A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | May 2, 2013 | Chamber | Environment

Full MP3 Audio File

We call the environment comity to order, I wanna thank every body for being here today. We have tree pages with us today. Please raise your hand or stand up when I call your name. Mathew Jones from Rowan county representative Ford is his sponsor Williams Jones from Rowan county representative Ford must be brothers. We have Naomi Sinclair from Catawba county representative Wall,s. We like to thank our Sergent at arms today Bill Bass, Berry More and Charles Devon. Thank you guys for being here today. First order of business today will be house bill 505 representative Waddell and we have a comity substitute for that. representative stars moves it ?? all in favor say aye, opposed no. the ayes have it. And its property before us. Representative Waddel explain your bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Thank you Mr. chairman. I apologies to the comity again to the comity. Last week we didn't have a PCS correct but we do have a PCS in here today. I know most of you were here last week when I tried to explain. This program, is really an ongoing program one that we been very well please with and Columbus, Brunswick, Jones and Pender counties. I go trough with, what I explain to the comity last week, is an attempt to codified a existing program with the department of soil and water conservation. The program was started as a pilot in 1997. to state the feasibility, of having of having a division of soil an water do the annual inspection, of all concentrate animal feeding operations, or KAFOs. In an area to be determine by the division of soil and water conservation in conjunction with North Carolina DWQ. DWQ is till a regulatory person in this. The recently assigned two counties ?? expanding Jones and Brunswick counties. The department of soil and water conservation is also always provided best technical expertise as the best management practices. Which include conservation measure and nutrient management along with lagoon design. They are also responsibly for design of nutrient management plants or animal waste plants. The thinking was and still should be that since department, division of soil and water conservation did the observation review in preparation for the annual inspection. That they would be in a better position to make suggestion for change or improvements to the ongoing swine operations. If North Carolina DWQ does the annual inspection, the former would have to go to division of soil and water conservation for help or be knowledgeable on their own for making the required adjustments or mitigations for the violation. This bill in no way shape or way. Replaces the regulatory reform of the North Carolina DWQ. Violation are found on the farm there are forwarded to the DWQ and put in a program called basing information management systems for record keeping and enforcement action. This bill simply allows soil and water to observe the operation, determine the farmer is in compliance. With the probations of senate bill 1217. If not in addition to the noting the deficiency in the report , it can provide assistance immediately own way to mitigate the deficiency. And Mr. chairman, with that I would like to ask for a favorable report, certainly and be here to stand for questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Representative Dixon. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Thank you Mr. chair, question for the staff that I discussed with them previously. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Go ahead and ask the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Staff is it, do I have the correct understanding that the current counties under this additional inspection, are the counties that will remain the counties with the additional inspection. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Yes sir, if you look at section three of the proposed sub comity substitute. It directs the department of environment, natural resources and the division of soil and water in the department of agriculture to continue in transitioning the inspection program in practices that are currently in place. As they existed prior to the expiration of the inspection program which part of what this bill does. At the end of that, it says including the counties in which the alternative inspection program is conducted. They should continue doing every thing the way they're currently doing it. Including doing it in the four counties that they been doing it in

[Speaker changes.] ...follow up...this question may be for the bill's sponsor or for staff. Can you tell me if there's a coordinated effort between soil and water and DWQ to coordinate those inspections so that they're approximately six months apart? [Speaker changes.] Can I answer the question? [Speaker changes.] Sure...go ahead. [Speaker changes.] Presently, we're only doin' one inspection and, in the place of DWQ doin' the inspections, soil and water's doin' the inspection. [Speaker changes.] So there's only one inspection per year. [Speaker changes.] Follow up? [Speaker changes.] Mister Chair, I don't think that's correct. I believe that there are indeed two inspections. One by Diener/DWQ and that the soil and water is a supplemental or an additional inspection is my understanding. [Speaker changes.] JF????? Could you weigh in on that? [Speaker changes.] The other department is here and they can correct me if I am wrong. I believe under the general inspection program, which this bill is an exception to, there is an inspection once a year by the Division of Water Quality in Diener?????? And an inspection...I think they may call it technical review...from the Division of Soil and Water, which is now the Department of Agriculture. What this program, that's been in existence, has done is to allow the inspection in addition to the technical review to be done all by the Division of Soil and Water. But my understanding is even under the general program, that some is done by DWQ and some done by soil and water. That they..it is a very coordinated program..they have lots of communication and if there are problems from one side or the other, they'll communicate with each other. [Speaker changes.] Does that answer your question? [Speaker changes.] One brief follow up. [Speaker changes.] Follow up. [Speaker changes.] It is my understanding that once a year, these facilities in these counties, are inspected by DWQ. In addition to that, there's a technical inspection by Soil and Water, making it two inspections in these particular counties on an annual basis. Are you saying that my understanding is correct or incorrect. [Speaker changes.] I think that is incorrect. I think for these four counties, both the inspection and the technical review are done by the Division of Soil and Water...and I see those from soil and water back there. They can let us know if that's correct or not. [Speaker changes.] Could someone from soil and water address that. State your name and position... [Speaker changes.] Yes, sir. My name is Pat Harris, I'm the Director with the Division of Soil and Water Conservation. Prior to the elimination of the routine operation review program, that is correct. DWQ and Soil and Water both conducted a annual routine inspection in each one of the counties. In the pilot counties, the four counties that we're talking about, the Division of Soil and Water does the routine inspection and the Division of Water Quality does not. If there is a problem noted, then they bring in the Division of Water Quality, who continues the regulatory portion of that. DWQ has oversight. They can come in at any time and there is a coordinated effort because these staffs are still housed within the Diener???? Regional Offices so both groups are talking to each other as they work through these inspection. [Speaker changes.] Representative Iler. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Chairman. I apologize for being late, I fully support my colleague Representative Waddell in this bill. I actually co-sponsored this with Dewey Hill????? Representative Dewey Hill last session and I think it failed to make crossover but I'm fully supportive, I'm not a farmer. I don't understand the details but I certainly want to support our farming community and Representative Waddell. Thank you. [Speaker changes.] Representative Hager. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Chairman. My question's been answered. [Speaker changes.] Any other questions from committee. Rep...any other questions? You're recognized. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Chair. Make a motion to, if it's appropriate. [Speaker changes.] It's appropriate. [Speaker changes.] To what...this is PCS of the original bill right? [Speaker changes.] Yes sir. [Speaker changes.] To make a favorable report, thank you. [Speaker changes.] To the proposed committee substitute for House Bill 505. (Inaudible.) Ok, you've heard the motion, all in favor say aye. (Ayes.) Opposed no. The ayes have it. The bill will be so recorded. [Speaker changes.] Thank you Mister Chair.

