requirements for violations that pose imminent hazard to be immediately reported to the local health…
health director and violations that do not pose an imminent hazard would have, the owner would have three days to rectify the situation before submitting the violation to the local health director. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.4 would provide that if the Environment Management Commission receives a rule making petition from a unit of local government with jurisdiction over an area to be served by a proposed water intake that is impacted by a reclassification made by the commission after January 1st, 2012 the unit of local government that requests the repeal of the reclassification must be granted the rule making petition by the EMC. The reclassification in any related local ordinance changes will be stayed until the EMC has adopted rules that are retroactively effective to the date of the original classification and the units of local government that filed for the petition must repeal their local government ordinances that changes that were required to implement the reclassification. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.5 of the bill deals with the North Carolina building code. Currently the building code requires all recreational and sports facilities, including swimming pools, be provided with handicapped accessible features. This provision would direct the building code council to amend the building code so that it's no more stringent than the Federal American's with Disabilities Act. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm Jennifer McGinnis and I am the staff attorney with the research division. Section 3.6 of the bill would establish a disclosure privilege for environmental audit reports that would generally prohibit the use of these reports as evidence in civil and administrative proceedings. Under the bill "environmental audit" means, "a voluntary internal evaluation or review of one or more facilities or an activity at one of these facilities that is regulated under environmental laws or management systems that relate to the facility." And also that the activity would be designed to "identify and prevent noncompliance and to improve compliance with environmental laws." The definition explicitly provides that the audit must be a "discreet activity with specified beginning date and scheduled ending date reflecting the auditor's bona fide intended completion schedule." So in addition to the disclosure privilege for the audit itself the provision would also prohibit persons who conduct or participate in an audit from being compelled to testify regarding the audit report or part of the audit report, except in certain circumstance. In addition, the provision would generally establish immunity for owners and operators of facilities from imposition of civil and administrative penalties and fines by enforcement agencies for a violation of environmental laws discovered through the conduct of the audit. The provision specifically provides, however, that waiver of penalties and fines would not be granted until the applicable enforcement agency certifies that the violation has been corrected within a reasonable period of time. So that, essentially, means that the enforcement agency retains it's penalty discretion until the violation is corrected. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.7 would exempt a childcare program operated by a non-public school before or after normal school hours from licensure and regulation by the Childcare Commission. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.9 would direct the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to review it's ambient air quality and monitoring network and request from USEPA the authority to remove any monitor that's not required by Federal Law. It would also direct the department, no later than September 1 of this year, to discontinue all monitors, air quality monitors, not required by Federal Law and for which EPA approval for discontinuance is not required. The section would not preclude the department from installing temporary monitors as part of an investigation of a suspected violation of air quality law or in response to an emergency situation causing imminent danger to human health or safety. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.10 would amend the Good Samaritan Law to provide that a person who provides emergency services voluntarily, not expecting at that time to be paid for those services, is protected from liability under the act. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.11 of the bill would direct the Environmental Management Commission to mend rules in the administrative code that pertain to open burning without an air quality permit to provide that, in addition to the open burning of leaves, tree branches, and yard trimmings
a permit is not required for the burning of logs and stumps when certain conditions are met. This section would also amend the statutes to prohibit local air pollution control program authorities, the department and the EMC from regulating combustion heaters, appliances, or fireplaces in private dwellings, except as authorized by federal law. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.12 of the bill would direct the Coastal Resources Commission to adopt rules disallowing the establishment of any inlet hazard area in any location where the location formerly contained an inlet but the inlet has been closed for at least 15 years, or the location no longer contains the inlet due to shoreline migration, or the location includes an inlet providing access to a state port via a channel maintained by the US Army Corps of Engineers. This section would not prevent the commission from studying current or potential inlet hazard areas or designating new inlet hazard areas. Section 3.13 would authorize the Wildlife Resources Commission to issue a field-trial dog handler or judge permit, which would allow a person to participate as a dog handler or judge in a field trial without possessing a hunting license. The person cannot participate in hunting activities with the dog, but field trials using exclusively domestically-raised water fowl and game birds, or legally taken dead game are not considered hunting activities, and this section will become effective July 1st, 2014. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.15 is a recommendation of the LRC Committee on the assessment on the utility regulatory fee. Currently all public utilities operating in the state pay a regulatory fee set by the General Assembly that is a percentage of their jurisdictional revenues. The fee is used to pay for the expenses incurred by the operation of the utilities commission and the public staff. Reforms enacted by the General Assembly in 2009 and 2011 allowed certain telecommunication companies to elect to participate in an alternative form of regulation that involves less oversight. This section of the bill would lower the regulatory fee for those companies electing to participate in the alternative forms of regulation and would direct that the utility fee for all other public utilities be adjusted to cover the expenses incurred by the utilities commission and the public staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] 10 minutes. Remember, you have to have your amendments in over here by 10:45. Sorry, continue please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Sherman. Section 3.16 would amend a change that the legislature made last year to the Jordan Lake rules. It was specifically ?? that the piping of a stream allowed under a permit issues by the US Army Corps of Engineers would be an exempt use rather than an allowable use under the rules. The distinction is that an exempt use does not require a local government authorization law and an allowable use does. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.17 of the bill would repeal various air quality reporting requirements for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Environmental Management Commission. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.18 would clarify that when a venomous reptile is seized and anti-venom approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for that reptile is not readily available, the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences or the North Carolina Zoo, or other designated representative, must euthanize the reptile unless the species is protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.19 of the bill would transfer the rule-making responsibilities for on-site waste management systems from the Commission for Public Health to the Environmental Management Commission. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.20 would provide that the General Assembly finds that the governor's waste board, which was repealed in 1993, has rules that are no longer enforceable or necessary. This section would direct the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources to repeal those rules on or before December 1 of this year. It also prohibits any political subdivision of the state from enforcing the rules. The 1993 legislation that repealed the board transferred its duties to the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, and those are largely about preemption of local government ordinances that would have the effect of prohibiting a low-level radioactive waste facility. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.21 of the bill would amend a provision that was enacted in 2013 to provide for reduced flow alternatives for waste water systems, such that in addition to exempting establishments, dwelling units would now be exempt from the daily flow rate for design, and any design flow standard under certain conditions. This section would also direct the Commission for Public Health and the Department of Health and Human Services to establish flow rate limits by rule that are based on scientific evidence specific to soil types that are found in this state.
Section 3.22 would repeal two obsolete previsions in the criminal law. The first relates to using profane or indecent language on public highways and the second relates to refusing to relinquish a party line in an emergency. speaker changes Section 3.23 of the bill would increase certain penalties for the taking of protected plants. The bill would increase from a minimum penalty of ten dollars up to a minimum of seventy-five dollars. And it would increase the maximum penalty from fifty dollars to one hundred and seventy-five dollars per offense. The section would also require the clerk of port for the jurisdiction to report the conviction to the Plant Conservation Board provided that the plant taken is also listed under the protected plants list pursuant to the Plant Protection and Conservation Act. speaker changes Section 3.24 would amend the motor vehicle law to increase the penalty range for violating the handicap parking privileges provision. Under current law, the minimum penalty is one hundred dollars and the maximum is two hundred and fifty dollars. This provision would increase that from a minimum of three hundred dollars to a maximum of five hundred. It also removes the provision from the law that requires that signs designating handicap parking spaces must state the maximum penalty for violating the law. This provision would prohibit signs displaying incorrect maximums. Speaker changes Section 3.25 would repeal several redundant and obsolete reports as requested by the North Carolina Utilities Commission. Speaker changes Section 3.26 would repeal the requirement for the state energy office to conduct energy audits of each state agency and institution of higher learning as a part of the department of administrations facilities condition and assessment program. The section would also change from annual to bi-annual the required updates to the management plans developed by state agencies and institutions of higher learning to manage energy, water, and utility use. Speaker changes. Section 3.27 deals with the state's coastal storm water rules. Under those rules certain properties are granfathered and the rules don't apply to them. This would extend that grandfather to properties that are contiguous to grandfathered properties. speaker changes. Section 3.28 would authorize the use of any pesticide registered by the Pesticide Board to control any species of mole other than the Star-nosed Mole if pesticide Board rules are followed and hazards to non-target species are minimized. Speaker Changes. Section 3.29 would exempt any residential building subject to periodic inspection by the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency from a county or city's authority to conduct periodic inspections as part of a targeted effort within a geographic area if the residential building is in compliance with the federal standards. And the owner must provide the resident the certification on the residential building that's supplied by the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency to the local inspection department. Speaker changes. Section 3.30 is another building code prevision. The North Carolina fire code requires that no more than one half of the doors of certain buildings be