Okay, let me call the Joint Programme Evaluation Oversight Committee to order. Do I have the list of the sergeants at arms we have today are Reggie Seals, Reggie? Where did Reggie go? Okay. Reggie stepped out. Marvin Lee, Marvin? Rex Folster and Randy Wall, from the house welcome to each of you and thank you. And form the senate, Larry Hancock, Ishaan Patel and Al Rouche/g. And thank you to you as well. First I wanna recognize John Turcotte to introduce some new members of the PED staff. >> Thank you Mr Chairman. Janice stand up Janice. Janice is an intern with us from the UNC School of Government and she graduated from Campbell University and now after is a graduate student. We're very glad to have her. She'll be with us for 10 weeks. That means what, eight more weeks? Okay. Good. In part my day he was a new program evaluator, graduated from the UN City School of Government. His worked before with the town of Carry in the public works department, and we were glad to have him as well. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Welcome to you both. >> Good luck. >> And good luck, indeed we all may need it. Joe Horren no comment. Okay. Are you having your packets in May 9 minutes. Have you got the opportunity to review them, do I hear any I have a motion from Senator Hise seconded by Representative Dollar, all in favor, please say aye. >> aye. >> These are so approved, we're gonna have, hopefully a brief meeting today but let me call on Carol Sharon/g to tell us about the work plan projects and the status of them. >> Good afternoon you all. [INAUDIBLE] Your mic. >> Sorry. Thank you. And what reports are coming up for the committee later on in 2016 you should have in your packet a white handout of these slides. Now, the committee has authorized a total of 19 projects for PEDs 2015-17 work plan. Additionally the committee authorized 17 projects in May 2015 including two projects to be presented by the National Conference of State Legislators. Then during the 2015 session the general assembly enacted state law requiring PED to study the board of review. And then the committee requests an assessment of the methodology and the accuracy of the conclusions of the NC gap report in January 2016. So that is a total of 19 projects. Now so far six work plan projects have been presented to the committee. In October of last year you all heard from staff from the National Conference of State Legislators who presented information to the committee that compared how states compensate legislators and also determined the timing and length of the legislative sessions. In addition PED has presented four reports to the committee. The first one was related to economic tears. North Carolina shares the name of the report was North Carolina should discontinue with the economic development to your system, and make them strategies to assist communities with chronic economic distress. The second report was what was oversight of services contracts, can help ensure cost effective performance.The third report was opportunities exist to increase the accountability and independence of the board of review, that was the sketchory required one. And then PED's review of North Carolina's guaranteed emission program or the inside gap report has also being presented to you. [BLANK_AUDIO] We currently have five projects underway. And I'm gonna give you a quick rundown on those projects and when we expect to report. In October we're anticipating issuing one report. Serany/g now will present our project on our community colleges funding formula.
This project examines the formula and timing for allocating funding to individual community colleges and considers whether the funding is formula is effective or needs to be changed. Now, in November we expect to deliver two reports. Shawn Hamo will present our report on funding formula/ public schools and feasibility of students based funding. This project examines the funding formula for allocating funding to public schools including how funding is allocated to charter schools. And also examines the feasibility of implementing student based awaited budgeting for the public schools. Now, Chuck Catherine will also report in November on the effectiveness of Medicaid program integrity. This project evaluates the effectiveness and efficiency of the Medicaid program integrity section. The program integrity section ensures compliance, efficiency and accountability within the North Carolina Medicaid program by detecting and preventing fraud waste and program abuse. Now in December we also anticipate delivering two reports. Brent Lucas will present our report on management layers and span of control of state agency executive offices. This project explores the current structure of government executive offices including determining management layers within executive offices and each managers' span of control. And finally, I will also report in December on school calendar flexibility. This project examines how limitations on school calendar flexibility have affected LEA, school operations and students since the law began mandating the starting and closing dates of schools for public schools and that started in the 2005/2006 school year. So by the end of 2016, PED will have completed 11 of the 19 projects on our work plan. Eight work plan projects are currently pending and include The Feasibility of Consolidating State Purchase of Health Care Services, Performance of the Medicaid Data Warehouse and Analytics , Management of In-made Health Care, Professional