"If anybody is waiting for house bill 938, the bill sponsors have asked for that bill to be removed from the calendar today so we will not hear about HB 938. Next bill is house bill 471, represented by [??? name] [Background noise] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr.Chair. [Microphone noise] Ladies and gentlemen, this bill 471, simply includes two counties for my district in the list of counties that are allowed to treat leases of land up to 20 years as a least to allow renewable companies to come into our district. We have a very rural district, a lot of land, not a lot of jobs, so when you have folks in that industry coming in and bringing in some economic development, I'm trying to do everything I can to facilitate that. This simply includes Vans [?} and Warren [?] county in the list of counties that are already allowed to this. My economic developer from Warren county came and gave a presentation to the commerce division about this one project that we have going on in Warren county where we have put solar panels on the roof of our high schools that allows 30% of the electricity consumed from the solar panels to be consumed in a high school. We want to expand that. We have a lot of land and interest in being a solar form into the county and this would allow them to do that and I just ask for your supper. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Where did we hear this bill at? Was it in this meaning. [Speaker Changes] It was a very similar bill for a county in finance about one or two weeks ago. [Speaker Changes] Can you explain the difference between that bill and this bill? [Speaker Changes] The difference in that bill and this bill is t that bill applied specifically to Gravo [?} county. It allowed Gravo county to be along with these other counties which is also in my district. And then thsi bills to allow counties to take advantage of this particular statue. [Speaker Changes] The problem I think we had in finance with this bill was the part that the lease could be done without noficiation of use of the attendeded lease. I know this bill was pulled from finance at the time, we didn't take a vote on that particular reason we couldn't just find what the problem was [name] brought to our attention last time. I think that's still the case with this bill. I have a problem with putting a county or city municipality giving a leae for 20 years to a company without noticing its constituents that it's gonna happen. Mr. Chairman, I think this is the same issue we had last time. [Speaker Changes] I was going to bring up something of the same except that I still support it. I was the one who ran it when county was added. I understand their question about the lease. I think representative Wilkens was going to try and get that language handled if you need to consult with him. My understanding was, based on other people in the room, is that while the government entity might not do the lease, it would come out in all the other portions of the process. It was not like anybody wouldn't be noticed. But yea, that is what I was going to bring up. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Charmain, like [name], I support this bill and I hope that everyone will notice by good partisan alliance. I did have question for the staff and it's this: just procedurally, and I think I know the answer but I'm going to ask, if we were going to put in a Hager amendment that made it explicit, its a requirement, that would effect every other city county that's in this legistlation? Is that correct? [Speaker Changes] That's how I would read it to the other counties and the muncipalities that would be effected by that ammendment. [Speaker Changes] Thank you very much. [Speaker Changes] I too support your bill. It makes a lot of sense and you're just adding counties to authorize legislation for the counties and municipalities. I guess what I'm trying [END].

Understand is, why is this public notice issue all of the sudden arising? Is this been a problem in other, do you have any idea in other counties? This is all a sudden coming up because we’ve been operating this way with all these other counties and cities and the issue hasn’t come up before. Do you have any idea? [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re correct, Representative Harrison. We are not, this bill does not change the notice requirement. This bill does not do anything about the notice requirement, that is already in the law. I mean, you see the only portions that are changing under the statute are the underlying portions which are the portions that recognize Vance and Warren Counties. I mean, whatever problem there is with the notice requirement, that’s something that can be addressed with a separate bill. I mean we’re not changing, Representative Hager, Representative Starnes, we’re not changing any notice requirements. I can tell you that the council and the commissioners and the constituents in my district are fully aware of what’s going on. They are excited about it they want to bring some investment to our community. This is not something where we’re trying to slip it under the rug in the dark or trying to do something that folks don’t know about. If, I mean, the notice is already in the law, we’re not changing that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m not taking the other questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, the questions were raised on line 19 where it’s talking about the public notice. Nobody is opposed to the projects that are going on here what is happened was you had a poorly written piece of legislation that was written originally and I think started out with Catawba County and then maybe Mecklenburg, and then it’s been added on to. The notice provision is that the private entity who is doing the project is required to give a notice but the government entity, whose tax dollars are being affected, by this are freed from giving the notice. And, in my opinion, both entities, or at least the government entity, should have been required to provide a public notice because that one has the tax dollars involved and it’s a lease, nobody’s opposed to this. But my question to staff is, is there not a way to draft a public notice amendment for projects going forward and grandfathering those that are already done? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Jeff? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think we could do that. We’d have to look at it. You know, you all would have to consider the differential treatment of the existing local governments versus new ones. The other thing I’d point out is the no notice requirement, and I’m just looking at this for the first time, it appears to only apply when the terms of the lease or rental are one year or less so it’s not all leases under this, it just appears to be for very short term leases. If that helps anyone. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I, Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This allows leases for greater than one year to be entered into without notice? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] When you look on line 26 for a term up to 20 years without treating it as a lease or a sale without giving notice so it does affect ... I'm not opposed to it, if the counties want to do this, but it is a public entity, there is tax dollars involved and I think the municipalities or the counties have fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer to provide a notice. It shouldn’t be just up to the private entity whose entering into the lease agreement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Go ahead and comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Now I can understand that, Representative Starnes. I can certainly understand that. Are we then going to go in and change the section B of this particular law that says even leases for less than a year, leases that are for less than a year, are exempt from the notice statute? So if someone wants to lease some property for three months, are we going to have to put the ten-day notice in the newspaper, allow for the public hearing, any time that the city government wants to lease a property? I would contend to either that would be inefficient and not necessarily effective in terms of drawing in some investment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This says 20 years. You’re saying for the 20 year lease...

Lutz Ely is no risk. Then all you saying that even though useful in the same two weeks yet again late notice seven least for a month for three months of the act of escalating backfill a good many strategists . Sampson, from one end if this might BS solution and may not be a nongovernment undefeated you are on governments by the staff that we have here is not experts Texas a lot into an expert in this portion of it from one end if we could deal with UV final portion of the AMA gets too, if you agree from two workplace S area CD can find a way to make up a fraction weeks while welcome to find any sign that could create a lake at back if these numbers of another them around MMM in Ottawa, Canada 53 marks option is to use this build a go much soul remedy that a reference check that Michelle none of them in a letter to the stars is also an update version ashes, compared to some three months vs. 20 years is a phenomenal difference between that think we have responsibilities the Gaels we can do it when the bill would randomly we should do it now and then surf of solitude this committee and called about 52 skating or not here when this bill was written originally so we had no input to live by the water to start up lately have a fiduciary responsibility to our systems losing rougher county are man's counter Graham county to make sure folks understand was?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) all of a career as there are their representatives in their county council received else or are used possible by the Loudoun, then I just as a fundamental bowman operation . Mr. That has jammed a committee member shots back and said Nicole understand all the interest and then the correct in saying that to the ban land for that can each team had a problem in that and why would we take a stand LP Palos banks and one can yell at me and the sale and they played some one can deny any of that have been making get , the presumptive test, then stop and he just said notes taken steps to make the battle even have to have good health by the county's that the best good grade at least that much good in the help of Kenya to take in consideration and was working in the book in Asia has 4:00 PM the ocean, lance Blanks and ninth innings and that the correct this would represent a defender Scott Davis chairman,(SPEAKER CHANGES) says one to say that I am in favor of Bolivia of bill and his fellow sitting here listening to a discussion of laws by remembered as the discussion when Mecklenburg and some other caddies were a lot involved and led the things he is that these installations are special be installations there are only much to sell and four home loan them from the room situations and it to the game is there a member of your ritual discussion one of the depression else for the Mac duel of no single Mrs. Marcos everything is negotiated out into the only a small number of homes in fifty's of bed involving the impact these escalations to give a man walking his deals that if we have an issue appears to have that comport with them in the more you know how to divvy the underlying than any changes the whole thing would be quite there yet and that's how I would think the problems that we have to be too hard, is aware of 77 is some suggestion that evening, nor can the two would go back to lead to a minimum of four someone who would hope that we could move two of 80 at the appropriate to load from ocean two would give this a bill to move all represented , like to make a motion as charitable gift ??....