equipped with security grills. This section of the bill would require the Building Cod Council to amend the code so the grills are permitted at all exits as long as the grills may be opened from the inside while the building is occupied by authorized persons and grills remain open when the building is occupied by the general public. Speaker Changes Once second. Just as a reminder, 10:45, so if you have an amendment, you need to have it up here by 10:45 otherwise it won't be addressed in today's finance meeting. Thank you. Speaker changes. Thank you Mr. Chair. Section 3.31 of the second addition would effective August 1st, 2015, rewrite the laws to require that any person engaged in the business of landscape contracting must obtain a license. Speaker Changes. Section 3.32 would allow a person who discovers a shipwreck or salvages marine artifacts from state waters and who donates the artifacts or contractual interest in the artifacts to the state to retain the right to access the artifacts and display them on tour or conduct non-destructive research on them if he or she: one, pays forty percent of the net proceeds from display of the artifacts to the general fund, 2. leaves at least 1/3 of the artifacts in safe custody, 3. provides to the state two scale replicas of unique artifacts at no cost while the artifacts are on display elsewhere, 4. returns the artifacts to the state at least
Every two years for a period of at last one year. And 5 promotes the cultural and natural heritage of the state and any display of the artifacts. This right will be valid for 30 years, and at the end of the 30-year period, the state would return provided replicas to the person who donated the artifacts, or the person’s heir designee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.33 of the bill would transfer all rule-making authority for matters related to solid and hazardous waste from the Commission for Public Health to the Environmental Management Commission. And section 3.34 of the bill would transfer all rule-making authority for matters under the North Carolina Drinking Water Act from the Commission for Public Health to the Environmental Management Commission, including drinking water rules to regulate public water systems. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.35 would provide an exemption from the requirements of the electrical contractor’s statutes for the installation, construction, maintenance or repair of electrical wiring devices, appliances, or equipment by person certified as a well contractor so long as the wires are between the well pump and the pressure switch. This section would also direct the Well Contractor’s Certification Commission to establish minimum education, experience and knowledge requirements for its certified individuals. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.36A would provide the private drinking water well permitting, inspection, and testing programs administered by county health departments. Must use standard forms created by the Department of Natural Resources, unless the local program submits a petition for rule-making to the Environmental Management Commission and the EMC finds by rule that the area has unique conditions constituting a threat to public health that would be mitigated by the use of a different form. The bill would also provide that local health department registries of private drinking water wells must be searchable by the address served by the well. Section 3.36B – D would provide that neither the department nor any local well program may require that well contractor identification plates include well construction permit numbers and directs the Environmental Management Commission to adopt conforming rules. A local well program may install the plate with the well construction permit number or any other relevant information on the well at its own expense. Section 3.36E would provide that if the well location marked on the map submitted with an application to a local well program is also marked with a stake on the property, the local well program may not require the contractor to be onsite during the onsite predrill inspection provided that the contractor’s available to answer questions by telephone. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 4.1 begins Part 4 of the bill encompassing studies. This section would direct the Department of Ag and Consumer Services to create the Honeybee Improvement for Vital Ecology working group. The working group would be directed to proactively address an issue colony collapse disorder and is directed to report its findings and recommendations to the Environmental Review Commission by November 30th of this year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 4.2 would direct the Division of Marine Fisheries and the Department of Natural Resources to designate an area of approximately 10,000 acres in the Pamlico Sound as a recommendation to the Environmental Review Commission for the creation of the Senator Jean Preston Marine Shellfish Sanctuary and to create a plan for managing that sanctuary. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 4.3 of the bill is a recommendation from the Environmental Review Commission. This section would direct the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to study the statutes and rules governing inner base and transfers and to make recommendations as to whether the statues and rules should be amended. DENR is directed to report to the Environmental Review Commission no later than October 1st of 2014. Section 4.4 is also an ERC recommendation. It would direct the program evaluation division at the General Assembly to study the benefits that may result from the merger of public water systems and waste water collection and treatment works. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Part 5 of the bill is a severability clause and effective date and Mr. Chair, that completes our review of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, staff, for an excellent report. As you can see, we have a lot of important material before us. Senator Wade, would you like? By the way, the deadline is up for the amendments. So, we’re going to work with the ones we have. Senator Wade, you have the microphone. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have any further comments unless there’s questions, and I’d like to thank the staff for the presentation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Very good. Now, to make this run efficiently what we want to do is when you have a question on a specific section, identify that section so our right staff people can get to that area.
