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.

Joint | June 9, 2014 | Committee Room | Research Committee

Full MP3 Audio File

Test. Test one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Legislative Research Commission will please come to order. Would a, ask members to try to locate your seats so we can determine if we have a quorum, and it does appear to the Chair a quorum is present. Can you all hear me okay in the back? You all hear okay in the back? Okay, very good. We’re glad to have everyone here today. This, of course, is the meeting of the Legislative Research Commission where we will hear from all the subcommittees that have been meeting during the interim, take those reports, then decide what action, if any, to do as a result of those subcommittees. Didn’t know if my Co-Chair had any remarks that he would like to make? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, thank you. Good to be here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right, good to see you, sir. What we are going to do is go in, go by, go through the committees. You should have a copy of the agenda that’s been made available that you see the order in which these presentations will be made. The first report we are going to hear is from, is the assessment of regulated and non-regulated industry utility fees, I believe. Representative Hager is going to make that presentation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you want me to do it from here, or do you want me to do it from up there? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, why don’t you do it from here. You’ll on the mic, and we’ll just let everybody will come up and speak, and we ask the presenters to try to keep your remarks, at least your introductory remarks to less than three minutes. There may be discussion, that’s fine, just in case, it’s not a controversy. Representative Hager? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m here. Appreciate it. This bill basically makes fair the regulatory fees for Running Utility Commission. Some years ago, a lot of the Telecom regulation, regulatory issues got moved out. They’re no longer under the Utilities Commission. We’re just suggesting those fees. Now, there’s a certain amount of money the Utility Commission needs to run. The regulated folks have agreed, and you’ll see those structure on here, to pick up those fees and make Utility Commission whole. Basically, pretty straightforward. I got folks here, technical folks, know a lot more about what’s exactly in there, what’s exactly not, but it’s mostly the Telecoms that are moving ?? the Utilities Commission. Have been out for years, just moving the fees with it. Any questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do members of the Committee have any questions? Is there a motion from the Committee as to whether, to whether to not to adopt this report? Chairman ?? makes a motion to adopt the report. Is there further discussion or debate on the report? See none. ?? has favored the adoption. Let me get this right. It’s a little different than the normal. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Here you go. There you go. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion is that the report and recommendations of the legislative research committee on the assessment of regulated and non-regulated industry utility fees to the 2014 Regular Session of the 2013 General Assembly. Would be reported to the General Assembly. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the report is adopt. The next report is the Chowankoke Nation recognition. Representative Steinburg, I believe, is going to make that, going to make that report. Representative Steinburg? Mic is yours. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The charge of this committee was to study the issues surrounding state standards and procedures for officially recognizing an Indian group as a states-recognized tribe. The broad recommendation of our committee is that the General Assembly should pass legislation that requires a more expeditious review and hearing of petitions by Indian groups seeking state tribe recognition. The recommended steps would be required that the North Carolina Commission of Indian Affairs act on the petitions as they are received. There’s been a back-log over the years, and we need to have them jump to that. Requires specific times for the commission to acknowledge receipt of petitions, conduct a preliminary review, provide a report of preliminary findings, and, also, to hold a hearing. And finally, authorize the Department of Administration to assign from funds appropriated to the department, necessary personal to the commission for the purpose of assisting with the intake and review of both new and existing petitions. That was the problem we were looking at to make this committee work a little better, The Commission on Indian Affairs, and unless there’s any questions that concludes our report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do we have any questions about Representative Steinburg? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right. See now is there any discussion or debate on the report, not the

