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 8, 2013 | Committee Room | Regulation

Full MP3 Audio File

I like to go ahead and call this meeting to order. If members could take their sits, visitors would go to the back of the room. I like to welcome everyone the the full house comity on regulatory reform. I like to thank our Sargent at arms for the quick change over and a Stout Harris, Antoine marshal and Bob Rosy. They are continuing to pass out information for members of the comity. Our pages for today are Amy Tucker, if pages could raise there hand or stand. Thank you, Chad Turlington, Shekim Williams and Alexandria Spore. We appreciate your willingness to serve in the house this week. Members we are going to be adding a bill to the agenda, and that is house bill 277 will be added with out objection. Hearing none so added. Our first bill up is house bill 74. I like to recognize representative Tom Murry to do a brief introduction of the bill it self. Members for your information unlike the last meeting we will have to depart this room at 10 to noon. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I make a motion that the PCS be properly before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. all in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. PCS is properly enforce representative Murry you are recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Thank you Mr. chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Mr. chairman [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I do not have the properly before PCS nor do I have any of my summary sheets. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. They are being pass out as we speak. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. If representative Murry. If the comity will allow representative Murry, will begin his explanation of the bill while this are being pass out. Representative Murry. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Thank you Mr. chairman last time we presented house bill 70. For to, it was a broad sweeping bill that went very, very far and so we had robust public comment on that and several conversation with stake holders. Including the agency rules reviewing people. What we done is, created a situation where we allow the agencies to identified rules into three buckets rules that are necessary and non controversial. Controversial is a loose term and is not in the exact term on the legislation. I'm trying to give you some concepts here. Necessary and none controversial, necessary or controversial, or something that has had substantial public interest, and we have unnecessary rules. We are asking the agency to identify and help put rules into those three buckets. Those three filters from that proses we start in to the rules review, and re-adoption proses. I would ask that Caren Cocker Brown, detail the legislation that we are going to go trough. Including the time frame. But instead of having every rule review every ten years. We are asking the agencies to help us identify rules in those three buckets and then go trough a proses where they can be regularly reviewed and adopted. And with that Mr. chairman if you would recognize Caren Cocker Brown to help us walk trough the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Thank you, representative Murry. Mrs. Cocker Brown you are recognized [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Thank you Mr. chair, members of the comity as representative Murry indicated this is a rewrite of the bill that you discussed several weeks ago. That creates a new proses for the review of existing rules. The proses would basically required that agencies make an initial determination. With regards to the rules that they have already adopted. That are existent in the code for that agency. And the initial determination would sort their rules to three buckets, essentially. One for rules that are necessary and with out any any substance of public interest. Which basically that no one the agency has not receive public comment objecting to the rule with in the pass two years. Essentially this is a rule that, in other words is not particularly controversial. That everybody sort of agrees with. The second bucket would be for rules that are necessary and controversial. This are rules that the agency and the term would be “rules that are necessary with substance to public interest.” and that would be demonstrated by the fact that the public would have commented to the bill with in the pass two years. The third bucket is one for rules that are determined by the agency to be unnecessary this are rules that are obsolete, redundant or other wise not needed by the

Agency to the fiesta official tour name, and publishes on their website on a back the termination of how the team their roles, and they also should make that determination to only eight ritual off to publish information on its web site the public will be invited to comment on the terminations or 68th after the publication and lights from public comments are a CD Agency will be required to do, in a brief response to the to the public comments two potentially at her eyes lit up the public comments actually have more money actually delete from: suppose the statute are something of a week after the agency completes this process they will submit a report to the rules to be a commission and report will include their initial determination regard to the rules, and the public: the public comment they received NI Olivier responses to become them will soon be a condition in the second step up the process will review this information and able to take a lawyer you the public comments and make a determination whether or not you to the public, it has merit or 9:00 AM(SPEAKER CHANGES) L make that determination based on standards and help which is essentially whether or not they VE public