[BLANK AUDIO] ladies and Gentlemen, please take your seats. The House Transportation meeting will come to order. We will have a few recognitions before we start, with the first bill. And for your information, the first bill will be what we think is simple bill and not the omnibus bill that's coming up later. It will be the motorcycle bill will be first which is, 1050, house bill 1050. For our house pages today we have Weston Crager, if you'll identify yourself, stand up Weston. From Cabarrus county, sponsored by Representative Linda Johnson. Cole Clarry, from Cleveland County, sponsored by the speaker Tim Moore and maybe came to a former senator, Deputy Clarry , is that correctly? Okay. Ethan Richy from Franklin County, sponsored by Representative Bobby Richerson. We have Bryson Rose, Cabarrus County. Again Representative Linda Johnson and Natalie Tiley, Lincoln County, Representative Jason Saine. Thank you. I noticed last name we had all ladies we got almost all Today. Sergeants in arms, the house today I was looking after us and setting this room up in about five seconds sometimes. We have Youngg Bey, we have Jim Moran, Martha Gadison Joe Austin and Rex Foster. Thank you ladies and gentlemen for your service. And thank you for pagers for being with us this week. Our first bill on the agenda by Chairman John Torbett is house bill 1050 DOT no discrimination against motorcycle reckless, Representative Torbett you're recognized to present your bill. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, welcome hope each and every on of you had a good and healthy weekend. Ladies and gentlemen, this was brought to my attention by a large group of people that enjoy motorcycling. It had come to their knowledge throughout the state that there were certain areas that they were starting to feel we discriminating against them. Predominantly that the parking debts across the state. So Motor cycles are going into the parking decks, may signs that say no motor cycles or may be refused to access those parking things. So it's really that simple, So the Bill basically says you can't do that, you just can't prohibit people from accessing parking decks or other parking areas that somehow deal with government or state funded or assisted. It's pretty self explanatory. It also says pretty much you'll provide some area for them, it could be on first floor, second floor. However they wanna do it just provides access to them via motorcycles. As you may or may not know, motorcycles have become more adapted, more frequently with people. It started with the gas boom When prices were so high people were buying two wheeled vehicles to get around just because it was cheaper on gas. And now with the younger generation you're seeing some of those folks opt to two wheels as opposed to four wheels. When I ask why some parking decks for example were Weren't allowing motorcycles. The only thing i heard from Parknet people was cuz they afraid there might be some litigation brought by an arm coming down and hitting the motorcyclist on the head, when they were either entering or exiting the facility. As you know helmets are required throughout the state of North Carolina. [LAUGH] And That's just didn't seem like a really good logic. t seemed like more of a excuse than any kinda scientific logic applied. with that Mr Chairman I'll shut up and stay and ready for any questions that committee may have. >> Questions from the committee, First I have representative Waddell Just for a motion when appropriate there Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you Representative Waddell, Representative Rodney Moore >> The same, Mr. chairman >> Okay we have competing motions. Representative Adams >> Yes thank you Mr. Chairman, Hi. I was travelling recently and I saw a parking place specifically set aside for mopeds. Could we include mopeds in this language? I think it's a good idea. >> I think- >> From a municipal planning stand point I've seen layouts for buildings and facilities Where you have raised portions of the parking lot that can't be
properly utilized because of various configurations. But how are we going to use, will DOT come up with a specified parking slot for motorcycles, mopeds and that kinda use that municipality can Utilize or will municipalities or other government bodies come up with their own configuration? >> Not at all speaking on behalf of NCDOT but we as a body would let those people of ownership to those facilities make their own determination on that as Long as they are not prohibiting access. [BLANK_AUDIO] [SOUND] >>No thank you. >> Okay. Representative Hardister. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. I was gonna make a motion but that's already out there. However I do have a comment i'd like to share with the commitee Committee regarding representative Torbett. The concept of a parking deck in the arm coming down on a person who's on a motorcycle in a course we require helmets. What if somebody was in a convertible automobile and not wearing a helm >> Is it rhetoric? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> No response Mr. Chairman [LAUGH] >> Further questions from the committee. Okay Representative Waddell since you were first you're recognized for your motion. >> Thank you Mr. chairman, I move for a favorable report for house bill 1050 >> In referral to appropriations? Yes sir. With a referred preparation. >> Mm-hm. Okay. You've heard the motion, you refer the questions and comments all in favour say aye >> Aye. >> Oppose no the ayes do have it. So you put it past us. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you members of the committee Gavel to Representative Shepard, and I hope at your place you have the recently revised house bill 959 in the bill summary. >> I'd like to recognize chairman Alex to present house bill 959 Chairman I'll [BLANK_AUDIO] [COUGH] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I must say last 24 hours I've had reservations about putting my name first on this bill. However, it's a good bill but it has many provisions now. It's grown from nine pages to 20 pages. And I think we've improved it each time but it's just a lot of information about a lot of subjects impacting transportation. And- >> [INAUDIBLE] the Chairman. >> Yes. I know that PCS[UNKNOWN] [BLANK_AUDIO] [INAUDIBLE] >> I'll [UNKNOWN] without objection it is. Thank you. Okay. I have, due to the variety and volume of provisions we have added, last week or so I've asked Charles Perry to go through these So be sure I don't miss anything. He's been intimately involved on day to day basis and between him and myself also we can answer all your questions at the end. Mr. Perry. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman- >> Mr. Chairman if you'll recognize Mr. Perry? >> Yes Sir. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Perry and a committee staff. The original provisions of this Bill were a recommendation of The Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee. And you'll notice on the first page of the summary that some several sections were added to the bill after it was introduced and those are listed for you to see on page one of the bill. And I will briefly go through all the sections of the bill now. The first section of the bill increases the Threshold for small transportation project consultation by DOT to 250,000. The second section of the bill authorizes DOT to allow the location via encroachment of fiber optic lines in DOT right away. Section 2.1, increases Laid limits on state highways for metal commodities and steel coils. And extends a federal laid exemption for certain types of vehicles to the states highways. Section three authorizes electronic billing for tolls on Transport Authority facilities. Section four Repeals a repetitive semi annual report that's required by the toll authority, section five repeals a report requirement concerning bicycles has to leave a state lands that are open to bicycles repeals the requirement for that report. Section 5.1 Requires changes the requirements for lights or reflective gear when operated at night for bicycles,
section 5.5 makes additional bicycle safety changes concerning passing a bicycle section 5. 6 directs the UT to develop and implement a program for [INAUDIBLE] education section six makes several changes to the state's commercial drivers licence statutes to comply with federal law. Section seven extends the registration period for Certain registration plates that are do not have stickers, section eight makes changes to the state laws applying to temporary driving certificates to make it a uniform validity period of 60 days, section nine Eliminates the requirements for signing simple testing when renewing the drivers licence by remote renewal. Section ten authorizes DMV to give electronic notice if DMV customer authorizes receipt of the notice by email Section 10.5 directs DMV to place a pre-printed option for joint tendency with right of survivor hip on an application for a motor vehicle title to allow vehicle seldom at way to be passed Passed to the surviving owner outside of probate. Section 11 changes the requirement for DMV inspections of older out of state vehicles that are registered for the first time in North Carolina to require inspection only if pre 1981 vehicles. Section Section 12 repeals a requirement in current law that requires a register vehicle owners to sign their vehicle registration card. Section 12.5 makes amendments to the recently inactive definition of an auto cycle. Section 13 moves the definition of mophead From chapter 105 to chapter 20 of the general statutes. Amends that definition to include electric for alternate for fuel powered mopeds, and establishes the definition of electric assisted bicycles and exempts those bicycles from the state motor vehicle laws. Section 13.1 makes provisions Provisions to DMVs medical review program. Section 13.5 authorizes independent dealers to utilize dealer plates and independent dealers and family members of independent dealers and their employees and section 13.7 delays The mandatory participation day for the DMVs recently authorized electronic lean system program. We'll be happy to answer any questions Mr. Chairman. >> Mr. Berry, I have a question from Chairman Torbett. >> Thank you then I have an amendment offers as well. Mr Chairman and staff, on page nine, I'm hoping it's a typo, but if not it doesn't represent what I thought was gonna be the ultimate outcome. It begins on line seven where it states the division shall require sign and symbol testing upon initial issuance of license. Understand that agree wholeheartedly. The part I'm concerned about is in the following sentence where it states, the vision shall require , shall being the operative