Chair we’ll open the floor to any motions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion to adopt made by Representative Carney. Motion being that the reported recommendation of the Committee on the Chowanoke Nation recognition that that be submitted to the 2014 regular session of the General Assembly. All those in favor please signify by saying, “Aye”. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those opposed, No. The Aye’s have it, the motion is adopted.The next report is the civilian credit for the military training and state adjutant general selection criteria. I believe Representative Hastings is going to make this report. Kelly, come up here if you want to. Just give the report here. Is that correct or am I wrong? I apologize, Senator Rabon and Representative Hastings. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please don’t forget the Senator. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s so easy to do. ?? Is Senator Rabon here also? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thanks for having us here. This was an open and transparent process. It really started with the North Carolina National Guard and the men and women of the National Guard and just wanting to make sure that the person whose appointed as the adjutant general has the necessary skill and experience. Just as a quick note, the military experience is really important. Especially in today’s age where we have partnerships around the world with countries such as Moldova. and if you need to know anything about Moldova I have a CIA world fact check slip. Just to let you know how important and serious that it is. And I think that its just about it, other than a few bullet points just to state that instead of appointing someone who lacks the necessary experience to handle world affairs and military and National Guard matters, these new criteria will improve our national guard. The other one, Senator Rabon this was really his issue. But I’ll hit it briefly for him and this is just to make sure that especially in a time when we are probably going to be suffering some military cut backs. We want to make sure that our veterans have an easy process in North Carolina in entering the work force. And that’s really it in a nut shell. And so, Mister Chairman, both of you, that’s it. Unless there are any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do we have any questions of Representative Hastings by any members? Thank you. Any discussion or debate on the presentation? If not, the floor is open for a motion. Is there a motion to adopt a report? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ll move. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. Chairman ?? moves that the motion on the report on the recommendations on the Legislative Research Commission Committee on civilian credit for military training and State Adjutant General selection criteria to the 2014 regular session be reported to the General Assembly. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, “Aye”. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those opposed, No. The Aye’s have it, the motion is adopted. The next report we’ll hear is the Committee on Cultural and Natural Resources. Excuse me, I stand corrected. The next report is the Common Core State Standards. Whose presenting that? Senator Soucek? That report will be brought forward by Senator Soucek. Representative Holloway. You gentlemen are recognized to present the report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chair. As we come in the room, it was really hot and I realized you guys are very wise. You want us to be short and brief, so we’ll hurry and get out of here. So we’ll make this as brief as you’ll let us or we’ll give you more if you’re ?? requires. But what this bill does, it makes an effort to replace common core in North Carolina. And it does it as we see the chairs and the ?? community in a responsible way by appointing a academic standards review commission. This commission does not have rule making authority. This commission is simply advisory and it will give the State Board of Education advice as to the standards that the state of North Carolina should select. The State Board next year, will be doing a five year review of the standards. They do that every five years. So it comes up…

And again, this commission will be giving advice to them in the standards that we should select. The bill does take all statutory references of common core out of our statutes, and it does prevent the board from purchasing or using any assessments aligned with common core without enactment of legislation authorizing the purpose. That’s the short of the bill. Senator Soucek may have some comments, but again, I’d be glad to answer any questions if you have them. Senator Soucek. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. One clarification that we saw I thought misrepresented immediately in the media regarding this bill was it was claimed that it repeals common core. If we repealed common core, the students would have nothing to learn the next day in school. What this does is the advisory commission does have the authority expeditiously to make recommendations to any or all of the common core standards, so it’s important the power of what we’re putting in place, but also that we’re not putting academia into freefall in this. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Did we have any questions of the presenters? Did members have any questions at all? We’ll now open it to any discussion or debate on the committee as to this report. Is there any discussion or debate? Seeing none or hearing none, the Chair will accept any motions that may be made. Is there a motion? ?? Representative Burr moves that the report that the recommendations of the Legislative Research Commission Committee on Common Core State Standards to the 2014 regular session of the General Assembly be reported to the General Assembly. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those opposed, no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and the motion is adopted. The next report we have is from the Committee on Cultural and Natural Resources. I believe Senator Brock is going to be making that presentation for the committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, member of the committee. The Study Committee on Cultural and Natural Resources met to look at how do we combine our cultural and natural assets that we have throughout the state, and some of the issues that we have with both pulling them together and trying to get through the silos of each particular agency of having them to work together, work closely, and to look at how the citizens or our guests to our state that come here as tourists can better enjoy our sites, and also make sure we go from one to another. We also had a great presentation from the town manager of Damascus, Virginia to talk about the Creeper Trail, which we were happy to find out Representative Dollar completed the 21, 23 mile bike trail, which was pretty impressive, but we found out that the whole trail was downhill. He just rolls downhill. But the recommendation from the committee is the creation of the independent Natural Heritage Tourism Board, which six of the nine members will be appointed from the General Assembly, with three from each chamber, and a creation of the State Nature and Heritage Tourism Guidebook, which will bring it together where citizens and guests can take a look at where we can better utilize our assets, funding to how we make the recommendations for historic and cultural sights and operations to make sure we maximize effectiveness through cost efficiencies, and also a study for the highway signage to improve our state parks and our state sights. We don’t have many signs in downtown Raleigh to show where we have our museums. And in another committee we had a meeting at DuPont Forest, that not only did we have several people from the meeting get lost up in the mountains; that our GPS systems actually took a few of them to South Carolina, so… [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If we wanted you there, we’d have given you directions. I told them I was telling Apodaca, “Look, my Senate ??, they told me to go to Virginia.” [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It did. I had a…

Thank you, yeah. You know, since you're a House member I'll take your motion, Representative ??. He was just trying to get Andrew to be quiet is all that was. You know, but I will tell you I did the ??? Trail too, and it is, it's nice. And I also hiked the entire width of the Appalachian Trail that day too. Alright, so the motion is, well, there was a motion. Motion is that the report recommendations of the legislative research commission, Committee on Cultural and Natural Resources to the 2014 regular session of the general assembly be reported to the general assembly. All in favor please signify by saying Aye. Those who oppose, no. The Aye's have it, the report is adopted. Thank you Clerk. The next report is the Food Desert Zone Committee, and I believe Representative Whitmeyer is going to be making that presentation. There he is. Representative Whitmeyer the mic is yours. (SPEAKER CHANGES) Thank you Committee. This committee initially drew on the fact that a lot of people don't even know what a Food and Desert Zone is. So we had to vet a tremendous amount of information that affects 1.5 million people. We did this with 28 presenters from anywhere to private business sector, to academia to government, to private and public nonprofits. And we found that 80 of our 100 counties have to some degree a food desert zone sometimes multiple ones. 1.5 million people are affected, and this is not an easy problem necessarily to fix, its like eating a whale one bite at a time. The reason, the motivation for digging into it so deep is the fact that food desert zones exacerbate a lot of problems that cause second and third order effects such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and diet related maladies that ultimately strain our healthcare system, our quality of life, productivity to work force and the list goes on and on. With that, we found a lot of things that make some seemingly obviously solutions impossible to use. Most of the time in terms of trying to connect food providers with areas that need it most there are areas that have low profitability, shoplifting is also very high, complicated by higher degrees of crime, low transportation, there's zoning, there's regulatory, there's tax structure issues that frustrate the problem. Often times those who need the food are on a very constrained budget. They have limited knowledge on preparing fresh food and the list goes on and on. So what we did to combat the food desert, is we looked at improving education, how to access food and it's effect on the body. Regulatory changes so that food providers, food growers, food vendors can have more of a one stop shopping entry into the areas that need them the most. And basically we looked at a layer of solution oriented approaches. The committee report has a number of recommendations too, but the key recommendations are to further the study, the joint legislative study, to take it further but also from a standpoint of substance legislation that I hope we will get approval on and we can take it to the short session. Is legislation that seeks to drive existing money, this bill will not ask for an appropriation. But we looked at 3 major areas of federal funding that get up near $20 million total and have some latitude with one to better connect again agribusiness, agriculture and food providers with area that its needed most. And with that, details can go on and on, but this is a very significant way to make government more effective and efficient and put areas that need and can help the business community and connect them, so we ask for your support. SPEAKER CHANGES) Do we have any questions? (SPEAKER CHANGES) No question, when you're ready I have a motion. ????? (SPEAKER CHANGES) Further discussion or debate? if not the motion before the committee is that the report and recommendations of the legislative research commission committee on food desert zones be reported to the general assembly. All those in favor of the motion please signify by saying Aye. Those who oppose, no. The Aye's have it, and the motion is adopted. Teh next report is Up next is the healthcare provider practice sustainability in training that senator ??? is going to be making that presentation. Senator ??, welcome to the committee.