Hold that motion just for a second. Do we have any other questions for the Committee? Representative Catlin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, I ?? for sentence number 1, 160a-272 to address other appliances of renewable energy, did ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff, can you answer that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Chairman and Representative Catlin. Section 160a-272 deals with lease or rental property and not just specific to renewable energy facilities. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But then Centennial Campus I think they do nine nine-year lease, I’m sorry. Thank you. Centennial Camus I think they do nine 9-year leases. I’ve got an area in my district where we’re trying to lease airport property which is part of a foreign trade zone. Are we stuck in that 10 year category? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry, would you please repeat your question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] My county has some property that’s at the airport that we’re looking to lease. And ?? advised it’s a foreign-trade zone and if they got a 10 year limit then we’ve got a problem there too. I’m asking a dumb question going all the way back to the basic law. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The sections, the subsections we’re looking at here the subsection C, those are specific to renewable resource facilities. A and B are just general, local government leased or rental property. Nothing’s being changed there so I think that notice is required for those types of leases if it’s for longer than a year. But the subsections were talking about, the subsection c are specific to renewable resource facilities [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not a question but just to make a comment. It’s a basic policy question so the committee has to decide what they want to do and I think that no one is opposed to your county having a renewable energy project just like no one was opposed to these other counties. But they started down the road that these renewable projects were new and this was?? Years ago and I was here. And they were very controversial and one in Catawba County was a doing a methane gas project there to an old closed down landfill and they didn’t want to necessarily have to publish a notice in the newspaper that’s what the County Commissioners were trying to get around to start with. But as renewable energy projects become more and more prevalent, unless we make the change now then we’re basically exempting governments from providing the notice to the public that they’re entering into these leases. This is the only exception the governments have is for these renewable energy projects. We’ve gone the road a short distance. I think you’re going to see a proliferation of these projects in the future and now is just the time to fix it. It doesn’t do anything except make the local governments put a notice, whether ti’s in the newspaper or a website, that’ll be determined in the future. That they’re entering into these long-term leases. And I don’t’ think it’s unreasonable and certainly not trying to do damage to your bill I’m trying to correct a public [policy question that’s in my mind. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I comment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You may comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I understand, Representative Starnes. I can appreciate that. One thing that may lay your concerns if you look at Section C. In bold the first one, two, three words on there. This is only effective until June 30, 2015. So in two years, this goes away. These governments, the businesses, they’re not going to be able to get these long-term leases without going through the traditional notice requirements. This is only effective for the next 2 years. And I want to thank Representative Alexander. When you have these projects and you’re considering these projects and they are competitive, there’s proprietary information out, if you let too much of this stuff get out the deal is going to be ??, you can understand that Representative Starnes. We’re trying to facilitate it, we’re not trying to keep anything in the dark but we don’t want anything to get out that might mess up the project, might release some.

[SPEAKER CHANGES] Sensitive proprietary information [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dixon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. ?? just a comment. I just can't understand why we don't give notice on something that's going to be for 20 years. Notice is absolutely imperative and I couldn't support anything that would not give notice to the public. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right Mr. Chairman, I don't know if I'm looking, is there a PCS on this bill or is it just a bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's just a bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you look at Line 31, of course we've got two c's on this to start with. We've got a, b, c, and c. I don't know about the second c and this might be a question for staff. It says effective June 30th 2015. Of course Line 24 says effective until June 30th 2015. So am I to take that Line 31 to mean it's effective June 30th 2015 and thereafter? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Jennifer, can you answer that.? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, Representative Hager. You're reading that correctly. The section is set out twice because of the way the various municipalities and counties were added over the course of various session laws. The reason why it is set out twice because in June 2015, a few municipalities fall out based on the way the session law was drafted a few years ago. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Go ahead Representative Hager [SPEAKER CHANGES] So therefore if we approve this bill giving notice of intended lease would be affective after the 2015 and from now on the second c. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I understand your question correctly Representative Hager the requirement to not provide notice for these leases would extend to 2015. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We're going to hold this bill up for just a little while an amendment's being drafted. Representative Baskerville, if you want to hold up, we'll see what we can get down here. Next bill is going to be house bill 480. Representative Millis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair, and ladies and gentlemen of the committee. Hopefully I can make it to the finish line with this one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hold on Representative Millis. I believe we have a PCS for this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do we have a motion to have it before it? So move, all in favor say aye. ??? no, the ayes have it. The bill is before us. Rep Millis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. The bill you have before you, and that the staff is passing out, the PCS, the short title is environmental permitting reform, but to be specific, this is focused on the reform of storm water permitting in this state. In short, in regard to receiving a storm water permit, for the permitee, there is practically three pillars that they're addressing whenever they're trying to achieve a permit in this state, whether they know it or not. And the three pillars are: what statute says, what the rules say, and also what the policy is of the regulatory agency. What this bill is aimed to address is evolving regulatory policy in order to shore it up, therefore we have regulatory certainty of what is required to comply with these storm water regulations involving statutes, rules, as well as policies for individuals who are trying to receive a storm water permit and the way that Ive addressed this is using some phrases that are familiar to the department. That is, minimum design criteria, which is addressed in section 1. And then section 2 addresses a term that is also familiar to the department, and that is called fast track permitting. The reason why we use these terms is that in the early 90s, administratively ?? established ADC, am Amendment Design Criteria for the fast track process for sanitary sewer permitting, for gravity sewers and for pump stations. They did this administratively. What I'm looking to do with your support is to do this legislatively to urge them to establish a working group to draft a minimum design criteria and also take that same technical working group, or one of the same nature, and also

…Establish a fast track permitting process at the same time. So I’ll briefly make a few comments and then if ya’ll want to get into the weeds about it then I’ll be more than happy to get into the weeds and that is in regards to a minimum design criteria. What exists now for storm water policy is what is called a BMP Manual, a Best Managed Practices Manual. In regards to the technical working group, what is mostly likely going to happen is that they will take from that platform of the BMP Manual and establish and set it more in stone under the per rule of the ENC making process, so it’s not evolving that way whether your permitting any regional office or any reviewer that you have consistency in not an evolving nature that is required to comply with the environmental regulations in this state. So, again, regulatory certainty is one tier and then regulatory efficiency is the other tier that is being addressed with the fast track permitting process. The way it exists now is that if you try to get a storm water permit what you’re doing is that you’re getting approval from the department that your plan meets the intent of our regulation. In regards to the way this is approached with fast track permitting, just as the same way that’s it been done for Century Sewer is that there’s a little more assurance that you’re actually certifying and taking liability that what has been built complies with the regulation. I think that is a very important measure, so we’re upholding the protection of our environment in this state as well as providing regulatory certainty and efficiency at the same time and I definitely ask for your support of this measure. Sorry I have to hunch over here and speak to you guys but I want to make sure you can hear me and I think we may have a little bit of a mic issue here that we have to address in the future. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any questions for the committee? Representative Harrison. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mister Speaker and Representative Millis I appreciate you adding this second…actually clarifying this section too about developing amendment to sign criteria. I guess I’m just wondering, because it says relevant faculty form UNC and representative of environmental consultants, and I sort of think that environmental consultants being different than environmental advocates and I wasn’t sure if the relevant faculty from UNC should be more specific like water quality experts, biologists, or something. Is there some way to clarify that and there are some pretty decent professors from Duke too I just wonder if you want to maybe just be less specific UNC and maybe more specific about what kind of…call it university expertise to include maybe. Would that makes sense or…when you came up with this I just wondered maybe…would that…maybe should offer an amendment or…would be amendable to that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Harrison. I’ll be happy to work with you as well as with you and me and the department on what we would need to do to address the makeup of the technical working group. I would ask that this is going to a regulatory reform and that is something that we can work on with a PCS with that and the reason I want to have the department involved is that all it has done in the past administratively , I want to make sure this technical working group that is something that has actually technical experts at the table and it doesn’t get political in nature and that is really been my heart of being…of protecting the way this language has been about the technical working group is that we as bureaucrats really don’t need to be making technical decisions of how these rules and these statutes are being achieved and I’d like to keep it that way. In regards to the UNC system, again or actually the UNC, I actually spoke to staff about this, it includes all those universities within the system. The way it’s currently drafted, it wouldn’t specifically include Duke University but we could look at aspects of that about really those to the table those who to be able to assist the department as well as to assist established ENC on that, so I would be happy to work with you as long as we can coordinate with the department about it and I would ask for it be done in an PCS for regulatory reform if you don’t mind. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samerson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mister Chairman, I just have some questions. And I like the fast track part and this is more you might be educating me on part of this, you made the comment that if we put these in rules that then you don’t have to worry about people changing their minds on the BMPs all the item , which I understand. What happens, though, if some techniques come out that are actually are better and cheaper and all of that? Would they then have to go thought the rules process to get those added to the minimum design criteria? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for that question. We definitely don’t want to stifle innovation in regards to the fast track process by any means and also with a minimum design criteria again really the heart of this is this is really…

