House Bill 649 directs the North Carolina Collaboratory at UNC-Chapel Hill to study possible changes to the state’s county tier designation system, which is used in state law to rank counties for economic development and other program purposes. The bill does not itself change the tier system; instead, it asks the Collaboratory to examine three broad options: changing the criteria used to rank counties, changing how tier designations are assigned, and changing the time frame used to determine rankings.
The study must assess how those proposed changes would affect the rankings of all 100 counties, the administration of programs that rely on tier designations, and the overall ease of doing business in North Carolina. It also requires the Collaboratory to consult with the Department of Commerce, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Public Instruction, and to evaluate whether any proposed changes would better align with state economic development goals, use reliable and timely data, remain understandable, and accurately identify distressed areas. A preliminary report is due by December 31, 2025, and a final report by December 1, 2026.
Impact
H649 would not directly amend G.S. 143B-437.08 or alter county tier designations immediately. Its legal effect is to create a formal legislative study of the tier designation framework and its downstream use in state programs, potentially informing future statutory changes affecting economic development incentives, grant eligibility, and other programs that depend on county tiers. The bill also establishes reporting obligations to the Joint Legislative Economic Development and Global Engagement Oversight Committee and the Fiscal Research Division.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill, with the House passing second reading 114-0. There are no committee transcripts provided showing debate or opposition, and the bill’s study-only nature likely contributed to its noncontroversial reception. Overall, the sentiment appears favorable and exploratory rather than divisive, reflecting interest in evaluating whether the current county tier system remains effective and fair.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials, but the bill’s subject matter suggests likely policy questions about how counties should be ranked, whether the current methodology accurately captures economic distress, and how changes could affect program eligibility across the state. Potential concerns would likely come from counties that could move between tiers, agencies that administer tier-based programs, and stakeholders focused on economic development, data quality, and administrative simplicity. Because the bill only commissions a study, any substantive disagreement appears deferred to future legislation based on the study’s findings.