[0:00:00.0] Thank you members the committee has expected I will try to be hold your time there is a lot of recommendations in here and findings that are more appropriate for budget settings and we move through the three pieces of legislation are part of these recommendations the first is to study to require the universities and ask the private colleges to study, the establishment of a new optometry school in the state of North Carolina, something we are missing and the second one is established equity in other places for kind of practical care and the third is to study the expansion of health care transparency. I will be happy to answer any questions you have but I think that’s moving through as quickly as I can. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you have any questions for members of committee motion, Representative Burg recognized for the motion. The clerk will record. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, the motion is that the record recommendations of the Legislative Research Commission Committee on health care provider practice, sustainability and training be reported to the General Assembly. So, who favor with the motion please signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those no…Aye says the motion is adopted. The next report is judicial efficiency and effective administration of justice report, you are gonna do that Representative Burg? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Burg is recognized to come forward and bring that report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman ___[01:35], the Co-Chair Davis and Chair of the committee we met four time, four meetings to work on another various to find judicial efficiencies occurred and improved the administration and justice and you can find our list about 17 and finding and recommendations and we are pushing the committee members and appreciate the committee support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you have any questions Representative Burg? If not the Representative Apodaca moves for favorable reports, excuse me sorry. [Background Conversation] [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m trying to help you I’m trying to help you there my good friend Senator Apodaca we are gonna go and run the show…My best friend Senator Apodaca moves that the report and recommendations of the Legislative Research Commission Committee on the judicial efficiency and effective administration justice to the 2014 General Assembly set recorded. So, who may favor the motion please signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those oppose no. The aye says the motion has passed. [Background Conversation] [SPEAKER CHANGES] We are gonna move the land development report to the end reason being the staff needs to finish making copies of report for that one I think the copies members that you have is not complete that Mr. Paterson left to give this copy so that’s the one we need to scale up, right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I gave you two copies of the Mechanics Lien report and land development so we go to the land developers. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, alright. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, on the website it was a correct report if you had a chance to look at that you are gonna see on that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. So, we still have the hardcopies. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me, are there members who desire the hardcopies in report if I don’t see it has we suppose that without the hardcopy. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You got them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, alright. So, let’s move, we don’t have amendment on the Mechanics Liens and Leasehold Improvements. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, we are gonna do the Mechanics Liens and Leasehold Improvements I believe the Representative Stephens is making that report? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman and we have spent a lot of time on this but really getting… [Background Conversation] [SPEAKER CHANGES] All we got two copies… [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is true and thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you Mr. ___[04:11] for that wonderful introduction. All we did this time with Mechanics Liens was to talk about other product partnerships and that was the big case that the court of appeals did that created a problem and it was almost is if your truck get out with public payments funds. So, we are willing to make that clear, we have made a couple of technical corrections so that the website that we are using for Liens is able to get the reports correct and that’s it, that’s it, that’s all we do this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca I understand you had a serious request that you want to ask? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, alright. Any other questions if not Senator Apodaca moves that the report and recommendations of the Legislative Research Commission on Mechanics Liens and Leasehold Improvements of 2014 regular session be submitted to the General Assembly. All those in favor… [0:04:58.8] [End of file…]