The minimum design criteria to comply with the regulation. But in regards to a normal tract process, you would also have those, that ability to innovate and to get it approved by the department. I can definitely defer to the department to actually speak to that. But again that was the reason why this bill was drafted in this way, is to leave a normal tract therefore there may have be some aspects as moving forward. And also too, even though the amendment is on criteria, it’s really focused not be as evolving is that it would still be able to be looked at in regard to recommendations by the department to the NC with hey this is something we need to look at doing and that way it can be done through a process that is held accountable by appointed and elected officials, versus you having decisions that are being made sporadically and evolving that really just creates a nature of tremendous uncertainty. For example in regard to this state, because of what they’ve done administratively through Sanitary, Sewer and Pump Station permitting is that you can know for certain of what your costs may be to comply with the regulations in regard to that, but you have no idea in order to establish a pro forma and a budget about what it costs to comply with ?? regulations in this state because you just don’t know how the reviewer is going to handle you or the regional office. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. One follow up question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Living in an increasingly dense urban environment, would the minimum design criteria have in it provisions for whether it’s a more rural area or a more urban area, and that sort of thing? Or is it more uniform across, because what might work in your county might be devastating in my district where there’s very little open space? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If someone with the Department would like to speak to that? I can definitely get them to answer that question. But I would say in short, what is already existing from a BMP manual standpoint is what we’re looking at to alter the evolving process. And also in terms of storm water quality aspects, you know it’s one of those things where what you want on the back end of your device is to be clean, regardless if it’s in Hendrick County or Mecklenburg County. In terms of a quantity standpoint, that is a different aspect that’s more or less outside the purview of the Division of Water Quality. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I’m asking because we have a lot of flooding issues that happen as it continues to develop. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, that’s the quantity aspect. Statewide as we’re looking at the quality aspect. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mitch, give us your name and position number, for the record. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I forgot the position number. Mitch Gillespie, assistant secretary of DENR. Trying to address three things that I’ve heard from the Representative. One, we feel like, first of all we’d like to thak the Representative for working with the Department on this bill. The original version of the bill did have a sedimentation and erosion control aspect ?? and we felt like we were not going to be able to do that and be consistent statewide. So the Representative graciously worked with us to, and we made our case and so that was removed here. However we do feel like the storm water can be implemented in the BMP manuals statewide and be consistent and have enough flexibility in there. So we support the bill. The other issue that you brought up, talking about being able to allow new technologies as they become available to be used in these BMP manuals, we do have a process in place that would allow that to be looked at and in relationship to that I will be bringing before the General Assembly next year I hope an environmental enhancement program where these kind of alternative things that as we see that are being developed, currently DENR does not have the flexibility to allow a lot of these alternative methods to be done. We have to follow the statutes from General Assembly but I’m going to be asking for changes next year that will allow us more flexibility to where we can actually enhance the environment and do alternatives on things, along with public notice and things like this so everybody be informed. I hope that answers and addresses your concerns. And we’ll have some more things for you next year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson, did that answer your question? Representative Iler’s next. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’m a little concerned down here where we say the commission shall consult with all these people. Now I was glad to hear that the UNC system didn’t exempt any of our fine Eastern universities like ECU and ECW. Also on a serious note, a very serious note, I see how many people are supposed to be

…the table. And some seem to be private entities including one was mentioned is possibly a private university be added. All these consultants and all. I’m amazed this is a process I’m not aware of. Is this something where we pay consulting fees and is this an appropriations issue when we say they shall consult with all of these different experts? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is my understanding that these working groups are not paid out of the state coffers by any means, but I would like for staff and the department to confirm. That was my understanding of exactly how the working groups have been done in the past administratively, as well as when we have these working groups even to draft statues and move it forward with the rules. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to clarify Representative Millis. So what you are saying that the energy experts, environmental consultants and engineers usually work on these groups unpaid. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dixon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee. In the past there has been uncertainty by design and I think this begins to improve that. And I would like to be recognized for a motion at the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ok. Just hold that motion for just a little bit. Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chairman. I wanted to first ask of everyone. Is the definition of fast track such that it really still has safeguards in it? I mean I get worried fast track can mean kinda speedy and we’re pasteurized like pasteurized milk. Pasteurized. And I’m concerned by that and a quick question for staff. Does fast track still include some considerations, just moves it faster based on the apparent level of concerns about environmental impact. Is that fair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think the way fast track is used here is more as just as a descriptor. I don’t think it really has much legal meaning. You could almost take the words out of fast track and the language would still make sense. You could say the commission shall adopt rules to establish a permitting process that allows for. And then all the safeguards are built in, in what follows that fast track I think is more of a descriptor, a name for what you call the process. But it doesn’t really have any technical or legal meaning beyond that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hastings. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? question Representative Millis. I wanted to touch on the tort law aspect of this, and the administrative law. On the back page, section 4. When you were talking about liability, the rule making process a little bit before that, the administrative law piece. In your own mind, as far as your legislative intent, were you thinking of criminal liability or civil liability when this word liability was put in here for the qualified professional. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Go ahead Representative Millis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A friendly response for that would be exactly the latter. In regard to make sure that what has been designed as well as what has been constructed and the certification that the design professional would actually assume that the development or the structure has been built according to the minimum design criteria that we want the working group to look at aspects of certain liability to ensure that that is the case. I believe that that is strictly a civil liability. I can get staff to actually comment on that because we want to mirror what has been established for sanitary sewer in regard to gravity. Sewer as well as pump stations that you are certifying the design and then you are certifying that what is built is actually been done per the minimum design criteria. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any other questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cunningham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was interested in knowing what the best practices models being used and what the technology constantly changing, how often are the best practices looked at. That would determine on the outcomes of how successful and your rates of how things work with the environment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep Millis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe I’ll be addressing your concern with this response. If not, ?? I’m wrong. I’m a little young, but in terms of work and as a professional engineer something I’ve done over the last eight or so years. The way the BMP manual alters designs in terms of innovation has been setup, actually, Mr. Gillespie actually spoke this, is that innovation is a lot of times, it takes forever for it to be approved as what would be called a BMP. As an individual that was a fresh…

