Changes to Statewide 911 System that Impact Local Governments

In 2007 the General Assembly enacted legislation (effective January 1, 2008) establishing a consolidated system for administering both wireline and wireless 911 systems across the State. (Prior to that date, the Wireless 911 Board administered a statewide wireless 911 system, and local governments administered wireline (landline) 911 systems.) The Act (S.L. 2007-383 (H1755)) created a new 911 Board and authorized the Board to develop a comprehensive state plan for communicating 911 call information across networks and among public safety answering points (PSAPs)—defined as the public safety agencies the receive incoming 911 calls and dispatch appropriate public safety agencies to respond to the calls.

The Act also authorized the 911 Board to levy a monthly service charge on each active voice communications service connection (defined as each telephone number assigned to a residential or commercial subscriber by a voice communications service provider) which is capable of accessing the 911 system. It set the monthly service charge at 70 cents (requiring the 911 Board to reduce the fee under certain circumstances). And the Act directed that certain proceeds from the 911 charge be remitted to qualifying primary PSAPs (first point of reception of 911 calls) according to a statutory formula. Other proceeds from the 911 charge were reserved for grants to PSAPs in rural and high-cost areas. The Act required that local governments that received 911 funds deposit the monies in Emergency Telephone System Fund accounts and expend the funds only for a limited number of statutory purposes.

The General Assembly modified the statutory allocation of 911 funds in 2008 (S.L. 2008-134 (S1704)) to give the 911 Board greater flexibility in determining the appropriate distribution of 911 funds among PSAPs and other qualifying entities. And, in 2009, the S.L. 2009-574 (H945) authorized a study committee to, among other things, review expanding the allowable uses of 911 funds by PSAPs.

This year the General Assembly enacted S.L. 2010-158 (H1691), which made further changes to the new 911 system, including modifying the membership of the 911 Board, altering the distribution of 911 funds to primary PSAPs, and expanding the allowable use of 911 funds by the PSAPs. Read more »

Conflicts of Interest and Subcontractors

One of your city council members, Georgia Peach, is a plumber, and owns her own plumbing business, Peaches & Plumbs, LLP.  Peaches & Plumbs often subcontracts with one of the bigger and more reputable general contractors in town, Constructive Construction, Inc.  Your city is getting ready to renovate the town hall, and, as it turns out, the lowest responsive bid is from Constructive Construction.  If you determine that Constructive Contractors is a responsible bidder, can you award the contract to them, knowing that they’re likely to subcontract with Peaches & Plumbs?  Doesn’t that create a conflict for Georgia Peach? Read more »

Extending Permit Extension

Remember the permit extension legislation from last fall that was designed to give developers, lenders, and property owners a reprieve from all of those governmental permits expiring? You know, the legislation that suspended development permits from running during the period from the beginning of 2008 through the end of this year. Well, just about the time this three-year tolling of permit expiration was about to wind down, the General Assembly, with some considerable prodding by the development community, acted to allow the suspension of permit expiration to continue for one more year. Developers, lenders, and government permitting personnel—no need to rev up your engines just yet. Read more »

Suped-Up Set-Off Debt Collection

The Set-off Debt Collection Act is one of the General Statute’s hidden gems for local governments.   For decades the process commonly called “debt set-off” has allowed local governments, water and sewer authorities, and similar public agencies to attach state income tax returns to satisfy debts of $50 or more owed by individuals.  Lottery winnings were made subject to the process in 2005.  Debt set-off can used to collect taxes or assessments or fees or fines or any obligation owed to a local government and is in addition to all other collection remedies available to a local government for a particular debt.  As part of the shockingly punctual 2010 budget bill, the General Assembly made this hidden gem even more valuable by increasing the types of debtors and funds subject to debt set-off. Read more »

Public Records Mediation and Attorneys’ Fees Provisions

In this blog post, I summarized the changes in the personnel privacy laws contained in the ethics bill,  S.L. 2010-169. This post summarizes two more changes included in that legislation. One establishes both an optional and a mandatory mediation procedure for resolving disputes about public records requests. The other amends the statute governing the award of attorneys’ fees in public records lawsuits. Read more »

Is Collective Bargaining in Your Future?

UPDATE November 2013: Congress did not enact the bill to create the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, discussed in this post.  For the time being there does not appear to be any substantial federal impetus that would force units of government in North Carolina to engage in collective bargaining.  The answer to the question “Is Collective Bargaining in Your Future” appears to be No.

North Carolina law prohibits units of government from engaging in collective bargaining with employee unions.  That is the law right now.  No collective bargaining agreements, no union contracts.

A bill that has passed the U.S. House of Representatives (as part of an appropriations act) and is currently being considered in the Senate could override that state law and bring collective bargaining to state and local government in this state.  It would be the biggest change in governmental employment relations in North Carolina in a long, long time. Read more »

Redistribution of Lottery Fund Proceeds Results in Loss of Revenue to Counties for Public School Construction Projects

UPDATE August 2013: In 2013 the General Assembly repealed the statutory allocations of lottery proceeds and corporate income tax proceeds to the Public School Building Capital Fund. The effectively means that funding for the PSBCF will be subject to yearly budgetary appropriations by the General Assembly. See S.L. 2013-316 and S.L. 2013-360.

North Carolina General Statute § G.S. 115C-408 provides that “it is the policy of the State of North Carolina to provide from State revenue sources the instructional expenses for current operations of the public school system as defined in the standard course of study. It is the policy of the State of North Carolina that the facilities requirements for a public education system will be met by county governments.” In practice, however, the division of financing responsibilities between the State and counties is not quite so clear. As I discussed in a previous post, counties are responsible for some public school operational expenses. And, over the years, the State has responded to the need for new and improved school facilities by offering direct and indirect assistance for construction costs.

For example, the State authorized counties to levy two additional local sales and use taxes in the mid-1980s, totaling one cent. A portion of the revenue generated by each of these taxes is statutorily earmarked for public school construction projects or debt service obligations on public school construction projects. See G.S. 105-487; G.S. 105-502. These local sales and use taxes reasonably may be viewed as a form of state revenue-sharing because retail sales taxes are traditionally a state revenue source. In the late 1980s, the General Assembly also established the Public School Building Capital Fund (PSBCF) to allocate State monies to counties to directly support school construction projects and, in some cases, school technology projects. The PSBCF contains funds from two different sources—corporate income tax proceeds and the State’s education lottery proceeds. This year, the General Assembly made several changes to the statutory allocations of the education lottery proceeds which will result in a loss of funds to many counties. Read more »