... the motion, please signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion’s adopted. Congratulations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, are we going to have another Bill Brawley and Sarah Stevens discussion on this one? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We could. We could. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We probably will. We will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I know we’re all waiting with bated breath for that moment again. The next report that we’re going to take is the omnibus foster care dependency, and I think this is Sarah Stevens part two, so ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is. It is. Thank you Mr. Chair again. This was a joint House and Senate committee. We were charged with in four meetings trying to review a comprehensive study on juvenile and family laws on abuse and neglect, dependency, adoption, foster care and parental rights. Clearly we couldn’t get a whole lot done in our four meetings; therefore one of our recommendations has been for the Health and Human Services Committee to study and report back on particularly conflict of interest situations – that is where one county department of social services submits a case for follow-up with another county and how they handle those conflict issues and making sure that they accept it. Second thing is we did have one technical problems from the court of appeals in which because someone failed to swear and verify a motion – they signed it but they didn’t verify it – they excused a complete termination of parental rights action, so we’ve made that correction to be clear. We have recommended that this study committee continue on in the short session. For those of you who… between the Gaston County case and then while we were actually having this meeting, Wilkes County up where Senator Randleman and I live had a very bad case, we know there’s a lot more work to be done and we’d like to continue on after the short session with some comprehensive legislation on this front. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have any questions? If not, a motion will be in order, anyone wants to make it. Representative Hager? Senator Harrington hasn’t made one yet. I’m going to take her jut so she can vindicate herself of Senator Apodaca’s comments. Senator Harrington moves for that the report and recommendations of the Legislative Research Committee on Omnibus Foster Care and Dependency to the 2014 regular session be submitted to the General Assembly. So many as favor the adoption of the motion, please signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the report is adopted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The next report is the Treasure Investment Targets and State Employee Retirement Options. I believe Representative Ross is going to make that report, so… Representative Ross, welcome sir. The mic is yours. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Co-Chair Collins is here and may want to add some comments as I get finished. He’s shaking his head no. I think he wants to hear more about the unmanned aircraft coming up. Our committee met twice. There are a lot of issues to be taken up in regards to pension plans. It’s a fairly complex issue, and so we decided to spread it out into four meetings over the short session and then into the long session, recognizing that there were some parts of this that we would not be able to accomplish in the short session. So we started out and we had staff come in and give us a complete pension overview of the entire system. We then went through a financial report on the pension plan. We then looked at and studied the assumed rate of return that’s assigned or has been assigned for the plan, and then we looked at some of the treasure’s initiatives because they also have been studied in the plan in a separate study. Some of the things that we came out with was an overview of pension spiking, and that’s just a method of kind of gaming the system that I’ll touch on in just a moment, and also vesting. We came out with several findings and a couple of recommendations. Our first finding was in the area of fraud and waste within the plan. The Treasurer’s staff or the Treasurer’s office does not have enough staff to be able to monitor the system for fraud, waste and abuse. They’re very understaffed, so we are recommending within the plan that we bring in two new positions, or set up within the Treasurer’s Department a compliance unit which would consist of two positions, to more proactively reduce the risk of fraud, waste and abuse. In the area of pension spiking, this was a fairly complicated process. There are several stakeholders in…

… involved in this that we were waiting to hear back from, and most have all agreed and come on board with it, and I think we have a solution, but at this time, we’re not prepared in the short session for this particular process to address the pension spiking issue. I think that is something that’s coming up in a separate bill maybe from the Treasurer’s Department. Our finding number three was the area of vesting. The vesting schedule on the plan was changed from five years to ten years in 2011. This change is primarily made as a cost-saving measure; however, at this time it does not appear that this will yield any substantial savings at all. Last year, the one-year savings estimate was one basis, point, and for those of you that are not familiar with a basis point, that’s one one hundredth of one percent, so it’s literally pennies on the dollar. The recommendation that we came forth with on finding number three was a return to the five-year vesting schedule. This in turn would bring our plan back in line with the standard or industry standard with most every other pension plan – public pension plan and private pension plan – within the country. Finding four was the assumed rate of return. We looked at where our assumed rate of return stood right now with the new economy that we’re facing, and we found that that rate of return at this point in time is still justified. We have a 50 percent probability of hitting that number, but we do recommend that we begin to take a look down the road at implementing