WHAT HAPPENED: A big surge in bill filing. For perspective,
last week we reported that the 177 new bills of the time represented an uptick. This week, we saw 335 bills entered, and indeed a number of them are of interest to cities and towns. They include new backing for the historic preservation tax credit, additional broadband proposals, sales tax redistribution, billboards and more.
WHAT IT MEANS: The Senate's final filing deadline was a few days ago, so we expected a crunch at the end. But it certainly means more to follow and consider as the stew thickens. We've told you about our
online bill tracker as, paired with this Bulletin, a great way to keep tabs on individual proposals that could impact your municipality.
ON TAP: House members had a softer deadline this week, of April 3 to get money-related public bills to the drafting department. But they'll have to get full proposals into the filing system by April 23 for them to be considered. They have until April 16 for bills not dealing with money. Meanwhile, there's state budget development and the super late-night event at the Legislative Building meant to serve as a do-or-die cutoff for legislation -- "crossover," May 9, by which time most bills have to have passed at least one chamber to remain eligible.
THE SKINNY: Clearly, we're no longer writing about the long session ratcheting up. That's over with. We're full speed now at the General Assembly, where our team is covering the bases to bring you the kind of information and advocacy we can offer you in this Bulletin. Read on for plenty of details.
Register now for CityVision2019, set for May 14-16 in Hickory. CityVision is the League's premier annual event, this year with two full days of engaging speakers, educational sessions with tools you can use, and networking opportunities that connect you to both new and established partners from across the state!
Program highlights Include:
• Energetic keynote speakers focused on future readiness, regional partnerships, grants, broadband and technology, the opioid challenge, and conference takeaways
• Roundtable-style breakout sessions
• Mobile workshop
• Exhibit hall and networking
Don't miss this conference, which will be attended by municipal officials from all across North Carolina. Register today!
On next Tuesday, April 9, the
Senate State and Local Government Committee is scheduled to hear damaging legislation that will restrict and undermine local tree ordinances.
SB 367 Clarify Property Owners’ Rights would require that all local ordinances regulating the removal of trees be permitted only with the express authorization of the General Assembly. For the dozens of municipalities with local tree ordinances already created by local acts, those ordinances would have to be amended to allow property owners, in every instance, to remove trees interfering with construction so long as trees were replaced with tree saplings.
The League opposes this bill and urges you to contact your state senator and let them know that SB 367 undermines local authority and harms local visions of community character that are critical to economic development and residents’ quality of life.
It is also important to understand that this legislation – like other state mandates affecting local development – has the potential to restrict the ability of local officials to protect the rights of existing property owners from neighboring development that could harm their property values.
With that in mind, please make the following points to legislators:
• SB 367, by restricting local tree ordinances, damages local visions of community character that are crucial to economic development and residents’ quality of life.
• Local officials are best positioned to determine how local tree ordinances should be created and applied, as they are responding to local voters and property owners and understand the differing needs of their communities.
• SB 367 limits the ability of local officials to protect the rights of all property owners, including those whose homes border new development and could potentially lose value based on how that development proceeds.
Please contact your state senator this weekend and let them know of your opposition to
SB 367 Clarify Property Owners’ Rights. Ask that they vote against this legislation in any committee or floor votes. You can find more about the General Assembly and your representatives
here.
Taking its first step toward passage into law, HB 399 Historic Preservation Act of 2019, which would enhance and extend the state’s historic tax credit, cleared the House Commerce Committee on Wednesday and will now be considered by the House Finance Committee. The House committee’s action came as the Senate filed a bill that includes a provision that extends the tax credit for four years, potentially signaling that Senate leadership may not push back against the idea of the extension, even as differences may arise over the term of the extension and any changes to the tax credit. That provision can be found in Sec. 5.2 of SB 622 Tax Reduction Act of 2019.
In Wednesday’s committee hearing, Rep. Steve Ross of Burlington, a primary sponsor of HB 399, made the point that the historic preservation tax credit is most needed in the towns that have suffered jobs losses due to mill closings, and that it is helping to revitalize local economies. “There is really not a better economic development tool than we have right here,” Ross said. The tax credit is currently scheduled to expire on Jan. 1, 2020, and League members voted to make its extension a legislative priority back in November. Read about the League’s response to the legislation when it was filed.
HB 570 and
SB 536 Water/Wastewater Public Enterprise Reform were filed this week and represent a culmination of a yearlong legislative study committee that was charged with looking at a variety of issues related to rates of public enterprise utilities. The committee eventually narrowed its focus to the pressing issue of the more-than
$17 billion of water and sewer infrastructure needs statewide and the continued financial viability of certain utilities based on their infrastructure needs. The committee was very active, receiving presentations and participation from the League, UNC School of Government’s Environmental Finance Center, N.C. Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Infrastructure, N.C. Local Government Commission, N.C. Rural Water Association, and N.C. Association of County Commissioners.
HB 570 and SB 526 would do many things to try to address water and wastewater utility viability, including creating a new grant program administered by the State Water Infrastructure Authority called the “Viable Utility Reserve Fund.” In creating that program, it directs what type of water and wastewater system projects can be funded, including assistance for physical interconnection of systems; rehabilitation of existing infrastructure; decentralization; and the study rates, asset inventory, merger and regionalization options. In order to fund that new grant program, the bill creates a $1 monthly surcharge to be paid by every wastewater and water customer of a public water or wastewater utility. The utility would collect the surcharge on their regular billing schedule and remit it to the state, allowing the utility to take a percentage to cover administrative costs. The fund can also accept an appropriation of money from the state, but the proposal doesn’t specify one. Additionally, the proposal would set a method for assessing and reviewing when a water or wastewater system is consider to be distressed, and incudes studies of the requirements of sub-basin interbrain transfers and an voluntary option of historical charters for municipalities.
In committee discussions, there were many presentations and talks about the changing demographics of our state; the lessening of federal funding to utilities; the inability in some areas to charge ratepayers what is needed to keep the system in good condition; and the fact that merger, consolidation, and regionalization is often impracticable because a utility in good financial standing will not burden its existing ratepayers by merging with a struggling utility. There was a recognition that there needs to be a structure in place to give viability grants to utilities to get them back to a baseline where merger, regionalization, or a sale of the system could even be possible without mandating regionalization, merger, and interconnection.
