Help on the way via 911 funds?

Counties may be growing closer to achieving a long-standing legislative goal during the 2010 short session.

NCACC President Mary Accor of Cleveland County thanks Speaker of the House Joe Hackney (Orange County) for participating in County Assembly Day festivities on May 19. Rep. Hackney had addressed county officials earlier in the day. For a recap of County Assembly Day events and photos, click here. (Photos by Jason King)

A bill that would allow greater flexibility in the use of 911 funds, as well as provide additional local government representation on the state 911 Board, received a thumbs up from the House Public Utilities Committee on June 9. H1691 must now gain the approval of the House Finance Committee before becoming eligible for floor action in the House. If that happens, it would also need to pass the Senate before being sent to the governor for final approval.

In addition to expanding the ways that counties can use money collected from the 911 service charge, the bill provides a one-time window to use up to 50 percent of the reserves built up in the fund for any public safety need.

"Citizens expect when they pick up the phone to call 911 that someone's going to show up at their door to help them," NCACC Director of Government Relations Kevin Leonard told House Public Utilities Committee members. "The current statute does not that support that sort of policy."

Currently, counties can only use 911 fund revenues on the equipment needed to receive the phone call. Leonard said that allowing the additional flexibility would enable counties to upgrade their systems and ultimately provide an even better service to citizens.

The bill also equalizes the representation on the state 911 Board by adding two local government representatives to the board.

In addition to rallying behind 911 fund flexibility, county officials remained hopeful the state budget would not have a major impact on counties, particularly since the majority of counties will have adopted budgets before the governor signs off on any state budget for 2010-11.

As the first full week of June wrapped up, legislative leaders were handing out spending targets to various subconferee groups that will work within separate subject areas to resolve money and policy differences between the House and Senate budget proposals.

Subconferees were to report their proposals the week of June 14, giving conferees the week of June 21 to make final decisions in preparation for an anticipated June 29 adoption of the state budget conference report.

Whether the conference report includes the Senate proposal for county lottery funding, which would continue the 40 percent set aside of net lottery proceeds to counties, or the House proposal, which would use $46.5 million in county funds to backfill state classroom cuts, is clearly an important issue for conference committee chairs to deliberate. Both House and Senate proposals would permit counties to use any or all of their lottery proceeds to protect classroom teachers.

Still pending in the budget discussion is the much-anticipated – and currently budgeted – enhanced federal Medicaid funding being debated by Congress. If Congress fails to pass an extension of the enhanced funding, it would leave state budget makers with a $500 million hole to fill in a $19 billion budget – in addition to the $800 million gap caused by slower growth and fewer revenues.

Marc Basnight, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, chats with Mecklenburg County Chair Jennifer Roberts following his comments to county officials during County Assembly Day.

In an unusual move, legislative leadership told subconferees that any changes within the spending targets can be considered – a departure from historical practice that allowed only those items in controversy between the two chambers to be changed by the conference committee. This means that cuts not included in either chamber's proposal could reappear, which places county issues at greater risk.

It was during last year's budget conference (in the 11th hour of deliberations) that counties lost the $18 per day jail reimbursement fee for state prisoners housed in county jails and two-thirds of local beer and wine revenues. Neither of these cuts had been included in either chamber's proposal.

Other issues that the NCACC had its eye on in early June included bills that would "modernize" – or reform – the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) system and that would change the state legal system from contributory negligence to comparative fault.

The House ABC Committee favorably reported an amended version of H1717 (Modernization of the State ABC System) on June 9. The NCACC supports this amended version of the bill because it better empowers counties – as the appointing authorities for many of the ABC boards – to monitor and address potential problems within the ABC system.

In this version of the bill, ABC boards and employees are covered under the Local Government Ethics Act and must also comply with a gift ban and anti-nepotism provision. Unlike earlier versions of this bill, there are no provisions to take additional profits from ABC boards to fund state efforts.

Early June saw the release of a new version of H813 (Uniform Apportionment of Tort Responsibility), dealing with comparative fault. The NCACC opposed the new version because it lacked sufficient balancing provisions and dramatically changed state tort law by allowing for more personal injury claims to be filed. The changes would likely result in increased insurance premiums and court facility costs for counties. The version included a broad reallocation provision, which allowed plaintiffs to reassign the fault of one defendant to another defendant if the judgment is not "reasonably collectible" from a defendant that is assigned fault for the damages.

In addition, the bill contained a section that retains joint and several liability, which would force a county to be liable for damages it did not cause. That provision would place the full burden of any judgment jointly on a local government if a plaintiff asserted that the local government failed to prevent the intentional act of another defendant.

A provision regarding medical expenses was added to the bill to attempt to balance these harmful blame-shifting provisions and the dramatic change to comparative fault, but it does not provide a sufficient balance. As a result of these provisions, the current PCS shifts the tort system too far in favor of the plaintiff.