At ENC state, I have yet to see some of the designs actually be approved. That’s been over the course of over ten years. I think that Mitch Gillespie actually spoke to the aspect that it takes almost forever for these innovations to be approved as a BMP. Going to minimum design criteria will not hinder that and we look forward to future legislation to work with the department actually hope we can get innovation from an environmental and a cost aspect back on the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dixon’s recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does this have a referral to Regulatory Reform? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Reg Reform. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, I moved we give a favorable review to proposed Committee Substitute. Unfavorable to the original with a referral to Regulatory Reform. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill, 480. You heard the motion. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The bill will be so reported. The next bill we got’s House Bill 755, DENR Electronic Notice. Representative McGrady. Representative McGrady’s hung up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am not hung up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, are you ready to go? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am ready to go. I was just proceeding, Mr. Chairman. We had a PCS before us last week and that’s what I assumed was going to be before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hold on, Representative McGrady. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m glad to provide a PCS for the committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hold yours for just a minute, we may need it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I believe this PCS that has small technical change in it, so I guess we need to put that before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ok, does everybody have a copy of it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, that’s the problem. [SPEAKER CHANGES] While they’re handing it out, Representative Moore moves that we have the PCS before us. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed say no. It’s properly before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Which one is...I guess? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For now, Representative McGrady’s PCS. But my technical change we’ll send forth in just a minute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, that’s fine. Thank you for the collegiality, Representative Moore. This bill came about, as I told you at the last meeting, following our committee meeting with Secretary Skvarla. As you remember, he spoke to us about wanting to protect the environment, but also see if there were ways to do things more efficiently. The bill is an attempt to do just that. It addresses the concept of notice and it addresses not all notices given by the department in all sorts of context, but the intention was to sort of run a pilot project. Basically provide for a narrow range of things that are currently given notice via publication in newspapers and have those notices be provided in two different ways. One, on the website of the department, but also by direct electronic emails so if somebody wants to get notices of this type, they’ll automatically get them. They don’t have to wait around and see, hope to get them via catching it in a newsletter. At the last meeting I indicated we had three or four different programs within DENR, not all of DENR were in here and I asked if there were any desire to narrow any of those, drop one, add something, and I actually didn’t hear back from anyone regarding that. I would note that there are no changes in the scope of notification so what’s in the notice that’s being provided, there’s no changes there at all. It is a pure electronic notice bill. It only applies to a small portion of DENR notices, it doesn’t apply to other state governments, and, again, the intention is to run a pilot here. You’ll notice at the end of the bill it provides for a reporting back to the ENC...

From your home and got what we would do is see if this works and see if they could go to work ended may be something we want you see and other places Mr. Chairman, believe the law again represented this year in a better than maybe it'll two unexplained wealth of the cost savings would be involved in this late stage in (SPEAKER CHANGES) and out for the record for Mr. Chairman Neil Rabin solicited record for the year , Mr. Chairman, we fully support this bill of the PCs as before you,(SPEAKER CHANGES) I would like to answer one question the case were previously represented collar as for the web site traffic to the web site was fined 2012 we had 144,476 unique visitors to the website-wheel ms they'll actually about 2000 from 20-we-46,000 of those are just a team website , Mr. Chairman, this bill Jefferson would raise rents it does affect the limited subset of notices provided by the year divisions for specific issues as they relate to things like whales termination of shellfish leases and consent worse these are the days since they are typically said Elvia certified mail work shortages specifically affected groups they are their general in nature as a play down the last hearing which is studying 2010 call some water quality issues and families forgive the testing systems receiving notification from the newspaper that would be if that some of which he quickly to have a few key statistics from the North Dakota one has about 9.8 million citizens to the households which are losses and level the households according to the telecommunications and information administration 99% of those households have access to the Internet list appear back to the circulation of newspapers in North Carolina there are dissipated to leadership potential of 2.4 million l for newspapers and the daily circulation are 42 daily newspapers , that were said to be about 25% of the North Carolina population excess one newspaper if you look at just the right answers in North Carolina which a 6.8 million fives compared to 9.8 million citizens that were said about 70% distribution so we would argue that the electronic fixation leases a caller said this is a North Carolina however we're not asking to make wholesale change were asking for is for medicine and ready to present an opportunity to try this we do not need a wholesale change we will an opportunity to create a casa, beyond his surveys couple finally pointed to, the two pieces of rules and legislation that would govern the use of this flight of the north to life in the slalom from the merely goals that you have to publish a public menace in a newspaper for schedule meetings which you do not have tool for the same latest all public comments and they'll push all 6 to 40 C a four port 70 in the Federal rules that allows thing that is NBC publication designed to give general problem is as walking, we believe this bill does save for those reasons into the race is represented by Mr. Robertson the great west has forced the CIA station proving that had that they used to and from up to a couple official(SPEAKER CHANGES) I am having trouble that the statistics registered with we study committee but has to go with that day and a another of the issues and 8:00 PM to the fishing figures that we were available if word that great variants which alleges that just a herd of them happened to me as saying that the ballot and from those sat test of time for each AM, finishing that is a lot of close to a level of ladies' day of the A's and Portland underlying philosophical but the issue back bedroom wall morale and some tax is this some segments of the population is specific to the village??......

They do not have the kind of access, the kind of penetration, and the kind of comfort level with the electronic world, and I for one, do not want to move to a posture of notice where we are... by the way we do things excluding their access. There are also places in North Carolina where, because of topography, because of penetration that it's very difficult to get access to things. You know, it's one thing if your access to the internet is by dial up, and it's something else if your access to the internet is by a high-speed connection. If you have a high-speed connection you are more likely to peruse the various websites to find out things and if you have to wait a half an hour for a page to refresh, it's highly unlikely that you're going to do it. You know, these are some of the kinds of things you're going to have to wrestle with as we talk about migrating notices from one medium of people are traditionally comfortable with into an entirely different medium. And I don't say any of that to oppose this test, but I do say it to raise a red flag about the direction we're moving here, and the cautions we have to take- you know- to be serious as we move along. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] [??] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I went to a town hall meeting in Orange County last week, and was really surprised to have several people mention to me the lack of internet access, lack of consistent internet access, I think partly. The northern part of the county is very rural. The providers, the vendors haven't provided access to high-speed or convenient hook ups for the internet and I was also very surprised to her that many people said that they didn't have a computer. So, in my county at least we still have people who- and one of the people said- and we didn't bring this issue up, but she said specifically that she wanted notices to be continued in the newspaper because that was how she got her information. So, I think that it's a surprise that we didn't have better coverage in Orange County. Our schools are going to be moving to digital, and we've got to have internet access, we've got to make that happen. It's not true right now, so, I can't vote for this bill right now in its current form. [SPEAKER CHANGE] [??] [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Let me just say, I've looked a lot about this in terms of the digital divide, and with all respect to the gentleman from the department, 99% is absurd unless he is saying that 99% of the state that- where there's a line that's running through. The digital divide in terms of variables is first of all, age. Every one of us knows that. I'm here, I'm just seconding Representative Alexander's point. I mean, if you're over 75, what's the probability that you check your email in the morning? We all know that that's laughable. People over 75 don not likely have an internet connection, and if they do, they certainly aren't looking at websites and email. So, that's number one. Number two is income, another variable that's clear in any research that's done in internet access- is that the more money you have, the more likely it is that you have a computer and that you will be able to afford internet access from some provider. So, with this bill as it is, you are excluding older people from it; You are excluding lower income people from it, and I can't for the life of me understand why we'd want to do that! Our state's very diverse in terms of income levels, it terms of age. It just doesn't make sense to me. If the