word, shall require vision testing as a part of in person, in office renewals of a license. And the reason that went Others may a little bit is that of course when you go get a licence you have to do both the vision and assign a symbol testing. But then eight years from then you can actually get a renewal online and to the best of my knowledge there is no way to take a vision test online. For that renewal purpose. So if you are going to get a licence renewed online we do not have to take a vision test, so I think for the sake of equality here it might be obliging to also on that renewal in office that they Not be required to have that vision test either. However we know that they have to come in to the office on the next renewal and at that time of course the vision test would be most a pra po. But I'm hoping we drop the word and if not then I'd like to Possibly add the word either not shall not require vision testing as part of an in person in office renewals of a licence were somehow
modify that sentence to the point that that's not required so it's parity but those choosing to go into office during the licence as it is with those choosing to be at home Be at the internet. >> In discussion, the questions concern anything. >> Suggesting sure or not are you suggesting may? >> There would be no opportunity for may if you are renewing it on the Internet and so I would like to keep it the same as a renewal online as opposed to just you have to be one that decided to walk in. >> Mr chairman so you are suggesting that eliminating that line or you are suggesting shall not as an amendment. >> Mr chair great question I Heavily on staff to do the most simplest and most I guess the most [INAUDIBLE] way to move forward if we could hear perhaps from staff. >> Mr chair would you like Mr Thomas to speak to that as well Chairman Thomas>> I've had his exclamation before but he'd like to share it with everyone else that would be perfectly fine with me Mr chairman. Mr. Thomas. >> Thanks again Kelly Thomas from DMV. The language is written so that if you renewed online because your eyesight or vision did not change within that eight years, the next time you renewed you had to do it in person. And we would want to check your eyesight Sight or your vision at that time. So, technically you would go almost 16 years without an eye check. So with the length that you proposed they would go forever without a vision check. >> Mr. Chairman >> Yes sir >> Forever is an extremely long period of time Time so if I relayed that I apologize I don't think I did, but in this neighbourhood I always understand that people can understand words in a different perspective. What I was trying to say is, during an eight year period from ones original renewal or issuance of a license Six years from that date they're required to get a renewed license, they have the option to walk in to an office for that renewal, they have an option to get that renewal online. Right now they get that renewal online, they are not required to take the sign and symbol test nor They required to take a vision test because currently that is unavailable online. So what we are doing, we are imposing an additional stop via the vision test for those that would choose to go into the office to get their license renewed at that same eight year period of time. Time >> Chairman Tilman, >> Mr. Prey/g says he thinks they can handle that, would you like to share that with use? >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'd suggest adding online aid after the phrase part of, put the word required so if you require to go for an in person for official renewal then you would have to take the Test and if you were not required to do that, you would not and I think that woud address when you're suggesting. >> Mr. Chairman, I would be thrill beyond belief if that was added in that [UNKNOWN] to that respect. >> Any further questions concerns about [UNKNOWN] >> [INAUDIBLE] One after another chairman [UNKNOWN] >> Saying the memo of the- >> [INAUDIBLE] >> [UNKNOWN] Forward. >> Thank you. I appologize for bringing this [UNKNOWN] folks, this is just the absolutely last thing and the last one pops up [UNKNOWN]. What this simply does, you know we're kinda make this more user friendly, kindly make it more easily adaptable. For the decisions and actually use the process of DMV and God forbid you're in an accident and you have get the reports found. But what this would do when all this language are here with simply reduce the appropriate amount of time to be in receipt of a traffic accident report so they can go ahead and expedite their insurance coverages. For their vehicle. You can read it if you have any questions on behalf goes down one line by line but in essence that's what it does. I would move for approval. >> Committee, you have the amendment as ARW67 version one, does everyone have a copy? [BLANK_AUDIO] Representative Bumgardner do you have a question concerning the amendment? , Representative Tarn/g, >> Thank you Mr. Chair I support the amendment, what happens a lot of times in a practical manner is when somebody has an accident, we're waiting on DMV to get the crash reports but somebody needs a rental car Somebody needs to get moving on their claims so it slows the claim process down. Most departments are very helpful and you send it right out so that they can go ahead and get it moving.