comment relate specifically to enroll in Mater Dei it applies 21 of the state and Federal City a commission currently uses to a way to evaluate switches litigation fifth after a 41 that was clear and unambiguous and whether the rule was necessary attention that the rules are you commission determines the public comment has merit and public comment relates to why there are any role that was determined by the agency to be unnecessary or enroll back with turning to be without something to public interest banks actually doubles in the commission will have the talent to be designated battle as a role within 5 feet 10 public interest of Guinness meaningful because I begin the process them to be a commission makes a determination as to how the schools will be treated so the welfare and that the Yom without fat C2 public interest pockets will be allowed to remain in effect without anybody doing anything out for them to stay in the country are the rules that are in the unnecessary bucket well expire on the effective date of the final report and nothing else will have to be done within the agency will have to repeal them to rulemaking bulls was with just expired they are now working to bucket of balls are determined to be the hats off public interest will have to go to the pool making profits again MB we adopted because the little to laugh. Rockets into the process by which we've reduced the number of roles actually have to get the complete the option review , (SPEAKER CHANGES) V after the Bolivian conditioned office report it will submit a report to the joint legislative administrative procedure oversight committee which must consult on the rules, and once they have a consultation on the report becomes effective in on that effective date: both consequences begin to flow. B wealth without such as public and impact statement and college with unnecessary both expired NV, the ones we sat in the public interest began going through the lawmaking process again the rules and you can see is given that authority to essentially set schedule and 5 µl happened and two basically oversee the process on his eighth I eighth separate provision allows 858 to 50 users process of it on the decennial. Gary Tang your basis to basically get medically necessary rules of the determined and then they claim they are used the fearsome oath that they want to get rid of thing can apply to those in the commission had the unnecessary rules essentially expire under this process there also isn't scheduled for them to be a commission to place some rules and to this process if during their normal we love of rules may find that there are existing rules that require be reviewed a combat, D, 88 to Steamroll the due process is currently in the EPA on the street field by this act in this process would then be to substitute for the Omni and that was a share is essentially help more like a sculptor brown vs. sample from Tom Sherri L. Allen, many of you find a way of thinking back to the numbers are ??.....

Almost everything in here comes in threes. It's a three phase process. Divide the rules into three types of categories that will then be reviewed by three different bodies and then will be disposed of in three different ways. So if you think about it that way, basically we took the rules and we're gonna let the agencies look through and say either they're necessary but some people might have some questions or concerns, or they're unnecessary and nobody's really even had any complaints or concerns, or they're necessary and no one has said that they had any concerns. So, necessary/concerns, necessary/no concerns, and we just don't think they're very necessary. And they'll make that determination, they'll write up what they've determined, they send it to the Rules Review Commission. Then Rules Review Commission - and during that time they also post it so the public can say either, "we agree with you" or "we don't agree with you" - and so all of that information will then go to the Rules Review Commission, and the Rules Review Commission will look within their parameters at the public comment, what the staff did, and they will either agree or disagree with how the staff categorizes it. So that's step two. And then once they do that, they'll send it to step three, which will come before the legislative committee, who will then review what both of them did and then either agree or disagree and make any kind of changes they think needs to be made. And then in the end, those three categories of rules, as they have then been filtered out with all the public comment and all the eyes looking at them. If they view it as, "you know, we all agree this is a necessary rule and there are not any real problems with it", it's automatically renewed for that next ten years. If they say, "you know, this is a rule that we've all said is unnecessary and nobody has said differently", it automatically is repealed. And then if they say, "it's a rule that we agree is necessary but we don't agree on some other aspects of it and we think it needs to go through the rules process", it will go all the way back through the rules process. So, three steps, three types of rules, three sets of eyes, to end up with a way for us to review everything. We'll be open to questioning. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Waddell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a comment on the motion at an appropriate time. My comment is that it sounds mighty efficient to me, which is separate from the way government ordinarily operates. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for that. I will tell you it took us a while to get to it. [laughs] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I got a couple of questions. In the transition between the part of 150-B that's being repealed and the part that's replacing it, are there any entities that are being exempted from the rule-making process that currently today would be required to go through rule-making? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm gonna let Staff answer that. My thought is we did not address changing any of that, so I don't know that this does, but I'll let her address it cuz I think that is being addressed in a different bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, there are no exemptions added in this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right. Second question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In the legislation - I may not have understood you correctly, I'm trying to catch it in the language here - you're saying that all rules that would be reviewed, either new or existing rules or rules being proposed to be done away with or new rules proposing to be ??, would come back through the General Assembly or a legislative committee? [SPEAKER CHANGES] What would come back through the legislative administrative procedure oversight committee is the report on why the rules were dealt with the way they were. For instance, if the agency had said, "we view this as unnecessary" - and we had the word noncontroversial and we changed it - without substantive public comment. In other words, if they say that they'll at least report that, and then what we're reviewing is what they're reporting. It's not that we're going back and looking through all the rules, but looking at the process, what they did, and seeing if there's anything that jumps out as either having been not according to the process or where we stridently disagree with what they did. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, and this may be for Staff, and you can follow it with a thought I saw that you had - are we in any way, in the repeal and the replacement of this, in any way taking away from the authority prerogative power of the legislative branch to intercede in a rule and invalidate that action? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me, Miss Cochran-Brown? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to clarify with your previous question, this process only applies to existing rules, so it would not in any way affect the process for [END TRANSCRIPT]

Or am I gonna see the new rules were amended, existing rules that they can only goes on any way a nifty agency S statutory authority to do that they would continue to do that if they do right now is a new process for review by wall of the existing with all the rules that are in the column LN in many cases have been there for many years and then what this process ladies replacing that he is an existing role process that was actually created by the governor executive order 78, Purdue executive or 70 created an existing rule procedure that essentially went through the office of state budget management and downs, five to settle 71 in 2011 that slips being repealed back process that was originally from executive order seven because the repeal in this new process which now includes the legislature in this process actually use or more Boston that process and the bench in this process is that there's a consequence to the agency for failing to do it on the back by (SPEAKER CHANGES) Eric existing will process officially give the agency did not do it the Allstate budget management had no recourse to compel them to do with the couple's to stay in fact nothing happen under this process if the agency failed to do with your goals expire and they will have a staffer in five and finally with regard to question there's nothing in this building way undermines the legislative branches authority to control agency will Rosenberg they hear much into seven additional duties after my first question the song in the second is so do love to building codes fall under that the rulemaking, and making staff question of the stock and bring a guest to become council decided to the 88 am a slight difference in the process because their statute to 5 to 5 different process of scheduling advantage of the gator bowls are viewed by the rules of the commission and on the publishing of the Hambros and the Fulton on which sponsored the reps to swell. The orientation of your review of the overview commission's job and board members to review rules with respect for authority but not rules which solidified its approval this is changed the therefore, the pole vault we cannot therefore for us to make a similar rule for the commission of this move will bill from the exam of the effectiveness of our own separate and that person since that's where the public input comes when named mike CAG C's Company made their determination in three categories XL posted publicly MMI public comment from then on the CC A's admitted to get public on nomadic B Y's Monday's necessary but noncontroversial rule without sentence in public and private life, public and the automatically goes into the category that said if the public input and then what the rules review commission MSGS 4 C is it something to public invited guests on my internal process or is their legitimate issue that are trying to address said that would also have the other side of the public being accommodated on the rules defined as the arts center some of the agency chair (SPEAKER CHANGES) from 10 thank Alford spending down by a great impact of this bill is as was introduced at a preset, com Ed, sliced off concerns that Afghanistan and assign this five-term as we're going to let you got the AC making the determination about this SA ND a YSSAISLAC self with the public and private-sector on NIS follow-up nine: in terms of game that were out to the public actress AS, known as they headed downstairs this morning in the last weekend, not a publicity and five but said AC Sanders website L.a. to spend the surplus web site investigators have dealt Saturdays from a suicide select soccer I think that's the way separately from the plane prescription on the event that we need we can track the role of rules review commission is part of their CD and place in line with the fact that it is the chair could respond , we believe we have a meeting with the rules for the coordinator for the agencies that was a topic of discussion because they felt that limiting it to the posting of their agency once I would not be sufficient public notice and we would tend to agree with mud wrestling

