New Municipal Broadband Limitations

One of the more controversial “local government” issues addressed by the North Carolina General Assembly this year is the proper role of municipal governments in providing cable and Internet services. This issue is not new. Several bills relating to municipal broadband service have been introduced in the General Assembly over the past few years. Furthermore, North Carolina is not the only state wrestling with this issue; it currently is being debated in many states across the country. It is not surprising, then, that the municipal broadband bill (HB 129) garnered significant national attention this year—even prompting a Harvard Law Professor to pen an open letter to Governor Purdue.

Proponents of municipal broadband authority argue, among other things, that there are certain areas, particularly rural areas, which the private sector simply will not serve because it is unprofitable. They contend that the availability of cable and, in particular, broadband Internet services are essential to the economic development of these areas, though. Thus, municipalities should have broad authority to provide these services when the private sector fails to do so. Opponents assert that when municipalities compete with private sector providers the municipalities have an unfair advantage because of their ability to, among other things, obtain tax-free financing, regulate private sector competitors, and take advantage of lower costs due to exemptions from fees and taxes. They further argue that government provision of these services is inefficient and ultimately more costly to consumers.

Presumably attempting to strike a balance between these competing concerns the North Carolina General Assembly enacted S.L. 2011-84, which significantly restricts the ability of municipalities to provide cable and Internet services but allows for some exceptions for existing municipal service providers and for services provided to “unserved” areas. (Governor Purdue let the bill become law without her signature on May 21, 2011.) Whether the legislature struck the appropriate balance undoubtedly will be the subject of continued debate. The purpose of this post, however, is simply to describe the provisions in the new Act and discuss their impact on municipal broadband authority in North Carolina. Read more »

Email Subscriber Lists: A New Exception to the Public Records Law

In this blog post about citizen information, I noted that some local governments had obtained local legislation to protect email subscriber lists from some kinds of public access. Effective April 21, 2011, that law now applies to all local governments. This post summarizes its provisions. Read more »

Small Towns and the FMLA

Does Anytown, N.C.—a town with fewer than 50 employees—owe to its employees the leave rights set out in the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)?  The answer is No, I think, but it takes a little explaining to get to that answer.  And even though Anytown does not have to provide the rights, it still must post the FMLA notice as if it did. Read more »

2011 Purchasing and Contracting Legislative Wrap-Up

The North Carolina General Assembly adjourned on June 18, 2011  and will reconvene next month on July 13th.  When it reconvenes in July, the legislature will only consider a narrow list of bills, namely redistricting, election laws, legislative appointments to boards and commissions, bills vetoed by the governor, and bills already in conference (Res. 2011-9).  So, unless the General Assembly changes it rules, the 2011 Long Session is essentially over.  If you’re interested in a recap of this year’s session, check out Aimee Wall’s recent blog post.

Of the bills introduced this session that proposed statewide changes to purchasing and contracting laws impacting local governments, only a handful were enacted before the General Assembly adjourned.  Some of the public bills left pending might receive attention in the 2012 short session next summer.  Most local bills authorizing purchasing and contracting flexibility for individual local governments were enacted.  Read more »

The Revenue-Neutral Tax Rate

The revenue-neutral tax rate is a bundle of contradictions.  It is intended to make the property tax reappraisal and rate-setting process more transparent, but instead it often muddies the waters.  The rate is required to be calculated and published by local governments but need not actually be adopted for the coming fiscal year.  If adopted, the rate is revenue-neutral for the county as a whole but not for individual taxpayers.  In a nutshell, the revenue-neutral rate is complex, confusing, and unavoidable.    Here are some tips to minimize problems associated with the revenue-neutral tax rate and maximize its usefulness. Read more »

The Business of Legislating: How Much Has It Changed This Year?

When the General Assembly convened on January  26 and the Republican party held a majority in both chambers for the first time in over a century, everyone expected things to be different: new leadership, revamped procedures, and shifting legislative priorities.

Now that we are five months into the session and the legislature has recessed for a few weeks until mid- or late July, we are gearing up for our first two local government legislative update webinars (July 15 and July 18). During the webinars, School of Government (SOG) faculty members will review some of highlights from the session in a variety of substantive fields including annexation, elections, and the environment. We are also posting SOG legislative summaries online as they become available. 

This pause in the session also provides a nice opportunity to reflect a bit on how the change in party leadership has affected the institution and the legislative process. The shift clearly resulted in changes that affected the number and types of committees, the number of bills introduced, the budget development process, and the legislative schedule. It is also evident that the gubernatorial veto authority is playing a heightened role in the legislative process this year. Read more »

Organizational Options for Local Public Health Agencies in North Carolina, Part 2: Proposed Legislation

UPDATE: Legislation changing the organizational and governance options for NC local public health agencies was enacted in June 2012. The legislation, commonly called House Bill 438, is summarized here. When I wrote this post I focused mostly on a different bill (S 433). I noted H 438 but stated that it applied only to New Hanover county, which was initially the case. However, during the 2012 legislative session, H 438 ended up being the vehicle for many of the S 433 provisions that are described in this post, and it was made applicable to the whole state. (The full history of this legislation’s interesting and unusual course is available here.) More information and resources about the implementation of this legislation in North Carolina is available on the consolidated human services section of the SOG’s NC public health law website.

North Carolina counties have a statutory duty to provide public health services to their residents. Counties do this by creating or joining some form of local health department. Yesterday, I wrote about the different types of local health departments that counties can operate or participate in under current state law. Today’s post describes proposed legislation that could change the options that are available to counties in the future. Read more »