House Bill 649 directs the North Carolina Collaboratory at UNC-Chapel Hill to study proposed changes to the state’s county tier designation system, which is used to rank counties for economic and programmatic purposes under G.S. 143B-437.08. The study would examine three possible changes: how counties are ranked, how tier designations are assigned, and the time frame used for ranking counties. It would also assess how those changes could affect the rankings of all 100 counties, programs that rely on tier designations, and the overall ease of doing business in North Carolina.
The bill 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 the proposed changes align with state economic development goals, rely on current and reliable data, are easy to understand, and accurately identify distressed areas. A preliminary report would be due by December 31, 2025, and a final report by December 1, 2026. The act would become effective July 1, 2025.
HB649 does not directly change the county tier designation system or amend the underlying ranking statute; instead, it creates a legislative study that could inform future changes to G.S. 143B-437.08 and any programs that use tier designations. The bill would require the Collaboratory to analyze statewide effects on county rankings and on state-administered programs tied to economic distress tiers, potentially affecting economic development policy, grant eligibility, and administrative planning across multiple agencies and counties.
The available context suggests a generally neutral-to-supportive posture toward the bill, as it is a study bill focused on gathering information rather than immediately changing law. No committee transcripts or recorded votes are provided, and the bill’s progression to the Senate Rules and Operations Committee indicates it advanced procedurally without documented controversy in the supplied materials. The framing of the study around economic development, data quality, and business climate suggests the bill is intended as a policy analysis tool rather than a partisan measure.
The main points of possible contention are the proposed changes themselves: how counties should be ranked, how tier designations should be assigned, and what time period should be used for the rankings. Stakeholders concerned with economic development incentives, county classification fairness, and program administration may disagree over whether the current system accurately identifies distressed areas or whether changes could shift resources and eligibility among counties. Agencies that rely on tier designations, as well as counties that could move up or down in rank, are the most likely parties to have differing views.