Educator Licensure Process and Teacher Education requirements, and analysis of the North Carolina lottery commission operations implementations of results first in North Carolina. The review of DOT's ferry division and management of state pension funds advancements. So, that's what is left on our work plan. Which can't have a session of the general assembly without some folks thinking about adding some things to our work plan. So in addition to those eight pending projects the general assembly has introduced legislation directing PED to contact evaluations or perform other duties. So far four bills have been introduced or amended during the 2016 session that direct PED's involvement in studies. And they include first the Hager Health Partnership Program. This directs PED to do a comprehensive evaluation of the pilot -program on behavioral health partnerships and report no later than November 1st 2017. This bill was introduced late in 2015, it does have appropriations attached to it and there are no appropriations on the either of the house or senate versions of the budget so probably this one will not be going anywhere. So no need for us to study applet/g if it's not funded. The second one, school construction needs and house bill 1030 section 25.1, this is in the appropriation act. It's in the Senate version, this would direct PED to contract with an outside entity to contact an independent assessment of school construction needs for low wealth school administrative units and report by March 15, 2017. To other bills include administrative changes requirement to the retirement system which was requested by the treasure that the bill has a number of changes to statutes related to the state treasure, but it also to the retirement system and it also directs PED to examine other states that have implemented a normal retirement age for a pension system, this one has no specific date specified so if this is added to if this is an act you all could determine what it would be due. The final study it showed up last week in the welfare I mean excuse me it's not welfare room from the regulatory reform bill, Senate Bill 303 section 2.7, this bill this provision will direct PED to study state law in internal agency policies and procedures for the delivery of public services through state grants and contracts to none profit organizations and report no later than September 1 2017. So those are the four bills that are possibilities I would say probably the one in the appropriation act and the regulatory reform maybe
the most likely once because those bills are moving right now. Now if you wanna stay current with where our studies are going you can at anytime take a closer look at our current evaluations so you can see by looking at our current evaluation page this is a snapshot you'll see that all the five projects that are underway and it shows that activity is either in planning field work or the riding phases and with exception of school calendar for the projects are in the field work says we are still planning for the school calendar project and we'll probably go into fieldwork in the next week or two but if you wanna know a little more detail about what's going on with any of these projects you can click on the weekly update and you can find weekly report on what activities we've conducted and you can see where we stand. For each of these projects. Thank you so much and I guess just to say depending on what happens if the outstanding legislation that could affect our work plan, John will probably be re evaluating in August of this year on what we will start next when we complete these five projects depending with what's already on the work plan and plus if anything has added, so we'll be following up with you at that time. >> Questions from the committee. Senator Hiest. >> Just real quick, I know your still in planning but the school calendar flexibility, is this looking at a summary of where there is flexibility in other calendars or is this looking at the economic impact of letting the school systems change certain days. What's kind of the direction of that study. >> As you may recall there were many Bills introduced in the 2015 session >> I believe they were all in the rules Chairman's desk if I'm not right. >> [LAUGH] >> This is a work plan, this was a work plan item because it was interest in the committee to study this issue. I think 72 school districts asked for some type of exception for the current law so I mean it's been ten years since that law was enacted it's an opportunity to look at how things have changed and also to long at whether it makes sense to make any changes so I mean that's what we're looking at. We'll look briefly at other states to see if they've been any changes. They have been around 13 Sates similar to North Carolina that least do a no earlier than opening date for their schools, we'll also look at all stakeholders and that will include both education and none education stakeholders. We will be taking to all stakeholders. >> Follow up. Just kind of the specifics. So your trying to determine or were we looking at travel and tourism and others and what we think the economic impact would be if those calendar dates moved based on the number of students. >> We will attempt to do that. There was a study but going back in 2004 we've had some conversations [UNKNOWN] about that. >> Okay, Senator Waddell. >> Thank you Mr Chairman I was just looking at the six completed projects and those that we had discussed here and voted on. I think one of them related to compensation for legislators and reviewing where we are and making suggestions for moving forth we increased. What happened to the [UNKNOWN] >> I think some legislation was introduced and counting in our next presentation we'll talk about the status of that legislation. >> Okay. >> Senator McInnis/g >> Thank you Mr Chair. In regard to the school construction needs steady. Has anything taken place on that? Has there any start been made to that or just where is that? And then I'll have a follow up. >> It is currently, I believe it is in Senate bill 303 which is the regulatory reform bill. It's in the house version of that bill. That bill is currently overall on the house side and it has this study in it. So no action will be taken until it is enacted by state law and whether or not we do the study Mr Chairman. >> Thank you very much. And that was my main [INAUDIBLE] I thought that's where we were and I was hoping it was gonna be truly a need study versus a want study. Mr Chairman. >> Sen McInnis the fact that the bill would authorize us to hire a contractor, that's still contingent upon approval by the legislative services commission. And so That's always a necessary step. I helped draft this provision and the intent is to do just what you said, get a good solid engineering estimate of what the poor
districts have in a way of needs and that would be a determination made by engineers from a technical standpoint. It would compare the total cost of deferred maintenance of each facility with the replacement value and the higher the percentage the poorer the condition of the building. And that's basically what it would be. Some other states have done this and we've consulted with them so in case this does get finally approved and made into law we'll have to issue an RFP but we're ready to do that in that case. >> Followup. >> Follow up. >> And what would constitute a low wealth school in this, what would be that definition that we were gonna use on that. Would that have anything to do with the current low wealth that receives low wealth money which I think is about 80 LEAs or something or is it something less than that? >> I've got those provisions, I can read from that if you like. >> Yes, thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO] Excuse me. I've got one for each of the bills and I've pulled the wrong one, I apologize. [BLANK_AUDIO] it says determine under the low wealth school funding formula to have the lowest stability to pay for school facility. So it would look at the lo wealth funding formula in order to determine who had the least stability to spend. So that would help determine which school districts would get this assessment. >> Okay. Representative Dollar. Just to node on that to senator Mcinnis, I believe that bills can be coming up, could come up tonight. But some time in the next couple of days it will get out of the house and g back over to the senate for concurrence or whatever is gonna be done to it there. [BLANK_AUDIO] Other questions from the committee, Senator Waddell. >> Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. I'm looking also at the 2016 bills erecting PD to conduct the [INAUDIBLE] is related to administrative and the retirement system from the treasure. I just wanted to know for information. In doing so I've read some things about it but just wanted some updated clarity concerning it. What we'll be looking at upcoming retirees are those who are just beginning their careers and giving them opportunities are those who are already in the retirement system. >> The purpose of this study according to the legislation is to compare North Carolina to other states. And they have a long list of things we're to look at, I can read that out loud to you if you like me to. We require to look at the elements examined shall include the items outlined below, the normal retirement age and years of service thresholds recently implemented by each pension system for each employee group. So this is looking at other states, cause that is the point of the study is to look at other states. An analysis of the total value of retirement benefits for other states and also compared to North Carolina analysis of total value of benefits for North Carolina as compared to the average value by local governments and other states and analysis of the total value of retiree benefits for North Carolina as compared to similar employees in other states. Analysis of employees retiring and dependent medical insurance subsidies the other states provide in comparison to North Carolina. And also an analysis of recent changes and various elements of the salary structure including cost to living adjustments, performance pay increase vacation sickly. So it's pretty comprehensive look at retirement related benefits comparing North Carolina to other states. So the point is to compare North Carolina to other states. >> Follow up. And after that comparison is done and when it takes effect, will it affect the persons who are just entering so that they know what they can expect later on are those who are ready in the system? >> This would be basically a report that we would report back to the general assembly with that comparison and then the general assembly would have to decide if they want to make any changes to our system. So the report is more of a comparison to other states and it'll be up to the General Assembly to decide based on what our report says to make a decision on whether to change our system. >> Okay.
Thank you because some information was not reading out there concerning what would happen, so I just wanted clarity. Okay. Senator Davis. >> Thanks Mr. chair. Just had a very quick question for you, the bills found the quarant/g future projects on coming back to the same one. There's no reporting date specified. Do we have a likely, if this moves for the likely scenario, which a report will be made. >> It would be up to this committee, the way the legislation is written is that it would say, that our committee would as a date determined by The Joint Legislative Program Evaluation Oversight Committee, so if this legislation is enacted probably in August or September, We would ask the committee, would you want this project to take priority over other projects already on the work plan, since there's no date specified? So it would be up to y'all if the law passed. >>To follow up, so I just wanna make sure I'm understanding the process here, so the others acts include specific language, in terms of timeline, this one getting it. And if the timeline is not outlined in a- defaults back to the committee. >> Yes. And generally, I think in general we encourage when folks introduce supervisions or bills requiring studies we encourage them to leave them to you all to set the date. So you all can determine it, based on what your other priorities are. Cuz you all do what to your work plan. And everything time when gets added, that generally means we don't get to something else on the work plan, if it has a date preserved. [BLANK_AUDIO] Other questions? Let me mention that chair Horne and I have had a preliminary discussion with some of our staff relating to one of the items on our work plan. The funding formula [UNKNOWN] 12 public schools with feasibility of student based funding and as it turn's out . It has become an extraordinarily extensive study. Exhaustive in its own way and Sean Hummel and Jeff Grimes have been undertaking that. They will not be reporting formally until November but I think it might be useful because of the nature of the study and what's in it. And I asked them if Sean or Jeff would just give the committee as a whole some- >> [LAUGH] >> idea of what you've done. Sort of a 10,000' view of that particular situation cuz it is rather massive and well likely raise some issues. >> Would you prefer I do it from the sit or would you like me to stand up. >> Which ever you prefer. >> I'll sit right here. [LAUGH] Shawn Hamel, Program Evaluation Division and I'm the lead on the K through 12 funding formula project. As Carole mentioned this committee had directed us to examine the funding formulas that the General Assembly in the Department of Public Instruction years for allocating resources to LAA's for the operate of traditional K through 12 as well as public charter schools. The project also examined the feasibility of implementing other models for distributing funding for K through 12 public schools. Well as our evaluation examines all sources of funding the focus has really been dedicated to the process, formulas and the alternative models to allot state resources. And all together these processes and formulas are critically important cuz they're responsible for placing more than eight billion dollars in state resources with local education agencies and public charter schools. This is more than a third of the annual state budget. For the past five months, Jeff Grimes, Emily McArthur and myself have collected and continue to analyze points of data form several resources. We've met on numerous occasions and requested data from BPI business office staff and select program directors. We're analyzing 30 plus different state allotment formulas with particular attention being given to the 19 initial allotments. Attention has been given to these allotments because they're the most often specified by statute and make up about 95% of the state funding delivered to public schools. We reviewed a lot in the policies and procedures, we've held interviews with The State Board of Education and dozens of LEAs in charter school's. We've surveyed all LEAs and all charter school business officer's and lastly, we're exploring other moles used by other states to distribute funding to public schools. What we already know is that the current system is complex and requires attention to the numerous different formulas, some of which run
across one another or have components that lack clear rationale, we also know, from looking at literature in other states, that there are other models for distributing resources to LEA's and public charter schools. In North Carolina, is in a minority of states that choose to do it the way we do. This is a large project by PED standards, and we are in the process of formulating our findings and recommendations. And as been mentioned we'll have something ready for this committee in November, but because of the size, subject matter and the fact that the state is so ensconced in the current method for distributing funds, we anticipate there to be a number of questions regarding the portion of the evaluation, that presents the alternatives. We are okay with this. If there's any questions, we're happy to meet with and try to address any issues members may have. >> [COUGH] >> Does anyone have a question at the moment? [BLANK_AUDIO] I have one and that is, have you found that the existing formulas tend to contradict each other in account occasion or do you have any idea about that? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Until we've really had a chance to go through our formal evaluation process which includes drafting our findings and concluding what the recommendations ought to be and in circling back with the agency through our formal process of gathering input, I can't say with any sort of confirmation that they contradict one another. I think when the evaluation comes out and when we pick through each one of the findings, I think you'll be surprised to say there'll be a number of issues we'll present across the formulas. >> Senator Waddell. >> Yes. When you're looking at other states um as you look for comparisons are you looking at states that are similar to North Carolina because as you know we come the charters for a long time can't fit at a hundred charters and it's been very recent that we've lifted it so, and some states have had numerous charters and they operate differently. So as we look at the comparison that we're comparing similar to what North Carolina's been doing. >> I think you can ask anyone and you'd find that North Carolina can't be compared to a lot of states, we're unique. And so when we look at other states, what we try to do is explore other states in the context of the models they use for allotting funds for public education. Charters are just one portion of these schools, remember that the majority of this funding is wrapped up in the traditional k-12 funding, that is kind of administered through the local education agencies or the LEAs. But we've tried to look at states that are similar to North Carolina since geographic location challenges from our world to urban distribution population and those sorts of things. And we are obviously quite sensitive to maintain your view on the south east. >>Thank you. >>Representative Howly/g. >>Thank you Mr. Chair. I just wondered if the discussion last week with House Bill 539 had any bearing on this. I listened very closely and it was a fruitful discussion. I think what's important to keep in mind about the discussion that took place on that, is that it was focused on a portion of funding that is at the local level. We obviously cover funding at the local level but we are keenly focused on the resources that flow directly from the state. >> Okay, Sen Krawiec >> Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr. Hammel/gyou're comparing North Carolina to other states. Are you also looking at the funding formulas for the local LEAs and the charters how that varies from district to district. Have you look at that in any capacity yet? >> At a very high level we reached out to each LEA. We've gained an understanding of how LEAs receive money form their local county commissioners. We also looked at how LEAs take the money that they get from the state and distribute it to their schools. For us to go in and crack open each of the individual formulas of all 115 LEAs would be a Herculean effort. I think right now, again as I said, we are focused specifically on the state formulas that are used. >. Okay, Senator Hise. >. Thank you Mr Chairman. I'm really trying to look at some of these beginning and how these formulas are designed to spread money across the state. And actually had a separate study when we began for just the low
wealth funding formula is the emotional counter called the eastern school funding formula, that's whats coming in that is really designed, that counties like Marrow may not qualify with some of the lowest middle incomes in the state, yet Orange and Wake county may qualify for low wealth funding, when they have the highest median incomes in the state, and there's a history of I think for each one of this formulas, there's a history of who wrote it, what they were trying to accomplish and what area they represented when they wrote said formula and when you kinda dump them all together, now you're winding up with 30 some formulas going in multiple directions, trying to allocate funds. And so, hope at the end while we're looking at this formulas, and what we're doing across the state and others, I really think at some point we gotta have to look at, how do we wipe this slate completely clean, and start with the basic question of what should we fund in those, instead and I think we've gotta be careful you know we've got one in here that's picking that formula up again and using it for another task, that's what's coming in so how you perform on one of this formulas then qualifies you for how you perform on other funding areas or even whether you're part of a study on school construction. That's where we are coming in so, we've got all this things out there that we utilize for that purpose, they all have a genesis but at the end of the day the question is how should we fund public schools in this state. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> You spoke of a genesis, Mr. Hamel do you have any comments on the terms of a revelation? >> [LAUGH] >> One brief comment, I think one thing we had really hoped, when we opened this up was that we really would see that history, and we could understand the clear rationale in genesis for a lot of this, and I think what we quickly came to understand was obviously, public school funding in North Carolina is a topic and center of discussion you know, since the machine act in the 30s and it has continued through the 80s, in the last 20 years through a series of court cases and memos and hearings. It continues at the forefront. But what we do know about all of these formulas is they're pretty well nested in the political process. These formulas and how they're specified and how money is distributed is developed year after year and is specified in the budget process. And while there are policy documents on the back end of these it's almost as if the tail is wagging the dog. >> Sen Pate. >> Thank you Mr Chair. Form the conversation I've heard particularly from Senator Hise and Mr Hamel/g are we suggesting that there might be some sacred cows out there somewhere that we dare not touch? >> [LAUGHTER] >> Mr Hammel, any further revelations? >> The scope of this has not extended into the Bovine industry. >> [LAUGH] >> We really tried to stick at looking at the formulas and really breaking apart the components and the factors that go into each one of these formulas to determine whether or not there's a clear rationale for it and determine that overtime if some of these changes and the way that these formulas work have unintended consequences that on an individual level we may not see because we have a tendency to lump all these together in aggregate. >> It will be a rodeo Senator Pate for sure. Let me mention some of you may recall this about ten years ago where if you hired somebody, Perkenblick >> I think it was. >> Purkenblick. >> Purgenblick, to do a similar study. It actually cost two million dollars and there was a report about that. We didn't follow any suggestions that they made and we're still at the same position but I would also point out that as part of this work that this committee did probably two years ago, maybe three, we did a study of school based formulas or student based in other parts of the country and as I recall there were seventeen districts who had gone to that formulate basis and each and every one of them, of the actual performance of the students in that district improved some more than others. Don't know how that extends on a State wide basis. We'll see. There's a long way to go. It's obvious that this is a herculine task,
Senator Hise? >> Real quick just for kinda [INAUDIBLE] Whatever recommendations come out of this and I guess my whole fear of it is the first thing everybody is gonna need and one is we need the 158 and LEA listed out and saying this is going to affect them for the recommendations because I think we the sales tax distribution and others. Fairness and all from the goal, first question is how to disaffect my district? That's what coming in and so people are reluctant to change if their district has been greatly benefited by this formula. That's what coming in and I think that's the first thing we're gonna have to overcome with any kind of formulary. So my regulation is for each if the recommendations go ahead and break down the [INAUDIBLE] and let us know what we're finding. >> It's easier now for me to say this since I won't be around but we represent people and students not districts. And hopefully we'll get beyond that at some point. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> I just wanted to mention [INAUDIBLE], it's better and better everyday. Any other questions? The reason why I bring this is because this will be a major review. A very [INAUDIBLE] going and appropriate review of situation we've had for some time and the issues you raised Senator Hise are perfectly legitimate. But we need to get an in depth analysis and this is what we're attempting. To address this for everybody. And I believe there are actually looking at this impacts on various districts. Okay [INAUDIBLE], Ms Migody/g you're on. >> [BLANK_AUDIO] Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members I'm [INAUDIBLE] I'm a principle evaluator. I'm going to spend about ten minutes walking through the status of the bills that were recommended by this committee and you should have a copy of the slides in yellow. [BLANK_AUDIO] So first I'm gonna talk about the bills that have had some action since introduction. The committee's bill regarding medicaid eligibility determinations has been rolled into the appropriations act. If you'll recall the language directs DHHS to report on the timeliness of medicaid eligibility determinations, it appropriates 300,000 to DHHS to support utilization of NC fast data and authorizes DHHS to temporarily assume the county administration of medicaid eligibility determinations when warranted. The senate version of the committee's bill on surplus property is being heard on Wednesday in senate finance. The bill requires on going identification and disposal of surplus state owned real property. Measurement and reporting of utilization of state owned real property and updating of state owned real property inventories. The bill ensures that state owned property is not available before leases are proved or renewed. The house's version of the committee bill on oversight of service contracts is being heard tomorrow in the house committee on regulatory reform. The bill requires state agencies to document a business case and obtain certain approvals before changing the provider of an agency service. The bill also requires the development and implementation of a plan to determine whether services provided by state agencies could more effectively be provided by private providers and requires the operation of the contact management system for state agency service contracts. And the house's version of the committee's bill on retiree health has passed over to the senate. This bill establishes the join legislative committee on the unfunded liability of the retiree health benefit fund to explore the six options presented in PED's report. [BLANK_AUDIO] Now I'll turn to the bills that have had no action since introduction. The committees still on overnight services requires the school of government to develop standards for state agencies to use when designing pilot projects mandated by the general assembly in addition the bill requires DHHS to report on overnight respite services.
Section three of that bill repealed the legislative directive for PED to further study overnight respite pilot in light of the fact that last year's appropriations act expanded the service statewide. If nothing else it would benefit PED if section three of that bill could be integrated into another bill like the technical corrections bill so we're not in a position of studying something, a pilot program that has since gone statewide. The committee's bill on supplemental insurance, if you'll recall that immense statute governing the selection and operation of agencies, employee insurance committees with the intent of them proving their functionality and then there's the committee's bill on the board off review which enhances the independence and efficiency of the board by transferring legal and support staff to the board. implementing data tracking and establishing certain reporting requirements. The committees bill on economic development tiers eliminates the tier structure for economic development program and replaces it with an index system using modified factors to measure distress. For non economic development programs relying on the tier structure, the bill requires agencies to develop new criteria specific and relevant to their programs. The bill also establishes and funds a commission to develop a comprehensive plan to address chronic distress. And Sen Waddell, your question the committees bill on legislative subsistence and travel increases allowances to match 2015 IRS rates that hasn't moved from rules or finance since May the 11th. If at any time you wanna check up on any of the bills that are based on this committees recommendations you can do so on our bill tracking page of our website. We also track legislation directing PEDs to do future studies that Carol went through earlier for you. And we tract legislation on topics discussed in PED reports and committee meetings. That's all. >> Okay. >> Questions. Senate Hise. >> Probably for the Chair just real quickly on this overnight rest which is dead because it required an appropriation and somewhere to fund the school government twice in this process what's to do their job and then wants to do there job again but I think that's what's held up. The Bill, I don't think there's anyway around it but could the committee not just declare that the report from the general assembly is received versus having to go through this entire, trying to get another vehicle for it >> [LAUGH] and through both chambers or we just heard that the Bills dead, I think everyone will agree there's no point on reporting something again that's already occurred or already out there, that's what's coming in but that's what the question on how we can proceed. >> Okay Representative Davis, I'm sorry. Can you answer that? >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, it's not so much a question, it's a comment. I just want the members of the committee now why eliminating use of development of Tiers which is house Bill 1082 is in rules. That is because the edge committee ought also introduced a bill which is house bill 1029 and which is economic development changes and study, and what our house representative Susan Martin introduced that bill on behalf of the age committee. And she and I discussed it,and we both agreed, both bills would go to rules, so the two committees can get together and hopefully come together and bring forth one concise way to go forward. We've had one meeting and we're looking forward to having more meetings but that's why it's in rules. Thank you. >> Paul. >> Yeah. I was just trying to look for the overnight regiment/g bill specifically if there was a way we could just clear that for filed and move on and from committee report because it says that you must report to the committee - >> And I believe it's more than just this committee that we have to report to as well I think it's health oversight too. >> I can;t fix that until after six. >> Add that to the technical correction. >> [LAUGH] >> Suggestion. We'll try and deal with it there. Okay. any other questions from the committee? Okay. Thank you Caroline.
>> Got to ask. >> Okay. Excuse me. Senator Davis. >> Yes. Thanks Mr. Chair, I actually would like to redirect a question that Representative Davis if that's okay. >> Sure. >> I just wanted to just kinda get a - >> Do you yield. >> Certainly Representative Davis. >> [LAUGH] >> Thanks Representative Davis. >> Sir. >> Obviously we've come with two proposals regarding the tier system, do you feel on the preliminary on the surface we are gonna make progress and if so this session? >> If to be perfectly honest, I don't know that we'll be able to do it this session. I know that part of what was introduced with House Bill 1029 that came out of the edge committee. There was a big difference in the composition, the edge committee rather than having a committee wanting to have a work group. And they wanted that work group to do a study and come back with a report by March of 2017, which will be in the next long session, of course that hadn't been implemented overall yet, but just looking at practicality purposes, if we have to go through this with The House. If we do come up with an agreement, you know go through all that process then have to come over to the senate go through all that process, I don't honestly know if we can do it in a short section. That doesn't mean that it can't be done. I just hadn't heard anymore about getting together and you might wanna ask Harry Brown, Senator Brown. Because he was also a co-chair of the EDGE committee, he'd already given. >>Okay, any other questions from the committee? Comments Rep Horne? None. Mr Turcotte. >> Tomorrow is PED's ninth birthday. >> [LAUGHTER] >> What do you plan to bring a cake? >> No. >> [LAUGH] >> Representative Harley. >> I was just looking at the minutes from the last meeting and it says that I ask a question about parencis/g and the contracts from vital enrollment. I don't remember where you said we invest. Answer, maybe an idea that don't remember re saving it. But hopefully that will be in the bill tomorrow on regulatory reform maybe that will be in there, but I still would like an answer. >> [BLANK_AUDIO] Okay. Other questions? None. We are hereby adjourned. Thank you for coming. [BLANK_AUDIO]