Just to allow us to move along at a quick pace, excuse me. Alright, members of the Finance Committee, questions? Senator Goolsby. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Section 3.24, increased penalties for parking in handicapped spaces without required placard, it appears, and perhaps I'm reading it wrong, that we're gonna have to have all of our local business in the state, everybody who maintains parking lots with signs, looks like are going to now have to redesign all of their signs and replace them. Do we have a fiscal note or any idea what the cost will be to the public and to the state for all of these new signs? 'Cause there will be a, I guess, thousands of them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff, do we have someone that can help Senator Goolsby? The question about a fiscal note on the replacement of the handicapped signs. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Identify yourself when you, oh I'm sorry, Senator Wade has a response. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby, my understanding is these signs won't have to be replaced. That there are types of stickers that can be put over them and not all of them have "maximum $100 on it." But I'm understanding that there is an easier fix for that. When we went through the discussion I was told that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does that satisfy or did you have a follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That helps. Okay, I would appreciate if we get some kind of feedback from staff if there's been any fiscal note run. That seems to make sense, I hope that that's practical. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff, do we have an answer with, say, a little bit more defined on that question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We do not have this reflected in the fiscal note. We'll follow up with the analyst to see if we have any further information and get back with Senator Goolsby. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby, we will work to see if we can get you an answer to your question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir, Dr. Lauren's also helping me with it right now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, very good. Members of the Finance Committee, additional questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I got Brock. Senator Brock you have first. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Need to send forth an amendment. Are we gonna take amendments now or questions? It's already been passed up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, no amendments won't be taken until after the recess, okay? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, question about section 3.16. It has to do with Jordan Lake and I know we took away the ability of Durham County or Durham City to be able to govern themselves in their own jurisdictional ?? session. My question is does this further limit the ability of either of those jurisdictions and any other jurisdiction in terms of what the rules are for repairing buffers at Jordan Lake? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade, you have a response? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, my understanding is the federal mitigation process already is basically the same as what the local jurisdiction is and it's just redundant for them to have to do it twice after they do the federal, the streams and a pipe, it doesn't have, it's not a stream anymore it's not under the ground. So there aren't any buffers and it's the, already been, the mitigation papers have been done by the federal government. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a follow-up question on that and then one other question. The follow-up is have the jurisdictions around Jordan lake indicated that they were fine with this provision? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll have to get help from staff on that particular issue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff, does anyone else help us with that question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We do not know if any of those jurisdictions were consulted about this provision. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you and then an additional question- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, Senator Stein? [SPEAKER CHANGES] On another section, section 3.1, the regulation of impact to isolated wetlands, and my question is is 1/3 of an acre to 1 acre east of 95 and 1/10 of an acre to 1 acre west, what percentage of wetlands will this change apply to? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, isolated wetlands are 2% of what the state controls and right now we've already passed regulations that they're exempt from this and this is a compromise. This body passed that, sent it over to the House. This is a compromise to do 1 acre and you have to remember these isolated wetlands just contain rainwater and it's sorta like a mud hole that you fill in. That'd be the best way to describe it, and so they do, after an acre, have to do mitigation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a follow-up question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, and just so I understand, the
these isolated wetlands are 2% of all wetlands? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Correct, that the state controls. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What is the state control? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That the state has any control over, not the federal government. The federal government controls the other 98%. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So you all set to understand? Okay, I've got Senator Daniel. Anybody else need to ask a question please raise your hand so I can identify. Senator McKissick, great. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Wade, I guess I wanted to return back to the handicapped parking space issue. I just wanted to, is there some problem across the state that drove this? That we need to double the penalties? I guess I just wondered what the rationale was for that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My understanding, there's been a lot of complaints that people still park in handicapped that do not have the license to park there and they were hoping that increasing the penalty would stop that from happening. The difference between paying $100 and $500 might defer that from happening. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Daniel, you okay with that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] My personal opinion is it's probably not necessary but I don't know that I'm- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, you had your question answered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I've got Senator McKissick. Welcome, Senator McKissick, good to see you today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good to see you as well, Mr. Chair, as always. A couple of questions, I noticed there was a provision here dealing with the carbon monoxide alarm, section 3.3. I was just trying to get some clarity in terms of what we are doing in connection with that. I know there were some deaths at motels, hotels as a result of carbon monoxide being released and it was not detected and I believe that was the reason for this being passed, as I recall it was up in Boone but somewhere in that area. Could somebody provide a little bit more clarity as to that first- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff will respond to your question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Identify yourself, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Peter Ledford with the Research Division. Senator McKissick you are correct, there were, I believe, three deaths at a hotel outside of Boone. In last year's regulatory reform bill, HB 74, we passed a provision that would require carbon monoxide detectors at hotels, motels, and other lodging establishments. Subsequent to that we received feedback from, among others, the Building Code Council and the State Fire Marshall's Office that there's a distinction between a carbon monoxide detector and a carbon monoxide alarm and some other technical changes. So those are the provisions that are primarily ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, did you get an appropriate answer? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, just a quick follow-up, so this- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, this is just simply to clarify that provisions, it doesn't, it's not effectively repealing any of those things that we thought we were enacting last year to require a better monitoring of carbon monoxide in those situations? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir, this is primarily to clarify and then to add the provisions regarding how it will be enforced. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Second. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, ?? say to you and that is some of the things they told me was whether it was wired, actually the wires go into the detector or it plugs into a socket. They had to clarify some of those things so the building code people, when they went out to inspect, would know. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up on a separate issue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I noticed, also, under section 1.8K, this provision here which would encourage the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to abolish the Actual Innocence Commission. It's my understanding that the current Chief Justice as well as Mark Martin, who's sitting Justice today, I know he's running for Chief Justice, as well as Chief Justice Beverly Lake when he was around felt that this was a good initiative, the Actual Innocence Commission. I understand what came from there were recommendations dealing with the Inquiry Commission that was subsequently established but it's my understanding that there's a belief among either sitting justices as well as prior justices of both parties that, believe that this is something that needs to continue so I was trying to get some further information as to why that would be abolished at this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, I'm gonna refer to Senator Hartsell. I think he can give you a better understanding of that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, Senator Hartsell, response please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Very simply, the Actual Innocence Commission was set up by the Chief Justice, it's operated by the Chief Justice and we're simply asking them to terminate it because it hasn't been acting for the last several years. They have a separate entity that is doing much of the same thing and we're just trying to clean that up.
we don't wanna direct it because it wasn't set up by the legislature and we don't want a separation of powers kind of issue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Quick follow-up [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that clear? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is, I guess when I saw that I took the liberty of speaking with Chris Mumma of the Inquiry Commission and information that's come to me just in the last hour is that there's a belief that this entity still needs to continue functioning and operating at their duties and things that it could continue following through on that would further the potential exoneration of innocent people. So I would hope we would consult with those parties before we move forward with the because we may find that there's reason to, perhaps, delete this from the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any other questions, Senator Mckissick, you all set? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not at this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, I've got Senator Tucker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to raise a question, after we reviewed this bill yesterday in ??, I've got a real problem with community colleges selling beer. I know that the brewery and the winery business has taken off in our state and it's created jobs. By no means does this question raise the issue of the training to put those folks in those jobs but to start the ball rolling selling alcohol at community colleges, like we do winery, I didn't find out until this morning that we sell wine at community colleges. I know this program was mirrored after that but I don't know what message it sends, I don't know where we stop it. I know that there wants to be a casino in Cleveland County, does that mean that we're gonna have a practice gaming jobs training program at that community college? Does that mean that since public colleges are selling alcohol, does that mean that since I own lifetime seats at NC State's football games does that mean I'm gonna be able to buy alcohol at the University? I know it's wine or beer that's created through the program and they sell it. I think that it possibly could be transferred to breweries and/or wineries to sell rather than the community colleges being in the business of selling alcohol, getting a permit, and then assuming the liability if someone were to drink too much at an event and that's just kinda my hypothetical. It kinda sounds like Senator McKissick, I know when I get out there with hypotheticals, but I think it's worth talking about. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tucker, what was that question again? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's what we say to Senator McKissick most of the time. The question is, is, I oppose selling beer and wine through community colleges. I would, perhaps let us look at choosing another vehicle rather than starting this out. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Tucker, all I can say to you is they can only do six events and they're limited to the amount of beer they can sell, and it's the same as the wine industry. And I understand your point but this is what's in this particular bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up? Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I know it can come out and I know they can sell 64 cases. Now, when I was in college that wouldn't have been enough but today it is. I don't, I just, I'm opposed to it and if it comes, if we could work on taking it out then fine, if we can't I'll lose this battle, I'm fine with that as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Okay, I've got Senator Woodard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. A question probably for staff on the Marine Artifacts Section. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What is the section? [SPEAKER CHANGES] 3.32. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just wanna understand what the current rules are related to that. Again, if you don't have that right at hand somebody could follow up with me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please identify yourself. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm Jeff Hudson on the research staff. We were actually looking into that a bit last night. We don't have that right now but I'll be happy to follow up with that and get that information to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll take the answer offline, thank you, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, I've got Senator Tillman. Any other members would like to have a question in this committee before we go to Senator Tillman? Seeing none. Okay, Senator Tillman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You know, it's a good thing I've got a clear mind at 73 because I would have forgotten all that I was gonna ask. Now, I've got a comment and then a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's clear right 'til now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is it your birthday? You keep mentioning 73. Is it your birthday, are we supposed to sing you something? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, I've had six birthdays this year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's not today. On the Innocence Commission, what you would need to do folks, if you love this commission, is to find out how many cases they've reviewed over the several years
we've had it and how many cases resulted in a reversal of the decision, okay? In these death penalty cases. Find out that if you're interested. Number 2, on the handicapped parking. I don't care if we charge $1,000 fine that's not my issue, my issue is I go to many places and there's no handicapped. Some have one and some have ten. I wanna know what the regulation is on the number of spaces you may have or not have or is it totally discretionary? Can somebody answer that one for me? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff, can we give a response back to the requirement of the number of handicapped spaces in the building and how do you arrive at it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, I believe that that is controlled by the Department of Transportation but I will get a more specific answer for Senator Tillman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tillman, we'll get an answer to that question, we don't have it right offhand. Follow up question? Are you, is that it? Okay, members of the committee, we are going to, Senator McKissick, sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One quick question on one other section here and that's the one dealing with the repeal of the energy audits, 3.26. I was wondering, are we repealing that section in it's entirety? I see some language here talking about requiring updates biannually vs. annually, but if I could some clarity there because these are audits which are done to help us conserve energy and water, utility usage in our state buildings which ultimately saves us a lot of money. So if somebody could provide some clarity on what we are doing there so I can- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can you identify yourself and please respond to Senator McKissick's question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Of course, thank you Mr. Chair. Jennifer Mundt, analyst with the research divisions. Senator McKissick, what this provision would so is first, you are dealing with the repeal of the program. This is facilities condition and assessment program audit under that provision, under the Department of Administration, so that would be repealed, that provision. There's another report that would be done and that's in subsection A on page 39 of your bill in front of you and that one simply changes the reporting of that or updating of the management plant from annually to biannually so that's a change. So, to answer your question, that report that you're asking about, that is a repeal of that report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Quick follow-up, if I could. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, follow-up question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So what would continue to exist, I mean, in terms of the energy audits that have been required for the last several years? Because when we adopted those provisions it was with the idea of state saving money on utilities and operating expenses with state buildings and facilities. So that was the goal, so I'm wondering what would continue to exist if that is, in fact, being repealed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can we...? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I may, Mr. Chair, can I look into that a little further for you offline, Senator McKissick, and get you a response? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That'll be fine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We'll work on trying to get you a response back. Members of the committee and financial committee, any additional questions? Alright, we have five amendments, we're going to have to spend a few moments reviewing them so that we can fully understand what they do. What that means is at 11:25, we're gonna recess until 11:25 at which time we'll begin and start taking on the amendments appropriately. This committee meeting is recessed until 11:25. Finance Committee is back in order. We've got to be out of this room before noon so we're going to get through this very quickly. Would everyone please find a seat? Okay, Senator Rabin, are you ready for your amendment? We have three amendments to proceed through, two of them have been withdrawn. Just hold on one second please, 11:25 is 11:25. Okay, please proceed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This amendment is to SB 734 which is the Military Lands Protection Act that was passed before. The amendments make no substantive change to what we passed before but it