but this makes sure that everybody is very helpful in helping to expedite this claims so I support the amendment. Any other questions or response to the amendment? If not those in favor say aye >> aye >> the opposed likewise, the amendment is carried. >> Mr chairman >> Yes sir >> On additional amendment please. Mr chairman just a moment ago we were talking about that language in that one sentence And Mr Perry brought forwards as suggested fix and I have in the shape of an amendment now. It would actually change the wording on that sentence to go by adding required after the word of. So the sentence would Sentence would now read the division shall require vision testing as part of required in person, in office renewals of a licence which means the required, they go into their office at least for lack of a better term every other time they renew their licence. Any discussion on the amendment, Representative, chairman told me to discuss [BLANK_AUDIO] >> More appropriate Mr chairman >> All those in favor say aye >> aye >> Any opposed likewise, the amendment is approved. Now back Back to the bill representative Bumgardner, you have any questions now sir? >> No was to ask a question >> No sir thank you sir. >> Thank you, representative Waddel >> Thank you Mr chairman I just wanted to ask Mr Kelly Thomas a question, >> commissioner Thomas would you please come to the podium. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> [COUGH] >> Yes sir, thank you commissioner, just want a little clarification on the online renewals. My understanding is for classy license where you have no prior tickets, is that correct? >> Yes sir. [CROSSTALK] Except for a glass restriction that could be accepted. >> Is there a age restriction on these? >> So there's currently not on age limitation in the general statue. Okay, I just wandering cuz my daddy just got here, renewed online and He's 88. >> Yes, sir. >> Any further questions, Mr. Thomas Chairman, Thomas. >> Representative Adams >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, Under Section 5 5.5A bicycle safety law revisions that mentions mopeds. We'd like to discuss maybe changing the title to bicycle and mopeds safety law revisions, so it's easier to find is that possible without amendment Chairman Forbett/g Thank you Mr Chairman I wanna jump in here. We could need to do that, but currently the way things are defined are in those different segments. What you're trying to do, although it makes good sense, but now probably not the best time to coagulate all those under one listing, but right now there pretty much to find out and be happy to look forward to working on that in 2017. >> Follow up. Well the problems we have in our area is moped, bicycle list are very keen to staying out of the way of traffic, moped riders are not, they tend to ride centre lane in hilly country outside in my district and they hold up traffic, they also ride and crew up which is a real problem Like take care of that in maybe 2017 as well. >> All right, representative Mark >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, the question I got is regarding the joint tenancy and the motor vehicle would this require re-titling of those Who would like to participate in that but do not have that available amount and what cost would be born. >>Would you like first half staff answer that question. >> This section does not require any re-titling. >> And so the procedure would be [BLANK_AUDIO] I believe Mr Marie is here from the office of the courts he may be able to answer that question better than I can, I see him back there. >> Mr Marie [BLANK_AUDIO] >> I'm Tom Marie Came with judicial branch North Carolina. We were working with DMV on this for new applications for co owners, so that vehicles could pass the joint tint riders survivor-ship on death if they couple,
if the car is currently title in a single name and a couple would like to retitle that car Car in two names with joint tenants with right of survivorship would have to be re-titled and there would be a cost associated with that, but this was intended to just kind of draw a line in the sand so that it makes it easier for joint tenants or joint co owners of a vehicle to be able to pass that vehicle should One of those individuals pass away with right of survivorship. >> Follow up. Any questions? Thank you Mr. Murray. Representative Jirder. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. My question has to do with section six of the bill. I guess perhaps Mr. Perry/g as I understood what you said Did you say these changes were to make us in compliance with federal regulations? >> Mr. Perry >> That's correct. >> Follow up. Any further questions? Representative Sam Queen. >> Thank you. I had some inquiries just from Constituents over the [UNKNOWN] about the bicyling study grout that DOT has. These bicycling recommendations out of that study group. >> Chairman Torbett/g >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. [UNKNOWN] here, representative Queen I have had conversation that group is well and there's a huge want From that group and I understand that this is a short session and that I promise when we would look