Good morning, we want to call the meeting of transportation to order this morning, I'd like to recognize our Sergeant at Arms, Calton Adams David laitny and Martha Garrison and also to the paging force we're honored to have Eliza Becker from Halifax county with Representative Ray, Eliza where are you are? There she is. Madeline Gagkins from Randolph county and she is with Representative Hurley. Reed Hurley from with Representative Malin and Tecnica Lucas from Wayne. Representative Marvin Lucas, and it's good to have you all. It's good to have the Senator here with us today as we start to hearing Senate Bills today, so first of all we have Senate Bill 90 with Senator Bill Cook if you would come forward for your presentation. Should I do that now? Yeah it's just the effective Representative Cook we do have an amendment. Are you okay with hearing the amendment at this time? Yes sir, please. From Representative Stanburg would you like to present your amendment yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. You all have in front of you a copy of the amendment and the only thing that this amendment does is changes the effective date on the bill and the reason for it is to give the law enforcement agencies an humble opportunity to be able to put this in place, any comment Sen. Cook I would just say that it's fine with me it's fine with me appreciate your support. Are their any questions is their comments on the amendment Rep. Brown, Rep. Moore was ahead of you and I dint know he wanted to comment on this or the bill OK Rep. Brown Rep. Shepard I will try not to take an offence of that, first of all Rep. Cook wonderful bill, I actually run this myself over here in this house last year only to be side tracked in your body so am glad to see this come back before us I guess a question may be perhaps if their is law enforcement in the room is their a concern regarding the effective date and is this on the amendment or it is Yes sir, OK Any law enforcement in the room that would like to comment on the effective date If I can speak to the amendment, and I understand the I guess the thought behind the amendment, I would ask the members not to support this amendment and here is why, it's my understanding as I read the bill last time we actually have cases that are in progress right now where law enforcement had made the subsequent stop on the assumption that this was current law that you needed two affordable break lights currently and there are actually very those criminal offences that are much greater than not having the required amount of operative brake lights that are in cue right now that could and will be dismissed if we change the effective date on this and it's thrown out under the technicality that the law enforcement officer actually pull this individual illegally, essentially. Ladies and gentlemen we do have a speaker, if you would state your name and who you're with now. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tom Marrey, I'm with the administrative office of the course. This was an amendment suggested by staff at ASC to give proper time to make sure the field is aware of the statutory change. Currently as in the Bill, currently That's effective when it becomes law and so there would a date where if let's just say you move break next that speed in this bill becomes law by the end of this month. On May 28th before the governor signs this bill its not law on May, 29th it is, and we're just want to make sure there's a bright line date where this isn't a this new law is effective and I'm suggesting it refers from that, that a reason I have the amendment and answer any question. Any question from the speaker, representative Brown Thank you Mr. Chairman, just a quick question for Mr. [xx]. Is there, help me understand I get a little bit if you will, in my understanding making sure that the field operations has the appropriate notice. All the applications to the immediate effective date and them not knowing from a legal
remonification versus having a timespan blocked over first to make appropriate I think the more lead time the better, just to make sure we have uniformity amongst all our law enforcement officers and court officials stay forward, so that' what we're requesting not to reverse that date. Follow up. Thank you Mr chairman. As Mr. Murrey often did in this body, he makes a convincing case and I withdraw my objection to the amendment. Any other comments on the amendment? If not, those in favor of the amendment say, aye. Aye. Those opposed likewise, the amendment passes and now we need an approval, I believe for these PCS if we can hear a motion, Representative Brown. Thank you Mr chairman. I move for a favorable referral to the Proposed Committee Substitute of Senate Bill 90 unfavorable to the original. Those in favor, aye. Aye. Okay, proceed Senator Cook. Thank you Sir. This bill simply clarifies the the existing state law under current state statutes a vehicle can travel our roads as long as: A. Mr chairman is there a PC's is that what you just said? Yes that was the approve of the PC's after it was amended I'm sorry if there was some confusion I may have done it the wrong way but that was to approve the PC's so that we can now approve the bill as amended as PC's which will come later. Any further discussion? Representative Brown. For a motion Mr chairman, I apologize I'm just so down excited about this bill. Representative Cook do you want to finish your presentation or are you ready for this to move on? Well I'm ready fot this to move on I think I might mention very quickly, all we're doing is going from one traffic scheme, one brake light to two. Most folks think that lawa says two, but it don't, it says one and that's what we're trying to do clarify the law. Representative Adams yes thank you Mr chairman, I'm looking at on line 11 use of term motor driven cycle kind of a new term to me, we are talking about more peddles there? Representative Semfco[sp?]. Senator Thank you. Chairman Torbet. Thank you senator Cook thank you being in front of us today does this incorporate the third and the fourth and what may end up being the fifth light as well or just the two? see on this probably can. I will drop Mr. Chairman my question has come to light and this is for staff do you know if it's currently lawful for fraction or a sanitation be issued for likes that were added on by the vehicle operator that work originally with auto mobile those are burn now was a break lines working sufficiently, but if there is additional lights that are burn out can individual be charged as satation for those. Stem I don't believe that is a violation at this point. Thank you very much and welcome to the house Senator Cook. Representative Brodly[sp?]. If I may I remember the house and you most finally. Representative [xx]. That's the way we think of him still. One procedural question I'm still confused I think maybe related to what Representative Speciale was asking. Is the PCS what we've ended up with as a result of the amendment to what they sent? Representative [xx] to do. Okay Representative [xx] Yes, thank you. I would like for staff to look and make reporsitive for sure. From what I understand, if you have all the required lights on a trailer and if you add more lights to that trailer and one of those additional lights goes out and you can't get the tickets. If you feel just clarify that. Senator Cook. Staff. The requirement for additional lighting that is in the second part of the bill refers to specific lights that are on vehicles and these are
the only one that we'll produce accentuation if they're not working the ones that are listed on page 1 and page 2. Thank you sir, representative Prisla. What I understand from trackers in my district, that these are lights on the trailer. not on the track itself but on the trailer. Right, some of those are required by law, if those are burned out then they would, yes they would be but if the required is determined by, if they are listed on the statute? But it's not the required lights there're all on. Its the additional light that someone, sometimes they go down the road and it looks like a Christmas tree coming and if one of those valves are out, they do get a ticket. Follow-up? What we're talking about is. Seth? He doesn't have anything else to add listen listen. Thank you. Any other questions from the committee? Rep. Harver. Thank you Mr. Chair. I think we kind of sought answered it, but on the moped is only one light right? Or are we now requiring two lights on the back of a moped and my question is, is that standard in the industry that mopeds since 1970 have they been made with two lights in the back? representative Holly, let me have staff answer that if I could, staff. Looking at it, what's the requirement for [xx] staff We would check on that and get the answer for you. We don't believe that two lights are required on the mop head but we will check and make sure. There will get a definite answer for you representative Holly, representative Wadell. Thank you Mr. Chair I just want to make comment about what representative Pressnill stated extra large because I do have large truck that had been inspected and I was told that alarm had to be operate by the if you had it on extra lights, they all had to be wouldn't pass inspection and therefore [xx] that it wouldn't, you could possibly get a ticket for it. You want to reply that senator Cook or? Well all this Bill is trying to address is a vehicle with the bright lights instead of one we want to, that's what most folks think it is now, and that's what this is clarifying. I don't know about 4000 other likes and I don't they [xx] really, but God bless you. Chairman [xx] I've heard stories about those lights and I think this is an enforcement issue that needs to be clarified, I do not think this Bill address is there at all. Representative Carney. Yes, I'm just I grew up in a country and we had two lights on most of our pickup trucks, but we were all the time bagging up, knocking one of [xx] we had one we were OK, which been going on on a long time doing just well, why do you think you have to have two? stands to that. It was a court case, I imagine a lot of you are familiar with, we're in the police officers doctor car because it had one that was out and while the police officer was riding the sitation, he noticed that the car had drugs so now the charge was trafficking drugs, the case went to court and was almost thrown out, I think it was thrown out the first time, the judge said well, you didn't have probable cause because there's the laws says you only get one light and that's all the fellow had, so he was okay so you had no right to stop him and you can get away with the traffic and drugs, well fortunately went to the Supreme Court and the supreme court said well, the law says only one light however the police officer made a mistake in good faith so even though the law didn't support what he was attempting to give citation for, he still had a right to stop the vehicle hence the charge of a trafficking narcotics stance, so, I don't want to put our police officers through that I realise this is It's a simple bill maybe even a trivial bill, however, it's a required bill and I've taken a lot of jokes about this, I think I've had it up to here, really and truly, we need to pass this, move on we don't want to pull our police officers through this nonsense. So I hope I made my point. Representative Brown. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members, Senator Cord just said exactly what I was going to say probably more to say clear that I did, but I will reiterate the final point that he said.
This bill needs to pass, this has nothing to do with writing tickets, this is a clarification of what many individuals believe the law was and to ensure public safety please move forward and let's pass this bill. Any other questions from the committee if not Representative Brown for motion. Thank you Mr. Chairman I move for a favorable report of Senate bill 90 as amended vote into a new pysias, thank you. All in favor say aye. All opposed likewise Thank you Senator Koop. Thank you I appreciate your support. Senator Bekham will be here to present Senate bill 116 handicap parking windshield plucker Senator Beckam. Thank you Mr Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen of the house. This bill I'm no of no objection to this bill. What happened she went home who actually had two losing ponts handicapped losing plates a day before this position and goes through the proper steps and having the examination extender and fill up the paper work and then took the document dmv and what he wanted to do is the reason he wanted the plucker we saw that if he had trouble with the car tracker whatever he had and his wife was going some other town and she didn't have a tag on it and he could place the handicap plucker on that car and then she could drop him off from the bank et cetera and so when he went to the DMV he had difficulty because of the wording, presently the wording says may, the DMV may provide the plucker and what this simply does is change that from may to shall so this corrects it's problem and actually the DMV [xx] suggested that he gets this legislation changed so that we can correct its problems and I would ask for your support and I know of, as I said I know of no objection to this DMV seems to be fine with the so hopefully this will solve a lot of problems for handicap folks across the state. Representative Hass, Thank you Mr. Chair, I would like to make a motion at the appropriate time. Representative Warrel. Just question of clarification, do we pass a similar bill to this in the house? Stem. There is a house bill that was introduced in the house transportation patient committee, we had it on the agenda at one point, but we ended up pulling it off because the Senate Bill had already crossed so it hasn't been heard that there is a House Bill. Senator Bingham. Thank you Mr. Chairman, representative Waddell actually this was the identical bill to the bill that I had. I gave this to. Representative Wadford for him to and I regret that he didn't I think time he didn't get it passed. We ran it through the senate and that's the reason Chair, but it's a bill that I've given to him and hopefully he'll take care of this on the floor if we get this passed Representative Blackwell, Representative Speciale? Any other questions? Representative Hardister? Thank you Mr. Chair, I move for favourable report for Senate Bill 116 with a referral to Finance. All those in favour of the motion say aye? And the opposed likewise? Thank you, bill carries, thank you Senator Bing. Thank you Mr Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the House, thank you very much. Senate Bill 195 of Senator Meredith, Motor Vehicle Service Agreement Amendments, with a referral to Commerce and Job Development. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, this bill defines ancelery[sp?] protection products vehicles, motor vehicles service agreements which specifically included repairs to tires, dents on your car, cracks on the windshield, replacement to key valves and others services provided that the Commissioner of Insurance would deem necessary. This would be outside the motor vehicle warranty for a car, I would appreciate your support Mr. Chairman. Any questions or comments from the committee? Drive your motion for favorable
report to Senate Bill 195. Representative Waddell? Thank you Mr. Chair I'll make favorable report for Senate Bill 195, is there referral? To Commerce and Jobs Economic Development. To commerce and Jobs. Thank you. With that being said and then all those in favor say aye? And opposed likewise? The ayes carry, thank you. Senator Meredith you have one more bill? Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Senate Bill 301 DOT purchase of contaminated land, Senator Meredith? Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee, this was a bill that was brought to me by DOT currently when we buy or purchase contaminated land that has to do with a road way we have to go before the state and also the governors, so this bill would actually expedite the process and not make DOT you have to go before the governor and the council of state, I apologize and currently you have to it's slowing the process down about 45 to 60 days this is an agency bill I'll appreciate your support and I'm for a question Mr. Chairman Okay chairman [xx] for favor report when, perfect time representative Bob Gardner thank you Mr Chairman, the question I have about this bill if this is good for DOT why isn't it not good for everybody else in the state? thank you Mr Chairman, I think it would be a good bill for everyone that it would affect in the state, it's just that had approached me about this specifically. Any other questions or comments? Chairman Toby[sp?] yes sir, am just curious we're advertising barbecue sauce today that's tea? Why are you asking? I'm trying to see what that is in your cup That's ice tea, Chairman, talk, that's ice tea I believe. Okay. They are giving out drinks downstairs I picked that up on the way here. If there was barbecue sauce, there would be some leaves on that table over there, but I'm Senator Meredith, any other comments, any other questions about this bill? I guess I'm wondering it will be harder to get contaminated land would be so some good old boy doesn't get his body in DOT to get his contaminated land off of his own books, how we protecting the taxpayers from getting stuck with bad lands and letting someone else off the hook. Senator Miles. Thank you Mr. Chairman, when we purchase right always this is only during the purchase of right aways for roadways, there's a policy currently in place where the landowner we have to buy the right away for the roadway the cost of clean up will be taken away from that would be deducted from the settlement for the right away for the land that we would currently purchase and this will be for a roadway that will be installed I hope that answers your question. Representative Bob Gardner, any other questions? if not chairman Allan. Favourable report Mr. Chairman for senate bill 301. Is it a referral? J1, I'm in favour of J1. All those in favour of the motion say aye likewise. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Motion carried, thank you senator Miles. Thank you you committee. we're adjourned.