and more likely have that not only posted on their site but also on rules review commission's site. Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, just a couple more. So, after the ADC makes a determination, it goes to the rules review commission and the rules review commission is the final arbiter of the appropriateness? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well they send what they decided to the legislative administrative procedures over site committee who also then either agrees or disagrees with what they said. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And one more.- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Two more, yeah. So if it's deemed so it needs to, because it's necessary with the session of public interest, that's weren't ?? after go back through and then the rules review commission and over site committee, that am I have to go back through the rules process that which amended last year and two years ago, 781 and 810. Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, is that right? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I guess my concerns are one, ADC making determination about which of these rules are obviously redundant or otherwise not needed. I appreciate the public is gonna have comment and we all think how to get the public engaged. I'd be interested to know how the ADC's impact might be feeling about this process because it seems like it might be putting a burden on the staff and we continue to cut the budget on ?? and other state agencies and I am wondering last about the impact on delegated programs like clean water act and clean air act and I think you got to his a little bit, I think the agencies is going to have to make a determination if it's a dedicated program from one of the federal laws and implement it at state level. That is gonna be necessary but it's gonna probably have substance of public interest and I am just wondering how that be impacted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We did discuss something with the federal ones and I let the staff comment directly on that and we have got a little bit of feedback fro at least one of the agencies concerned about the workloads which is also why we asked the rules review commission to make sure that they keep that kind of impact in mind and they scheduling out how fast this will move. But if you want to answer the federal peeps. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Miss ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] With regard to two federally delegated programs there is nothing about this that's any different for their rules except that probably many of their rules are necessary and would have substance of public interest until it have to go back through the process again. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cunningham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a question for Staff. You use the acronym APA. What were you referring to? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am sorry representative Cunningham. That's the North Carolina administrative procedure act, it's the law that we are amending here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Waddell, you are recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I move that we get this house bill 74 favorable report for the PCS unfavorable for the original bill and is there serial referral? [SPEAKER CHANGES] There is no serial referral that ?? the floor from here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's my motion Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, we'll suspend that for this moment. Representative Holley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. I just have a question. Haven't been a state employee that has seen over the years of rule change and flip from administration. I am just wondering if this is being screened for something that may be only of political interest. Out of guidelines in place you just keep something from going through because some might disagree with it politically. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley, that's why we have got the three phase process with public input and everything else. I don't know if you are confused or not but one thing we have heard about policies that change. This only affects the actual rules so what you may be talking about that seems to more of a policy guidelines that have not actually gone through the rule making process and in some way we are hoping that this process might bring out the problematic policies and hopefully encourage those policies to get dealt with but this process will have a lot of public input that should be balancing any type of political piece that might be in there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harrison. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just had one more question. When does this start? When does it kick in? I guess it's effective when it becomes law but is the date disclosed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The rules review commission will have to start putting in that schedule for us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, the motion properly before the committee is for favorable report on the PCS for house bill 74 unfavorable for original. This will go to floor from here. All in favor say Aye. All opposed No.