[Speaker Changes] Parmen and the whole state government wants to add to its obligations to print in newspapers, internet, you know the web posting and saying that people can get on a list. I mean, our general assembly does a great job on that, you concerned about house finance, all you need to do is email the clear and you’re on the notification list and thats terrific. But how would the average citizen know that all you need to do is get in touch with ?? and they’ll put you on their list serve. I mean, I think we all know thats absurd. How is a person supposed to know that? And so, Representative McGrady, with due respect, I think even the pilot, we all know why pilots are done. Pilots are done so that you can move it on to a full fledged statewide bill, affecting all aspects of ??. And I just absolutely can’t support this. Its just to me, I just can’t believe we are being so insensitive, and I know I’m going on. But I can’t be so insensitive to the elderly and the poor and the lower income folks of this state with this bill. Thank you. [Speaker Changes] Representative Harrison. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I have a couple of questions of either the bill sponsor or Mr. Robins. And if he said this, I think he said this last week. The anticipated cost savings for this specific pilot project, and the expenditures by the department on newspaper publications in general, if this were to be implemented sort of department wide and not just the pilot project. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Robins, could you answer that and state your name? [Speaker Changes] Mr. Chairmen, Neil Robins with ??. I do not have a statistic of a figure on how much wholesale electronic notice would save the department. This is a very narrow subset that we’re dealing with and we anticipate that this would save the department and the state about 80 thousand dollars with this bill. I don’t have a percentage of the amount of notice. I don’t have an easy extrapolation of that number. [Speaker Changes] Follow up. [Speaker Changes] Well, thank you. I didn’t mean to put you on the spot, I just thought you might have a handle on what ya'll spent on newspaper publications. But, the other question, that you mentioned that this would cover whales, termination shell fish leases consent orders, and I guess you also distinguished the public hearing versus a public comments. And I’m sure there is a distinction between public comments and public hearings because that looks like that covers a lot more areas, the air and motor resources, oil pollution and air pollution control. I guess if you could just be more specific about exactly whats going to be covered by this electronic notice change please, thanks. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Robins. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Chair. I’d be happy to go through each section if the committee would like me to do so. Its listed in the bill summary that was passed out at the last meeting. [Speaker Changes] Follow up. I guess the reason I asked is because that seems like a lot more extensive than just shell fish leases. I mean I guess I was just trying to get a handle on the volume of notices that might be impacted by this. Because section 4 looks pretty comprehensive but maybe because its a different category it doesn’t cover as much as the other areas? [Speaker Changes] Representative McGrady, could you answer that? [Speaker Changes] Mr. Chairmen and Representative Harrison. We discussed it last week and I so frankly was expecting that some people may wanna come back and narrow this. I’m still open to narrowing it. I’m trying to get out of committee today and would engage in a conversation with you if you think that one or more of these areas are too broad. But I’m trying to get a test of something here. And the proposal that is in the bill is actually narrower then what the department originally proposed with me. I thought it was a little broad and so I wanted to narrow it so that we had a good test, but I’m willing to engage in the conversation, but I would like to move the bill. [Speaker Changes] Representative Iler. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Chairmen. And I haven’t digested the latest piece of yes yet but the section that I’ve been looking at is now moved to page 3, section 5 in holding public hearings. And I guess it goes back to what Representative Harrison may have been saying. The general public hearings and we’re going to notify people by electronic mail transmission to a list of interested parties in electronic on the departments website. The demographic where I live is a little higher then the average age. And we’re not served by a daily newspaper. I was struct by the 42 daily newspapers. Our 2 newspapers are both weekly and have plenty of public notices from municipalities and other entities in those newspapers.

And 8,000 just in the area around Southport, 8,000 people get the newspaper Just in that corner of the county. And I doubt if 200 of them visit ?? in any given week or month but or on the interested party list I guess if you’re a developer you’d definitely be. But average citizen that might be impacted by some of these regulations that are dealing with the costal area particularly. I’d be very concerned when something comes out about changing in the storm water of the DOT regulator or a DENR regulation we get a lot of interest. Btu I’d be concerned that hardly anybody would know about a public notice that was not published in that local newspaper. And then again we have another weekend newspaper and so ?? 42 and the 2 million people that are impacted by them . Tome that’s not a good statistic for the entire state. And then the other thing is we’re talking about a test. And I haven’t digested this yet but is there a way that we’re going to measure the results of a test? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dixon? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That was a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Go ahead. Representative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is the criterion that we’re going to measure results of the test before ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No criterion in the bill itself. Again, if Neil could respond to how the Department intends to analyze what we’re seeing here. But I know what we’re trying to do is we’re trying to analyze how many people are responding based on the notice we’re currently giving and how many people are responding based on the broader notice I think we’ll be giving here. Obviously were comparing a little bit apples and oranges because during one period of time you may have one set of permits moving through and another time another set of permits. But that’s the sort of thing I was expecting we would look at. Mr. .Robins? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Robins? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Representative McGrady is correct. What we’re looking to do with this is to move beyond survey data which is truly the apples and orange comparison. To a more apples to apples comparison of what kind of comment and what kind of participation did we have in this process before this was implemented and after so we can determine if we get more participation ro less [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does that answer your question Mr. ??. Representative Dixon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Committee. My understanding perspective is that we’re here, that we need to identify the bigger issue. And the issue is how do governments give notice. That’s what we’re actually talking about and that’s what we’re leading up to. And if we’re going to dot hat, the narrow example that we’re talking about doing here is going tog et the job done. To me if we’re going to do a test it would need to be broader if you’re going to get anything out of it. And so my feelings and the way that I’m going to vote on this is based on that there’s a bigger issue, there’s a bigger discussion that we’re going to have to come to grips with as we look at the possibility of transitioning to a different form of notice. In my particular area, the notices that are given in the newspaper are vital and they’re important and at this point I’m not willing to do anything that will diminish that opportunity for our citizens to be able to get the proper kind of notices that they need and so if we’re looking at eventually saving money, if any of my colleagues would like some examples of how we could really save some money in government than I invite you to come to see me on an issue that’s a lot different and a lot different to this it’ll be talking about a whole lot more money . At this time I’m going to oppose this proposed bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Catlin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If there’s going to be, this PC that was handed out we’re not talking about this one yet are we? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No it’s not before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is it going to be introduced? Then I will wait and let Representative Moore introduce it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cunningham [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a question for Representative McGrady, Mr. Chairman.

ask the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative McGrady, when they run the pilot program, have they decided what county they're going to run it in, and are there alternative methods of notification while they're doing the test pilot? [SPEAKER CHANGES]I will as again, Mr. Robins to talk to that. I think we're talking about, I mean people are understanding that all of these notices are published in all those little town papers all over the place, and that's not true. And maybe Mr. Robins can explain and respond to the member's question if that's okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Robins. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Chair. Can I ask the representative to repeat the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Cunningham, can you repeat the question? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, Mr. Chair. What county will you do the test pilot program in, and will it be an alternative notification in place while the pilot testing is going on? [SPEAKER CHANGES]That's not what the bill does. It does not target a county specific. They way we proposed the provisions included in this bill, were to discuss with our division, what notices had the least target impact, and what they felt were the least effective in terms of providing notice and also had a small impact on participation. So, they're not targeted at counties and this would be a change to actually see. It's a control variable. If you implemented a newspaper notice at the same time you implemented an electronic, you wouldn't have the single variable to test. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Follow up. The reason I am asking the question that way is because your have rural counties, and you have metropolitan areas. And so the notices are going to be received differently. That's why I was seeing if you was going to target one area, so you can measure the people response during the pilot test, so I didn't know if you were looking at those variables or what. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Robins? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes Mr. Chair, I'll be happy to respond to that. We want to work with the committee and the bill sponsors to make this bill and effected pilot program, and we are open to the discussions about how the members are most comfortable about implementing a program, as I said before, to give us a shot to see how this works. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Hamilton. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Chairman. My question may be more targeted towards staff, unless Representative McGrady can answer it. The context that I think about notification in is mostly related to planning and zoning issues that are site specific. In the community where I live, the district I represent, every time there's a public hearing on a zoning issue, the property is posted with a sign, and all of the adjacent property owners are sent a letter about the public hearing. Are any of these notifications that we're talking about, put into electronic, do any of them come with letters that go out to adjacent property owners or signage along those lines as well? [SPEAKER CHANGES]This bill has no applications, if I may, Mr. Chairman. This bill has no applications to those types of specific class notifications. This is where you're just putting out broadly to the general public, so no. If there's a requirement that notice be given to adjoining land owners? It doesn't have any application. That notice will be provided per the narrower statute. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Any other sessions from the committee? If not, I want to step down, and Representative McElraft is going to take over for a minute here. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Hello, any further questions? Representative Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Actually, if I may be recognized to send forth an amendment in the form of a PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES]You are recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, Madam Chair. I had a copy of a PCS distributed to the members of the body, and obviously before vote, I would ask to be recognized to debate the PCS before the committee would vote to be before us. I think the vote would have to be whether it would be before us or not, so if I may be recognized to debate my motion.

We have to put the PCS before you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, you’re making that motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m making that motion, but I think before...the effect of my motion would be a substitute, I think before voting, in all fairness to the bill sponsor, I probably should explain it and let the committee decide whether to vote whether to accept or not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re the Rules Chairman, I think you should be able to that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me say as a caveat, I am making this amendment not as the Rules Chairman, but as a humble Representative from Cleveland County. Representative Luebke wanted me to call it the Luebke-Moore amendment, but I resisted temptation at this point. Madam Chair, what this…and by way of explanation, what this amendment would certainly do is it would take the language that Representative McGrady is already using for the department, I believe the PCS has been drafted to where it’s identical to what my good friend from Henderson is already explaining. What I have sought to do is to add in language which does, I will acknowledge, significantly expand the scope of the gentleman’s bill. What it does is it goes into the issue which, actually, we’ve all been kind of chipping around, really, if you look at the debate this morning, which is this whole issue of legal notices. What this bill does, it takes language that makes modifications to the public notice requirement all across government, not just for DENR, but makes this a very wide, expanding bill. I will tell you that this is language that was proposed by, or that is supported by the Press Association and is also language that mirrors a bill authored by Representative Malone that is presently resting comfortably in another committee. What this amendment would do, what this substitute PCS would do, should the committee adopt it, is that it would require...it would maintain the publications in newspapers, but it makes some changes. One is that is puts a cap on the amount that can be charged so that that would, in fact, reduce the cost. And it also requires publications on the internet also. It’s, if you a will, a belt and suspenders way of approaching it. That is the thing I will not assume for moment that the bill’s sponsor considers this a friendly amendment. I know it is not a friendly amendment and I have...but I did contact him this morning telling him I was sending forth and would ask the committee to consider the adoption of my proposed PCS and I would stand ready to answer any question, Madam Chair, if members have any. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would the bill’s sponsor like to respond? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, I would. Thank you, Madam Chair. The ploy that Representative Moore has put forward here I would give an A for creativity and cleverness. If you...it’s hard for you to do this quickly, but if you look at my section 1, that’s his section 5. My section 3 is his section 6. My section 4A is his section 7A. My section 4B is his section 7B. He has taken my bill and actually expanded it and he’s expanded it into an issue that’s sitting over in another committee that deals with counties and and municipalities, so what he’s managing to do if he gets his substitute here, is he’s managing to expand my bill, so those of you like Representative Luebke and Representative Insko who don’t like my bill, should even not like this bill even more because it’s expanding it. What he’s also then trying to do is substitute this in place of the bills that are sitting in another committee, including one that just came over from the Senate. I would tell you, the North Carolina Press Association will love this bill because it blocks the other electronic notice legislation that we’re not even talking about today. It almost tells you that what my bill is doing here isn’t that much because the Press Association, in fact, has incorporated all of my bill into this thing. I, again, I’ve always been dazzled by Representative Moore’s work, I particularly am today. I regret having held this bill over because I was being a nice guy last week when I had the votes. I will...

Learn from that? (laughter) I ask you to vote against this substitute because it’s really, this is watermelon and kumquats here. They both have seeds, but that’s about the extent of the commonality here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further question from the committee? (laughter) Rep. Starnes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I want to understand. Your original bill to allow (??) to do the notification electronically is incorporated in this new PCS? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Largely, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Basically, it still allows them to do what you intended to do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Pretty much all of it, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] They strike one section. You can compare, 4 of the 5 sections are there. They kind of notice provision. I think even Rep. Moore would concede it’s largely my language. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I guess Rep. (??) my dilemma comes from the fact that I think my name is on Rep. Malone’s bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will say I expect that Rep. Malone’s bill will be debated in that other friendly committee sometime in the near future. I full expect that the Malone bill will be offered as a substitute appropriately to the bills that it relates to. This is an effort to go another way to get to the same result that they would like. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Luebke? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madame Chair. I know Rep. Moore tried to put my name on this amendment, but now Rep. (??) is saying be careful. What Rep. Moore wants to do to you. Seriously, as you’ve heard, I’m very much not in favor of your bill because of the digital divide issues. You’re against Rep. Moore’s amendment. Part of what you said a moment ago, is that if I’m against your bill I really ought to be against his amendment. Can you explain that to me just briefly for me please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The reason why is his bill incorporates almost all of my bill. Section 1 of my bill, Section 5 of his. Section 3 of my bill, Section 6 of his. Section 4-A is…you go down, the things you were complaining about are in this bill. In fact, you’ve now expanded it in a way that defends against this other legislation out there to counties and municipalities. I don’t think you want to go there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Quickly. You’ve persuaded me. I oppose the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Hager is next please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question to the amendment sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moore I know you were against my H-298. But since you’ve done this can I put H-298 in this also? (laughter) [SPEAKER CHANGES] Why not? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Iler. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madame Chair. May I inquire of the chair? We’ve had a motion originally for the Senate PCS. Now we’re on our third PCS. What are we voting on? The PCS presented by Rep. Moore? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The substitute PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The one presented by Rep. Moore? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moore. That’s the one we’re discussing right now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I understand. When we get to… [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 298. Just teasing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madame Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was simply trying to turn his Volkswagen into a Porsche with this amendment. If I could just respond briefly. I will not argue with the gentleman from Hendersonville. It is a…what this bill does, is it does maintain essentially the notice requirements of the newspaper. It does expand the debate beyond what this bill was about. What I did do was I incorporated what this bill does with respect to this limited exception for (??). Kind of the analogy I would draw, is back when I’m not up here doing this, I’m just a small country lawyer back in King’s Mountain. We handle a lot of these family law cases. We got to mediation. You’re in there for several hours and whenever everybody leaves everybody’s mad. That usually means you probably reached a fair settlement when both sides are equally unhappy. Maybe that’s what my PCS does. Both sides are equally unhappy and maybe that’s a fair compromise. About all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Catlin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madame Chairman. Again, I’m not a lawyer. It sounds…

[Speaker Changes] I mean the first part says that the newspaper notice is still required and then the last sections say for ?? it’s not. Am I reading that correctly? [Speaker Changes] That’s correct. It carves out the exception the gentlemen wanted, but it maintains the publication. It’s a passive aggressive way to deal with the other legislation that is out there. Kind of pending at this point. [Speaker Changes] Representative Hager was next. [Speaker Changes] Thank you. For a serious question to the bill sponsor this time, I mean amendment sponsor, PCS sponsor whatever you wanna call it. Represntative Moore, you talked about everybody walks away not happy. This might be a negotiated issue. But did you not initially say this is mostly what the press association wants? [Speaker Changes] The first section certainly is. I know the press association at least was not happy with Representative McGrady’s bill. And a Representative last week spoke against it. But you’ll notice I incorporated his bill, the PCS. But I also added in the language that the press association, through Representative Malone’s bill has wanted. [Speaker Changes] Representative Dixon was next. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Madam Chair, and I appreciate the matter in which we’ve discussed a very serious issue this morning. And I think its refreshing to have these kind of discussions. I don’t want to detract our attention from the fact that we are discussing an extremely important issue but its probably bigger than the discussion that we’re talking about here, and I’ll refer back to my original statement. We’re in essence talking about how in the future we’re going to have government’s notice very important things. With what is in front of us now, I prefer Representative Moore’s situation. And if it come to a vote, I will vote for Representative Moore’s propoposal. [Speaker Changes] Representative Starnes. [Speaker Changes] Thank you. And I agree with Representative Dixon. We’ve got the issue of notice, but we’ve really got it mixed up here with different issues which are both serious issues that need to be addressed, and we need to figure out a way where everybody can come out a winner on this. But Representative Malone’s bill was in another committee and I understand its in your J committee is this was separated out, could you offer Representative Malone an assurance that his bill would have a fair hearing and a vote in an expeditious manner? [Speaker Changes] My expectation is the electronic notice bills will come up in my committee at some point. My further expectation would be in that Representative Malone’s bill will be offered as a substitute to one of the bills that would be brought forward. And that is one of the ways that it will be likely considered in my committee, but I’m just anticipating that. All of the electronic notice bills that I anticipate at some point would end up over there. This one was very narrow I thought. If this bill were being discussed with all the language in the front, you’d have the county commissioners association, the the legal municipality, and a whole range of other people that would never have anticipated needing to come to an environment to talk about ?? notice. Thats why it is sitting over in a different committee. And again i would urge those of you who don’t like my bill need to vote against the substitute too, to be consistent I believe. [Speaker Changes] Representative Harrison. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Madam Chair. Just for clarification, I apologize for my confusion. Representative Moore’s PCS, has your bill a carve out for ?? with no newspaper publication requirements? Is that right, and then it has the other piece of it that has to deal with the press associations bill? [Speaker Changes] Substantially. I think its fair to say. Its not exactly, but its got four of those five provisions that are in there, yes. [Speaker Changes] And as a follow up. My preference is yours, that that bill be debated separately in a committee that is more appropriately suited where there is a the public notice out there for those impacted by the bill to be available at the committee for the hearing. So I would not be in favor of this proposed committee substitute offered by Representative Moore. And if its appropriate, I’d like to add that I’d like to amend your bill to take out a couple sections, and I think I could vote for it, and I don’t know when its appropriate to bring that up.

1st Speaker : Right now we are still on the motion any further comments or questions on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. thank you I have been mostly listening today but I have done a lot of research because this is an important issue for my district. Pew Research did some work on this who has a capability to look at this online notices and then basically 20 percent are not using it even tough the internet maybe available down their stream. The reason they are not using it is some are not interested, i think those are the senior citizens they spend their whole life without it. many can't afford it because an iPad, computer is expensive and it cost you something every moth to pay for the internet access and some don't think they can learn it some people are afraid of it and there are actually citizens who don't believe that the internet is the right way to live your life and they have some moral problems with it, so looking at my county census and taking the people under 18 out that left about 33,000 people if the Pew research numbers were consistent in my county, and if you take the cost of an iPad and years worth of internet connectivity you can argue about what that numbers is it might be $1500 for the first year it might be $500 for the first but it is $1500 this is going to be $50 million burden on my citizens and if it is $500 it is going to be $16 million burden on my citizens so i think it is important that we have this discussion because we are in a new technology world but i don''t know if we want to rush trough it so i respect everybody who is pursuing this i think they brought up some very good arguments but i am going to vote no on everything today. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. OK. Any further questions i think we are ready to vote on representative Morris motion for the new Pcs 755. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The nos have it. the motion fails. OK now we are back on the our original Pcs any further representative Harrison. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I think i can state it i spoke to the Bill sponsor and to the department i think the section that gave me the most concern that i think i agree with many of my colleagues concerned about the digital divide and number of constituents we have who don't have access to internet and they will be getting this information form the newspaper but i would like to take out the sections 4a and 4c. 4a has to do with pollution discharges to surface waters. and 4c deals with public commons and public hearings on issues ranging from air and water resources or pollution has their substances control and air pollution control because i think those are pretty broad and far reaching the others are quite narrow and i am not sure what kind of experiment you end up with but I think I would vote for the bill if we could take out those 2 sections. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Looking at the department that exactly what i requested at a last meeting so we are quite amenable to that and we you make that in a form of a motion i would urge support for representative Harrison's motion. ??? Representative Lukey [SPEAKER CHANGES]. i just don't like the idea not having staff to tell us which lines of the bill are coming out and so i can follow line by line [SPEAKER CHANGES]. If we can get that done. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I appreciate the sentiment but i to know the lines please. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I think it is also important we need to make sure we are on the right Pcs ?? I think Representative Harrison was referencing the sections that weer on the Pcs representative more offered. What you need to be looking at now is how 755 this will be under 2nd line of the bill number CSTA-8d5 i'm sorry it is the other one CSTA8d4 so that's what you need to be looking at now that you are acting on so you want an amendment we need to know which sections this Pcs you want to amend it out. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Madam Chair if i can just follow up. I thought i was looking at the the right version Section 4a dealing with water pollution that starts on line 6 on page 3. End of Audio

And it runs to page 4 line 13. And then item, section 4C which is on page 5 and runs from line 5 to line 46. I think I’m on the right version there. Is that clear? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. And what, what we’ll have as an amendment just, because it’s the quickest way to do it. It would delete sections 4A and 4C and renumber the other sections accordingly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] They’re actually going to prepare. Are you going to prepare an amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. They’re going to prepare, they’re actually prepare an amendment I guess. Okay. [INAUDIBLE] Everyone heard that motion? Okay. All in favor of that amendment say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed no. Amendment passes. So any further questions on the bill as amended or as, or on the PCS as amended. Hearing none. Any motion? Representative Harrison? [SPEAKER CHANGES] [INAUDIBLE] favorable report for the proposed committee substitute with the amendment, whatever language you need. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Roll down. ‘Kay. Does that have a referral? Nope? Okay. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Division. Division. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. We have a division. Division having been called. Oh. Okay. Raise hands. If you’re in favor of division? We‘re gonna raise your hands if you’re in favor of the, the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair. We on the bill or the, we’re, we’re on the bill now? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is the PCS as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As amended. This is Representative, Repsentative McGrady’s bill with her amendment. If you’re in favor of that please raise your hand. Okay. All opposed? Okay, the bill passes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Vote Madam Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] 13 to 6. Right? [SPEAKER CHANGES] 13 to 6. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. We have one, we have an amendment still left on one bill. Representative Basker, Baskerville. 471. Sorry. Sorry. Got four minutes here. Where is Representative Baskerville? Okay. Hurry, hurry, hurry. It’s a Starnes amendment? And you have a copy of it? [INAUDIBLE] Okay. Representative Starnes would you like to explain your amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This amendment just says for projects going forward there, there, the municipality or the county commission, the local governing authority has to provide a notice. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. And all in favor of Representative [CROSSTALK] Madam Chair. Just saw some, I thought I saw a technical problem with the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Lines 12 and 13, how you, you’ve got to sell a property period. Then you’ve just got the word property period. Does that need to be stricken? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair, move that perfecting amendment to strike the second property there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. All right. We have a motion for perfecting amendment. Do we have to vote on that now? [INAUDIBLE] all in favor of perfecting amendment by Representative Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Now we’re back on the amendment by Representative Sarnes. Representative Samuelson? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Madam Chair I was gonna speak against the amendment. While I appreciate the intent I am one of those counties that would need to talk with my county before I could support this substantive change. It’s also why I thought it ought to be done in the government committee. And there needs to be in all these counties and cities needs to know how it’s going to impact what their currently doing. Because this has been established policy for a number of years. So I would urge your to defeat the amendment. But I would encourage the sponsor of the bill to get with these county people and talk some [UNKNOWN] before you get to government. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair

Representative Samuelson, I think they’re all...your situation and others are grandmother and grandfather, so it doesn’t affect you it’s just going… [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s all perspective. Everything is grandfathered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] They’re all grandmothered. Can they show me how that’s happening. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff can answer that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to clarify, any leases executed on or after the effective date, including for the counties and municipalities that were in the provision before the bill before you, any new leases in all those counties and municipalities will have to give notice. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All the old projects are grandfathered, but from here on out if they want to do a new project, the just put a notice in the paper or on the internet, whichever applies to their county. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Respond? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just remembered that it was bit of an issue when this came up before, but I don’t remember all the details why so it’s one of the counties, if you representative one the counties are cities that are in here and your people, for all you know, may be in the middle of doing this right now and so, given that I’m going to vote against it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further questions? All in favor of the amendment vote aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The ayes have it and the amendment passes. Favorable report is moved. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed no. The bill passes, let’s get out of here. All right.