does rename, or re-designate, who will be the responsible agency to oversee the act's provisions and it gives some guidance on what folks can do with regard to holding information until ?? is finally settled out in his final decisions. It names the state construction office of the Department of Administration vice the Building Code Council as the folks who will oversee the provisions. This is the one that gives the buffer zone to the military installations so they can conduct training and it requires that they give out accurate maps, and so forth, so that other folks know what to avoid and what the restrictions are. I request that someone move to pass it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're a member of the committee. Do you move- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] -that we accept this amendment and it will be up for discussion. Okay, Senator Wade, would you be kind enough to respond to Senator Rabin's amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, Thank you. As the bill sponsor I'm very favorable to this amendment. I think you've done a good job, Mr. Rabin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, members of the committee, any questions regarding Senator Rabin's amendment of adding to the ?? reform bill? No questions? Seeing none. There's a motion before us that we accept Senator Rabin's amendment and include it into the SB 734. All in favor please say "I," all opposed "nay," "I's" have it. Okay thank you, Senator Rabin, that will be included. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you and thank all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, Senator Barefoot would you please come forward with your amendment? And I believe members have that before them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What this amendment does is it amends a statute that we passed last year concerning expedited processes of inter-basin transfers to allow the Kerr Lake water system to go through an expedited process. Currently the Kerr Lake water system draws 10 million gallons per day, that's it's IBT permit. It has a contract with the core that goes back to the 70's for 20 million gallons a day. It is, it's pipes fit 20 million gallons a day. What's happened is the area has been growing and the growth needs require for the Kerr Lake water system to match it's permit to the army corps contract and all this would do is allow it to use the expedited process. So far, it has been in the process for six years, it's cost about $600,000. The water it already allotted and everyone is, all the locals are in support of this. The legislative delegations, it's bipartisan in support of this so I ask that you adopt it, make a motion- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bill sponsor would be very favorable to this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Daniel, question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Barefoot, I just wanted to clarify, this won't affect any inter-basin transfers west of I-77? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any additional questions, members of the committee, for Senator Barefoot's amendment? It has received positive consideration from the bill sponsor. Seeing none, we have a motion that we accept Senator Barefoot's amendment to be part of SB 734. All in favor please say "I," opposed "nay," "I's" have it, thank you Senator Barefoot. Senator Brock. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's for send forward amendment please[?] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, Senator Brock has an amendment, you should have it before you. Senator Brock would you explain the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If it's alright I'll do it from here. A lot of this is the Omnibus amendment, making some technical changes, grammatical changes, but also if you look, going back to the back on page, let me get my working copy here, page 7, or excuse me, line 7 on the back of page number 2, deletes the transfer, and going down to line number 10 it's the offshore, Senator Woodard, your questions about the archives, that's been deleted as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, that's it. Senator Wade as bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly support it.
Alright, the bill sponsor supports this amendment. Any questions, members of the Finance Committee? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was just going to say the transfer is on page – [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brock. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chairman. The transfer that was deleted was on page 34, line 27 – waste water, and the other one was the archives. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, members of the Committee, you have the motion before you to include Senator Brock’s amendment into SB 734. Additional questions? Seeing none, all in favor please say “Aye”. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oppose, “Nay”. Ayes have it. Senator Wade, thank you, and members of the Committee, you have Senate Bill 734, as amended, before you. Senator Curtis, you have a motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mister Chairman. I move to get SB 734 as amended a favorable report enrolled into a new PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, members of the Committee, Senator Curtis made a motion to give SB 734 as amended a favorable report enrolled into a new PCS. That is before you. Any questions of this Committee? Seeing none, all in favor please say “Aye”. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oppose, “Nay”. Ayes have it, and that will be moved forward to the floor. Members of the Finance Committee, thank you for allowing us to put together a real efficient Finance Committee, and we will continue meeting during the short session. This meeting is adjourned.