Motion passes. Next up is house bill 677. Representative Brawley you are recognized to present your bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. This came out of some of the information submitted to the local government regulatory reformed subcommittee and it addresses two issues about which complaints were made. One is North Carolina is a right to work state it is also a state where collective bargaining by local governments both cities and counties is forbidden by law. But in some counties, cities or counties. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] 677, we don't have that here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does anybody have 677 before them? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Over here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you could just raise your hand the Sargent of Arms will bring you a copy. Thank you. We added it at the beginning. Representative Brawley continue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. What it does is just cities and counties frequently will end up deducting union dues from their employees to keep domestic peace, but at a considerable expense. What this does is removes that requirement from cities and counties that they can't deduct union dues with the modern ability to set up drafts from one's checking account. I know that most of my bills are paid automatically and we think that the, it would be better if that were done for union dues rather than the city's acquiring expense, cities and counties acquiring expense for that. The second part is there are a couple of draft programs where cities who have a heightened environmental consciousness want to implement programs requiring large employers to take responsibility for the carbon footprint of their employees with enrollment fees and fines if the city determines or the county determines that the employer has not done enough to reduce the carbon footprint of the employees. And a concern is that that's probably beyond the purview of cities and counties. If the state wants to implement such a program or the federal government that that would be appropriate. But cities and counties should not. That's all the bill does. Mr. Chairman I'd like to move for a favorable report on the bill and it will be reported directly to the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Questions for members of the committee? Representative Adams [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Do we have, is there any opposition to the bill? Who requested it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I got the request on the first part from some city councilmen who I would prefer not to name if that's ok. Cuz I don't want their firemen mad at em. The opposition I did get was from a firefighters union. I did hear from people in Charlotte and from people in Asheville that seemed to believe that if the cities didn't collect fire dues that people would die. And I did not see that as a credible problem with this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So off to any other, I'm curious about my county, my city and it's ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I did not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Did not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No ma'am [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Insco. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I see this as really just one more bill to remove power from local governments. If citizens in a community want their elected officials to implement these programs then they'll elect officials who will do it. If they oppose it they will not elect officials who will do it. If elected officials are doing something they don't like they will defeat them in the next election, and that's the way the process should work. So I oppose this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ross. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think the fact that this was just added to the calendar at the last minute also hasn't given people who might be opposed to this bill an opportunity to come here and speak on it. And I can think of a lot of folks, not just the firefighters who would have problems with this. So in addition to being opposed to the bill, I'm opposed to the process. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Iler. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Representative Brawley am I understating that an employer includes private companies as well as governmental bodies. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir. In this bill its cities and counties and local government agencies only. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bumgardner. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'd like

To say that I like this bill and I strongly support and urge everybody to vote for it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Waddell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just one quick comment, Mr. Chair for the bill sponsor. Has the League of Municipalities weighed in on this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] They have not, neither for nor against. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Richardson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to think that if these entities have already set up this system what’s the problem with them continuing with the system because they been doing payroll deductions for a long period of time and I’m definitely not in favor of this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up Representative Brawley, I’m not sure the bill goes far enough for me. Can a city under the bill, pass an ordinance to require a private employer or is it already in statute they cannot do that? To collect dues? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sir I believe we did address that in a previous bill on North Carolina’s Right to Work. Although I will say the federal government does have the right to override this. A specific example is federal legislation requires that any transit system that receives federal funds to employ union bus drivers so that in the Charlotte center area transit system the bus drivers do not actually work for the city of Charlotte. The city of Charlotte pays a third-party company to hire and supply bus drivers who are then unionized. So those dues would still be collected and this would not impair that which is forced by state law, excuse me federal law. But state law doesn’t allow collective bargaining so really what we’re saying to cities and counties, since you can’t be involved in collecting and bargaining activities why should you spend tax payer money to collect dues for an organization that you are illegally barred from negotiating. Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair, did I understand, I found out cuz I was late?? Committee. So this bill was just put on today? So people have not had an opportunity who might want to respond, because I would love to talk to my county, my city and maybe some other organizations about it. And because they don’t know about it that’s probably why they’re not here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Shepard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, Mr. Chair for a question of the bill sponsor. My question was, will this be mandatory if the city’s want to do this and the agencies can they, or this require them or say to them they can’t do this anymore? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It says they cannot do it. It is mandatory that they not withhold union dues and it is mandatory that they not implement programs to regulate the carbon footprint of the major employees within their jurisdiction. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have a question, I have a comment on process. If we haven’t heard screaming and hollering from the League of Municipalities and county commissioners, it’s because, it’s not because they don’t know about this. They see them tie their ?? and if there were issues, we’d know about it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Time for two more questions. Representative Cunningham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ma’am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This bill, ?? to the recent change that was made to the Mecklenburg county level for the firefighters am I correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No ma’am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ts not? Well I am aware that that it did. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me. Thank you Representative ??. I am aware that that did just take place the last couple of years so I would think that it was something that wanted to be reversed because the county currently did allow the firefighters to come back in and have their union dues withdrawn. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative. Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cunningham I was not aware that the Charlotte, that Mecklenburg county was withholding those union dues. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I am definitely wondering about organizations like the League having an opportunity to weigh in but moreover it appears to me that we simply just went through a process about rules which I thought was an absolute wonderful exercise but here I see a little bit of a conflict and I’m not sure how input from the publics, regarding this policy works at this current moment. So therefore I think we need to, I think this is an absolute solution that is really looking for a problem however that phrase goes. I can’t support this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative.

[Speaker changes.]...Bell. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Chairman. This would effect Scenic??? and NCIE????? Am I right? On the dues they collect... [Speaker changes.] Probably would. [Speaker changes.] Alright...ask the sponsor? [Speaker changes.] Yeah...I didn't consider that but it probably would. [Speaker changes.] I think it would because I know usually they have payroll deduction at the Board of Education level and also some of the Scenic workers have it where they work as well. [Speaker changes.] Ok, members, the motion before us is for a favorable report on House Bill 677. [Speaker changes.] Mister Chair? [Speaker changes.] All in favor, say "aye". (Ayes.) All opposed. (NO) Division. All in favor, raise your right hand. You don't know your right from your left, just raise a hand...(Laughter.) All opposed, raise your hand. On the vote, 26 for and 15 against. The motion passes. Next up is House Bill 480. Representative Millis, you are recognized. [Speaker changes.]Thank you, Mister Chair. Ladies and Gentlemen of the committee, this bill that you have before you today is a bill that really embodies what we're here for in regard to regulatory reform. In regard to environmental regulations and our environmental regulatory policy, this bill upholds the foundation to the protection to our environment but actually looks to address the wavering regulatory policies that provide regulatory uncertainly, a moving target, as well as to provide regulatory efficiency for how that we address specifically in regard to state storm water. I know that the committee is pressed for time and there's other bills on the calendar so I ????? dive specifically ?????????? but, one thing I would like to say and what this bill does not do, this bill does not effect local governments. This is specifically about state storm water. This is specifically about state storm water requirements. The language that you see in regard to MDC, which is Minimum Design Criteria; in addition, the language you see in regard to fast track permitting is language that we took that was already implemented by NCDiener?????? back in the early 90's in regard to the permitting of sanitary sewer, gravity sewer and pump stations. So we used language that was familiar to them. There is nothing significant in regard to those terms. Currently, in regard to the individual who is achieving or trying to achieve a regulatory storm water permit, there's three pillars they hafta meet, whether they know it or not. That's statute, rules and policy. This bill specifically addresses regulatory policy. It does not further any statute authority. It does not go into any aspect of any additional creation of rules. It's specifically to address the policy. In an effort to be brief, Mister Chair, that concludes my comments and I'll be happy to dive into the weeds and answer any questions. [Speaker changes.] Thank you. Representative Dixon, we've got about thirty seconds. [Speaker changes.] For motion, proper time. [Speaker changes.] Representative Harrison. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Chair and thank you, Representative Millis, for being so willing to work through concerns about this bill and I guess I just have a coupla quick questions. You said it didn't impact local storm water ordinances but to the extent that there's a local storm water ordinance is stronger perhaps because of the compliance with phase two. How does NDC interact with that? [Speaker changes.] Currently in regard to local governments, you may have some local governments that are delegated reviewers for the state and they have delegated authority in order to review for state storm water quality requirements. Currently they are reviewing to meet state storm water requirements based on a BnP???????? manual... [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.]

The 3 letters BNP will be changed to NDC and they still have the regulated authority. Nothing nothing changes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative. Members we are out of time. Please pay attention to your email, we will be scheduling a regulatory reform meeting early next week. We are adjourned.