at that report in its full depth and scope in 2017 during the long session we would take that amount of time or need that amount of time to both adequately look at the report,understand its outcomes and have those conversations with the people that And that we didn't just have the time but we did choose to take those snippets and add them into the short sessions so we could help with the notification communication to North Carolina citizens on what they can now do legally as opposed to what would have been if this is voted up is legal what would have been yesterday [INAUDIBLE] so this are just a couple of Snippets we've done with attorney and the passing >> Follow up >> So as I have read, it seems to be just rather simple common sense suggestion that you've folded in this one. But there may be some more extensive work on bicycling later on. I just Read a comment .Bicycling is becoming very popular in the mountains of North Carolina. We have a lot of regular cyclist, just recreational cyclist, then we have a lot folks coming to the mountains to do tours and things like This, bicycling, races, and they have been a huge draw so we're trying to make bicycling safer and included in the general laws of our state for our safety and so forth. So I hope you'll look forward to that and the whole Sector is eager to participate in this, and I hope you all will be open to their suggestions. Thank you >> Chairman [CROSSTALK] >> Absolutely on this coast bicycling particular during them summer requires necessary, I failed to get something in there. Dark clothing and bicycling at night Is just impossible to see, and so I had a lot of request from local authorities on post to have additional lighting or vest or whatever the most reasonable cost would be. And cuz I always get the question, how about the cost of it. If you can't afford the light then don't drive at night sort of thing. So again That's just one thing that a lot of request for so put that in but we've got a lot of other request from the bicycle and pedestrian folks. And we're looking at that in next year. >> Representative Bumgardner.>> Thank you Mr. Chairman I just had a comment about a comment someone else made. And that was, That now we start to see a lot of mopeds [COUGH] in the travel lanes of highways and that's because now we require them to have insurance and tag. And so they're entitled to use the road just like everybody else and I have noticed that is exactly what they're doing and we're gonna see more of that not less Because the law of unintended consequences have not been repealed. >> If may, I'd like to make a comment concerning that as well. They're already riding in the middle of the road before they had to have drivers license and tags. But anyway thank you Representative Bumgardner. Representative Yarborough Thank you Mr.Chairman. I learnt something new down here all the time. Representative Queens calls them common sense suggestions. I see a bunch of nanny state laws here. On this bicycle stuff,
I had no idea you supposed to have a lamp on the front of your bike. We ride bikes The beach all the time. They're old bikes they, do have a light on the back, but usually the battery is dead. So we're not gonna ride because the battery is dead? I could see this stuff on a major state road where the speed limit is 55, but where you're riding around in a 25 or a 30 miles an hour Now breaking the law half time, like I said seems like a bunch of nanny state to me >> Chairman Alec/g. The staffing correct me if I believe the headlight was already in statute and this is just, you're replacing the reflector on the back with an actual light than you can see or vest. >> Representative [UNKNOWN] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'd like to go back and revisit for me this right of joint tenancy, because I think it's a positive thing. I'm keying in on it because it's a good thing what I'm trying to do is, a couple of questions and that is, if the motor vehicle is titled currently, say in a husband and wife's name does that still have to go through probate in order to be cleared? >> If we could I'd like to ask Mr. Murray to come back to the mic he's mine is worse from him today. >> Absolutely Mr. Chairman. The answer is yes. The answer is yes because by operation of law unless the key operative phrase joint ownership with joint tenants right of survivorship is used, and right now you have to hand write that on the title Idle it would have to go through probate by making this check box, put what we've been DMV and they've been very, I wanna giveDMV and DOT a shout out for their willingness to fix this. BHecause it's a burden on both DMV [UNKNOWN] and the elected clerks of superior court by having this check box statutorily, changed makes it easier for that happen. So it doesn't have to go through probate automatically passes to the other spouse for operational law and so, under current even if it's titled it would still have to go through probate even if it's titled in two names. >> Follow up. >> Follow up, is there, what I'm trying to understand this is mark and, going forward, new titles and things of that nature. But I'm trying to void