some measures and review processes to decrease that assumed rate of return for a new economy. This would give us or bring us back to the probability of being able to get back to 100 percent like we were back in the 60s and 70s and 80s. I know that’s a lot, but I’ll take questions if anybody has any questions, and I’ve got staff here also. [SPEAKER CHANGES] do we have any questions of Representative Ross from any members of the committee? If not, is there a motion? Senator Apodaca, do you have a motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] See how easy that was? That’s how this committee is. It’s just… Senator Apodaca moves that the report and recommendations of the Legislative Research Commission Committee on Treasure Investment Targets and State Employee Retirement Options to the 2014 regular session of the General Assembly be so submitted. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion’s adopted. We’ll go back to the Land Development. Member should have a copy of that report on your desks now. The Land Development Committee. Did any members not have that report? Looks like Representative Torbett, looks like we’re going to have you for that one and the one thereafter, so I know the ?? one’s what everybody’s been waiting on this year, but we’ll do the Land Development first, so… Representative Torbett, welcome sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ?? Good evening, ladies and gentleman. We had an issue – this is how this committee I guess arrived at that – where a housing development, predominantly multi-family or two family homes that were for lack of a better term just seasoned citizens, that it was probably their last residence. They lived in a community, they had been promised some amenities to their community. The Developer Act went bankrupt during the bubble burst of the recent times and left these folks pretty much in harm’s way when it comes to their personal property, and so we looked at ways – is there some way the state could intervene and make just something I guess not happen again? Fortunately, some of our findings were this is not a problem, it doesn’t happen all the time. It was a very rare… it’s even been called absolute perfect storms. Some of the outcomes we found, pretty much as we would suspect, was based on lack of proper communication between both…

[0:00:00.0] And this is about County and State, Authorities relative to the finding about big data with code or code with zoning, zoning with data and just pretty much ability to improve the communication. What we have decided to do to the legislation is to and the first part authorizes local governments to provide the ordinance for performance guarantees to ensure successful completion of requirements of Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plants. It authorizes local government to withheld the residential building permit unless either all Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan requirements are pretty much mapped all over the developers automatically referred to make those amenities, the ___[00:46] Bill also provides different local government issues of residential building permit without requiring either completion of plan requirements of provision the performance guarantee the local government will be responsible for completing any plan requirement state protect the dwelling from physical damage if they are left unfinished by the developer. The second phase requirements of the Sedimentation Control Commission approves any local Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program it must first transferred to the local government all responsibility for the ministry and enforcing any existing Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans in that county, all municipalities that are under the commissions and jurisdictions so that responsibility is not split between state and local authorities. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And do you have any questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think there is an amendment Representative Wake is recognized to send forward the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The amendment has been distributed to the members. Representative Taker you are recognized to explain the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I spoke with the Chairman Brody and Chairman what's his name? The Chairman ___[01:55] and they are out there and I think they agree with this but basically some of the members of the committee and stakeholder are a little queasy about the some of the issues we had for this amendment or being ___[02:08] single___. So, what we try to do is setup a process I ask stakeholders and Representative Brody to get to the other sediment process that would link some of that, some other issues that we had I think this process sets up and really requires communication between Dean and the building code in a particular county, building inspectors and I guess the designer of a wall, thin wall in place and that really is an issue. Dean has taking walls on their sedimentation control plans but they don’t enforce the building on it. The building in separate and the building departments in the counties really building up the walls but they don’t do sediment____[02:53]. So, we are taking the walls kind of fall in between we think this process which gets a designer, which is a professional engineer in this case gets the special engineer involved in the process to certify the walls are build and ___[03:07] could actually sets up a process to levitate this purpose. And you have the recommendation changed there I mean having a bill also to replace____[03:20]. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, further discussion or debate on the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair the clerk will read that Representative ___[03:34] talked to you I’m not sure… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, further discussion or debate only amendment if not the committee is favor the adoption of amendment please signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those oppose no. The ayes have, the amendment is adopted. Is there further discussion or debate on the report as amended? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The report as amended… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca that the report and recommendation of the Legislative Research Commission Committee of Land Development has amended to the 2014 regular session with the general assembly been set reported. All those in favor in that motion please signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those no, the aye says the motion has adopted. The next report is the un-mount aircraft systems, Representative ___[04:28] again. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman Moore and excuse me, Chairman Apodaca. Well, ladies and gentlemen before the talk let me know you about the ___[04:44]. So, we took a product sales to have a house committee look at the implementation in the market place and what we need to do is to state to do that, you may or may not know that the Federal Government is currently is going to release… [0:04:58.0] [End of file…]

AA findings based on commercial activity within national airspace of unmanned systems, air systems, and that release is due sometime in December. So, we thought that we’re being North Carolina going to be active participants in a merging market that perhaps we better go ahead and get something on the books. So, this was our first swing at it, and I would like that thank Chairman, Co-Chairman Setser. Our focus was three-fold. One, do what we could to protect, most importantly, the privacy of North Carolinians. Two, which of equal importance, to protect the safety of North Carolinians, and three was to provide for enough flexibility so we can actively participate in a wonderful emerging market of unmanned systems. I have our staff on hand here to offer some legal language if you need it, but we pretty much came up with the following: we made clear definitions between what is surveillance and observation. For example, if you are observing, it’d be no different than if you were flying a Cessna 150 today from Point A to Point B and observing where you were flying. That’s observing. If you were in that same Cessna 150 and you were surveilling an individual on his property below, then that would be specifically to that individual surveilling. So, we made that definition. So, once you understand that, then that means an unmanned air system would be able to fly from Point A to Point B and observe no different than a manned aircraft, but you cannot specifically surveil an individual without that person’s approval. So, that was one of the outcomes. We listed in here some of the things you cannot do. Commonly call those the Bubba scenarios if you would. You cannot, it is a felony if you, what’s the proper word, weaponize an unmanned air system. You cannot hunt, or you cannot fish. And most importantly, you cannot interfere with a manned aircraft. Now, if you follow the news, you’ll noticed that just, I believe it was yesterday or not, perhaps, the day before, the FAA released a report where one did interfere with a united, or US Airways flight, back in March. Everything came out okay, but it scared the dickens out of the pilot of US Airways. We can’t have that. We mentioned that in our language. We knew that was coming and that it will be a felony. With that, there’s some legal language in here. I think I touched on the high points. Let me allow for any questions if I could, Mr. Chairman. It’s pretty specific language. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are there any questions? Representative Hager. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A motion ?? time. I just wanted to make a comment that Representative Torbett has severely hurt the sales of RadioShack and rural districts ?? for weaponize. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That was a let-down, wasn’t it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative West. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are we still allowed to use unmanned? Should we not say un-personed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbett is eager to address that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All the women excluded. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any other discussion or debate, if not the Chair will accept the motion of leave. Representative Hager moves. That the report and recommendations of the legislative research commission committee on unmanned aircraft systems be report onto the 2014 General Assembly. Be supported to the- Excuse me, to be reported to the General Assembly. All of those in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKERS CHANGES] Opposed, no. The ayes have the motions adopt. Members, we will- Thank you. Members that concludes the committee. Sub-committees, however, would ask that the, would ask without objection that the committee staff be authorized to make any and all grammatical, technical, conforming changes or corrections as needed, including the corrections of the memberships of either the committees or the ORC. Is there any objection to that? Hearing none. So ordered. Members, that appears to be our business unless said ?? docket has anything. Say not. Motioned to adjourn is in order. Motions heard. All in favor aye, opposed no. The ayes have it. We stand adjourned.