the cost associated with the benefit of doing this. Is there a way to have that form available to where you sign the form, and make it applicable and to existing titles as a declaration And without cost to everybody wants to do that. >> Mr. Chairman, I'm gonna differ to a formal clerk who works for [INAUDIBLE] as a clerk and I believe that Representative Turner, whose has actually done this might be able to be instructive for this conversation. Turnerg, do you choose to speak or not? >> I will try. [LAUGH] There is a form from DMV /g, an MV4 that if there are no other assets in the state, they can transfer it on that form and take that to DMv so that helps with the cost, but yes he's correct if we're trying to make it as an asset of the state or transfer it, [INAUDIBLE] entirety. Then, we would have to go through the re titling >> Follow up, Representative [UNKNOWN] >> May be, what I'll do is take this off line and see if there's an option that we could expand Expand this to make it broader, because I think this is a very very positive thing. It simplifies, recently going through an estate being the executor. These things can be overwhelming and what you think is going where you think is gonna go may not be so. So I'm very pleased with this. And I just wanna see It if we can expand it. So I'll take this offline with you guys. >> Make note of it. Thank you Representative Arp . Representative Brawley>> Thank you Mr.Chairman. I've been listening to this. I think if the light finally came on, where Representative Arp was trying to go with this. Normally when you change the title, you end up paying a tax, which can be Be substantial but I know that in the case of a parent that is bought a vehicle for a child, there when the child is no longer a minor you can transfer that title without paying the tax again because it's staying within the family. And I think that real question that's being asked here is, can you just pay a document fee 20, $25 on having the title reissued with the joint tenancy without also having to pay a second round of taxes on the vehicle. And that might be the question to ask the DOT people and that could answer this right now.
>> Commissioner Thomas, Would you like to speak to that? >> Sir, Again, Kelly Thomas of DMV, you can't transfer title between the properties between you and your spouse or your family member as a highway use, Use exempts practice, that's the only tax that we can exempt you from in that transfer, does that answer your question? >> Commissioner Thomas, you answered the question, I think he's referring to the sales tax but anyway, okay. Follow up Representative Brawley >> Now he, he answered the question I just didn't like the answer. >> [LAUGH] >> Any further questions on, yes sir, Representative Adams. >> Thank you Mr.Chairman, under section two under on page two, a related, in section C, says subject to provisions of the general statute 136-96.5A and B, to use existing ride always located and acquires a traditional rights of way maybe necessary, going down to, The section two non utility owned or operated communications or data transmissions infrastructure, can I get some clarification on what the intent there is? >> Chairman Alley would you like, staff or would you like to answer that? >> I'd like to refer to Mr. Perry on that again. [BLANK_AUDIO] Mr. Perry >> My understanding is broadband facilities owned by private companies they would like to use the DOT right away to locate those lines. [BLANK_AUDIO] Follow up >> Yeah I say follow up >> And then further down, it's say no agreement for the use of department rights of way under this subdivision shall aggregate the department ownership and control of the rights of way, that section as well. Could you give me some clarity as to the purpose to that >> Thank you Mr. Chairman I believe DOT wanted language just to ensure that it's clear the DOT will continue to own the right of way and that they will not loose control of it right of way. >> Thank you Sir >> Follow up >> Representative Ross, >> Yes going back to the item that was just referenced in Non utility are under operating communications. This is something that has become a grown on problem, and we dealt with this in the city am from. There are a lot of non utility private companies running that alliance all over the place and many cases, they're not marked, and we don't know where they are. And so I think it's imperative that we try to get some clarity and where these non utility lands are going because fiber is the new big thing. And it's just been run by everybody, everywhere. >> Is this an effort of legislation trying to catch up with technology and next we can all go in situation to try and [INAUDIBLE] relationship from DOT and providers? >> [INAUDIBLE] >>Yes sir I would like to make a motion at the appropriate time that PCS for house bill 959 be approved unfavarable to the original and that the amendments be engrossed and rolled into a new PCS. All those in favor >> Aye >> all opposed likewise. >> Bill Kerry [INAUDIBLE] >> Thank you. We are adjourned thank you all for being here this morning. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO]