A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | July 28, 2015 | Committee Room | Transportation

Full MP3 Audio File

Committee rests to take a seat, please. This time is correct and we have a quorom, called a transportation period to me, [xx] transportation giving his order and we want to introduce our pages. We got Emily [xx], if you will just stand and wave, Emily. Wake county, Representative Linda Johnson, [xx] from Wake county, Speaker Moore and our [xx], he's not really from Texas. He says he's never been asked that before. Austin [xx] county, Representative [xx] and Grayson [xx], Wake County, Representative Paul Stam. Thank you for being here, appreciate you service and hope you have a good week. Our sergeant at arms, some of our favorite's Joe Austin, Charles Godwin, David Lattin, and everybody's favorite Martha Garrison. Thank you for your service. We have two bills today. We are going to start with Senate Bill 446 and it is a PCS. I believe Senator Jackson is here. Without objection, the PCS will be before us. We'll actually have a motion. All in favor say Aye, Aye. Oppose no. PCS will be force. Senator Jackson, you are recognized. I'm going to give [xx] to. Representative Shepherd, Representative Torbett and I both have a part in this bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman and Chairman Shepherd is coming on board and members, I appreciate you all hearing this bill, for me and the dealership, franchise dealer own the vehicles. I know all of this problem one time or another have been to the dealership and had our vehicle serviced, and I know we've always did want to wait around. So, we ask them did they have something we could use. Well, basically that's what we're trying to correct here because currently as it stands, there's many different ways that these dealerships have to license these vehicles so that you can borrow that vehicle to run down to the shopping center and do whatever you want to do while they're servicing your vehicle. And basically that's what we're trying to address here because there are several different ways, there's no consistency that is being done across the state currently and we're trying to put in some provisions here to allow consistency. So, that these dealerships can allow their customers to use their vehicles without breaking the law when they want to need to do some running around town. Section one would allow for the use of a [xx] plate, to include vehicles loaned by franchise motor vehicle dealer, with or without charge to service and repair customers. This provision would also sunset on December 31st, 2018. Section Two amends the definition of a new motor vehicle to provide that the use of a new motor vehicle as a service loaner or demonstrator vehicle does not necessarily render that vehicle, a used motor vehicle. This provision is important in order for customers to retain the benefits being manufactured incentives, and other incentives [xx] to only new motor vehicles which could be lower interest rates or [xx], or warranties of that type, any type that offers the leaderships or manufacturer is offering. In section three, creates a new registration plate called an [xx] license plate for franchise [xx] vehicles and sets up an annual revenue stream for the state via the $200 annual [xx] plate, effective July the 1st, 2016 and would make you the [xx] plate mandatory effectively after January the 1st, 2013, hence while section one would expire. And so, basically that is what this bill does, it puts some consistency into when you go to your dealership and working on your vehicle, whether it will be for a short period of time or an extended period of time and on the repairs being done, it will allow these dealers a legal way, a simple way to let you borrow your vehicle without either one of you getting in trouble. And I would ask for your support on that section and in section two and three or the other part two and three of this bill are more, left to a [xx] house [xx] explain their part of it. Thank you Senator Jackson, Chairman Torbett and Chairman Alan. Well Chairman, I would be happy to entertain any questions on this section either now or at the end of [xx] You go ahead ad present your chairs and then we'll take questions. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. At first and also like to send my sincerest respect and thank you to Senator Jackson for allowing us to add some and additional language to authorized great bill. And I hope that you'll see it in that same framework. What I added on this, is simply is simply the UAS language of the

house had already dealt with, in essence I'll answer any questions I need to but it just brings the existing language we passed last year up to what the feds had modified. They came out with a ruling of their own earlier in the year and we thought it'd be best to go ahead and just make our language parallel what the federal government does. In an essence by all means, we have to follow their guidelines when it comes to anything actively participating in national airspace and as suggest UAS part of the bill and again Senator Jackson. Likewise, I appreciate Senator Jackson, let me seize this bill a navigable orders and [xx] county passes committee [xx] unanimous and passed 113 to one in the house and you guys stuck in transportation committee from some reason that quit meeting [xx] the senate. So, we added to this bill and it just allows the county and one of the feds and other departments do not patrol a police, the wards within the county and allow boats to park and use county facilities next to their lagoons they are parked in or moored in in, allows the county to take action. And one question I got in senate committee the other day was, does the county the equipment to patrol theirs, and they do have boats, little fast boats that they use. The Sheriff Department does, so that was one question that did come up in one committee but it just stuck in Transportation over there. We passed 113 to one, I appreciate your support in this section. Thank you Mr. Chair. Representative Speciale and then Representative Bumgardner. I have two questions. The first one is on the UAS. You're telling us that there's nothing different in here other than what the changes were in federal law. That's correct. OK, follow up? Yes sir. The other one is on the navigable waters. I didn't catch it why we want to allow Brunswick County to regulate it. The unique situation is, this is a small lagoon near a wildlife farm. The wildlife is not taking responsibility. There're people parking their boats all summer using, going ashore and using the County port facilities and the County can do nothing about it at this point in time. Representative Bumgardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a question about the aircraft and the boating thing. I appreciate Senator Jackson bringing this LD Bill and because I think that's long over due. But, those two bills that you all have added on here, were they local bills that went through the house? Thank you for the questions Representative Bumgardner. They were not local bills that went to the house. Follow it. Follow it. Neither one of them was a local bill? My story is a local bill, and then the senate decided, may become a public bill so they, there is change in the flavor of it. But it's basically the same bill. Follow it. Thank you. I was just curious as to how that all happened and I would like to hear about it. May be later you can tell me what happened to, how a local bill got changed from that in the senate and what happened to it and all. But it's still [xx] local bill [xx] county. But they added marine fisheries commission and one other department and [xx] if their rules take precedence and they actually enforce them then, the county would back off. So, that's about six different divisions, US and all kinds of divisions that if they enforce their rules then the county would not supersede that. That's the change I made in the senate and the reason given was because that it may become may be a public bill, instead of a local bill. Right now, it's still in [xx] county. Follow up. Representative Presnell. Yes, thank you. The knowledge and skills test required, is that for personal people to have these unmanned aircrafts? Number one, it's a knowledge test that the Feds, we were going to offer a licencing or licencor. But the federal government has decided to take that upon themselves which is fine, great and wonderful. Thank you very much. So, we want to make sure that the people that are actively participating in commercial industry and/or governmental business, know the rules of the road for lack

of a better term of operations of unmanned air systems in the State of North Carolina. Because Georgia may have their own set, Virginia may have their own set, Tennessee may have it but if you are going to do business in North Carolina or government entity, make sure they understand the full rules arose such as, you cannot currently in North Carolina by law that we put in last year, you cannot strap a hand gun to an unmanned air system. Follow up. Yes, follow up. So, currently the private individuals that have these unmanned aircrafts, are they already licensed? The federal government pretty much says it is a against the law to use an unmanned air vehicle in a commercial operation unless they have provided that one entity, an independent exemption from that, which they have allowed several. So, currently it is against the law to openly use these vehicles under commercial operations, no one was earning a dollar from, is to where they're hoobyist and people are just doing it for fun, this has no application to what they are doing it. Thank you. Representative Bumgardner. I want to make a motion when you're ready for one. For favorable report, any other questions from the committee? Representative Boles. Thank you. Section eight, the Bill response. I am sorry I came in a little late, may be you have already addressed it. The difference between a permit and a license. Section eight, you have stroke license and then you put permit on everything. The license are piece, the federal government decided to do that themselves. The state initially had that in there prior to the federal government saying they would do it. So, when the feds said we will provide the licensor, then the state said we will mark when let you to do that. What we want to do is in the instruction pieces, make sure that before you have a permit. What's the difference in terminology? A permit means you have come, learned the rules of roads in North Carolina and you're issued a permit. A license to actively pursue commercial ventures in unmanned air system comes from the federal government through FAA. Follow up. OK, and is there like a license, it's a time period, or are these unlimited permits, unlimited license as far as your driving license is good for four years. Mr. Chairman, if I may? That is what the department DOT Aviation Division is currently creating, is the permitting piece of that for the state of North Carolina. And all those questions you asked are being reviewed and should be coming out relatively soon, and yeah, it would be a timed permitt. I don't think it would go for infinity. Follow up. Any other questions from the committee? Represenataive Bumgardner, and this needs a referral to finance. Representative Bumgardner. Okay. I move that we refer the PCS 446 to Finance and unfavorable to the original. All those in favor say aye, Aye. Likewise opposed. The bill is passed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Members. Thank you Senator Jackson. You're welcome. Thank you Representative Shepard. Senator bill 581, we have Senator Pate. Representative Pate, you're recognized Thank you very much Mr Chairman, I was delighted to see all the high powered help that senator Jackson had with him, when he was explaining the bill. So, two of you want to jump on down here, that'd be fine. Thank you. Senate bill 581, the genesis of it all is state wide. I do believe, we have seen, I know in my district, I have seen subdivisions that are sitting there with roads that have deep potholes, some of

them the pavements is missing, there had been [xx] washed in and causing a lot of problems. Mr Chairman someone desires attention. Okay, am I to go on? Okay. The roads demand a lot of attention and in some cases, school buses will not even go down the road to pick up the school children who live within that subdivision. And I know that it's been going on for a long time. I believe the Department of Transportation, I'm sure they've looked at this and tried to figure out what they can do, but this bill will direct a study by the department of transportation to once again look at subdivisions and what the rules are for getting roads, first of all built to the standards that the state requires and then to get the streets at sometime incorporated into the state highway system. And that's the purpose of this bill is to have the department to take another look and do a study on what the citizens need and live in subdivisions, Mr. Chair. Okay, thank you Senator Pate. I understand we have an amendment with Representative Dollar but he's not quite ready yet. I believe it's being copied right now. So, it should be out in just a moment. Okay, we'll begin with questions and Representative Waddell. Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you Senator Pate for bringing this to the house, transportation committee. This has been one of my hot button issues and chairman Torbett will tell you I've met with him several times about what we can do for this subdivision down in rural areas that do not meet the requirements for state highways. To give you an example, I won't take much of the chairman's time or much committee's time. But in Robeson county, I've got a situation down there where there is a road that is probably 150-200 people live on and the safety vehicles cannot get down to a fire or rescue vehicles cannot get there. And I think that I've tried the insurance people and everybody else to try to get something moving on this and I'm glad to see this coming before us and Mr. Chairman, a perfect time I'd like to make a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond for just shortly if I may, while we're still getting the. You're recognized Senator Pate. I'm ready. Some of these places, the subdivisions is not built out completely and I don't know what the agreements were to start off, but in some cases the developer has long gone or declared bankruptcy or is no longer with us on this side, and so that is a problem and I don't think everything lays at the feet of the department. There's some other people who have, are not doing their part of it as well, but that's what I want to have a study. That's why I think we need to have a study. Yes, This is a study bill. Representative Torbett, as you have a question or? s I commend the Senator for bringing that to us. There's a large amount of us that believe that we need to look at that and do much more than just look at it but to provide some type of fast forward and an action to take care of those folks. You guys may or may not know that there was a arbitrary date put in language in 1975. And for whatever reason if you fail after that date, you get work, you fail before that day you wouldn't. And here again that numbers arbitrary. I think DOT is a service assistance in North Carolina if that's what it's there for, and if we have citizens living on roads that need to be updated and upgraded. So, we can get the mercy vehicle and at that time the school bus is down too, or you just get banged forward to church it doesn't matter that those citizens just supporting other citizens. And I think it's high time, we look at that and devise a plan to move forward on and thank you Senator for bringing this forward. Okay Representative McNeil. Thank you Senator, I appreciate I share the sentiment of those who have spoken already. I've had numerous questions myself from constituents with raods and subdivision. But we just like to point out, I would like some kind of, when I do the study some kind of definition on exactly what a subdivision is, I know on in my mind what a subdivision is. But could it be just possibly two residences or 150, I think that makes me to be part of the study, some definition of what a sub-division is.

Representatve Speciale. I too would like to thank Senator Pate for bringing this bill forward. I think it is a good bill. I would like to see the term subdivision removed and so it apply to any street period whether it's a subdivision or not. There's always exceptions to the rules and sometimes the State employees don't get that and it's well, that's the rule. So, you could have something so close that the State should take it over but because of this one little thing or that one little thing, you end up in a bureaucratic mess. And so, I think it is good that they look at it and determine what things can be taken to have the road block completely up to standard when there is nobody to pay for it. Sometimes, it's better for the State take it over, fix it and control it from that point. What circumstances that would apply, those are the kinds of things that they need to look at. Okay, Representative Dollar is recognized to stand for his amendment, and explain his amendment. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. This amendment amends a section of the statute that is currently in places of bill that are passed, and I'm sure Senator Pate helped with his way back, when we originally did it. That was three, four years ago. And what it provided for, was home owners associations, who were not in a municipality, to be able to have traffic calming devices, and the underlying statute that you don't don't see here, all the expenses borne by the Home Owners Association. They have to do a traffic study, they have to pay for all the expenses. There is no expense to the state from any of this whatsoever and all this amendment does, is just shift the burden on neighborhood agreement from 70% to 60%. And actually, I think the only place I know of that is probably going to have an impact is probably my district, at least that's the only place I'm aware of in the state that anybody's, maybe somebody else around the states exercised these particular provisions of law, not that I'm aware of. So I would appreciate your support for the amendment, and would appreciate any, be happy to answer any questions. Senator Pate, you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I like to thank Representative Dollar for this amendment. I think it's a good amendment because 70% is an awful high goal to reach and in the neighborhood, when you're looking at things like this, but some of these subdivisions where the streets are up to standards, they become a speed way and a traffic cutting from one place to another and so I think it's very important that we consider this amendment, I support it. Okay, questions on the amendment. [xx] on the amendment Okay, Representative Torbett on the amendment. Question for Representative Dollar? Yes Sir. Your Amendments means traffic calming. Is that something we can also apply state-wide, specifically during rush hours? Our traffic is too calm and some respects too slow. Okay Representative Shepard, the same question. Thank you Mr. Chair. What is that? Speed bumps, is that what you're talking about? Oh,I'm sorry. Yeah right, I apologize. I didn't catch a drift to the question. Traffic calming devices is the term that you use for speed bumps or speed tables. In our area, we use speed tables more than speed bumps. Okay, Representative Adams on the amendment. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Regarding, I'm going to favor the amendment. Regarding the traffic tables and traffic common devices, just a question, are there standards for the traffic tables and common devices because we've seen such huge variations, and some are more damaging to automobiles. Representative Dollar. There are standards for that and nothing could be installed on one of these [xx] the municipalities that deals with this, and there're standards towards in those situation, where we have areas like [xx], where we have home [xx] associations that are

outside the municipalities. But yes sir, there are standards and nothing could be installed that didn't meet the DOT standards. Okay, further question. [xx]. Okay, thank you Mr. Chairman. Further questions on the amendment? Seeing none Representative Dollars moves the adoption of his amendment. All in favor say Aye. Oppose No. The Aye's definitely have it. I think we are back on the bill. I have Representative Cleveland, next in line on the bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman. In care of roads, we are constituencies something we are concerned about but I'm also concerned about the fact that we don't have enough money to take care of the roads we got now. And, we're going to do a study hopefully to bring more roads in to the system, to be brought up to state standards. There is a process to do this if the homeowners want to do it.I have used it in my county twice. If you've got a problem with your roads, the homeowners can agree to taking a loan from the county, putting in other taxes, having to advertise over 15, 20 years, bringing the roads upto standard and the state cannot accept them. And I personally have a problem going to the point where we're thinking of having the state take over roads that can be repaired by the home owners and brought into the state system. Okay, Senator Pate. Thank you Mr chair, if I may address Representative Cleveland. These are arrangements that were made at the outset of the or the initiation of the subvision being built between the developer and the DOT and supposedly if the street as laid out, or built up to state standards, then at a certain period of time later, the state will take over those streets. And so, it's agreed upon at the inception of the subdivision plan, not just come in and fill up our potholes. Follow up. Just to comment, I realize that Senator Pate but I have had subdivisions that portions of them were not completed properly and some got in the system and some didn't. And the solution was for the property owners and no streets, to take it upon themselves, to come up with the funds to repair the streets to state standard and the state took them over. And I believe that can be done with any street within a subdivision. Okay, President Presnell. President Bumgardner. Your name was on the list. I was on the list, Okay. It's been a while so. I have had a lot of comments about this very issue. Anytime, I've had more comments on people wanting their roads fixed in their neighborhood, then probably anything other than something to do with guns or healthcare. But, I'm saying in my district roads where, part of the neighborhood had their road taken over by the State and they've been maintaining it and it looks good and in I know, there is a neighborhood near me where there's a section of road that's about 200 feet, that they would not accept and has not been paid. And it's unbelievable while going down there and look at that [xx] for a spot from here to the wall over there that is following all the pieces and we've got new pavement up to each side of it. And I just have a hard time understanding why that was done the way it was. So, I know a study leads to a bill next time, but I don't have as much of a problem with this as a lot of things. OK, representative on this subject. Representative Torbett. OK, Representative Torbett. Thank you. Thoroughly understanding the overall thought process and just want to share what a little bit of information I have is that, I too have worked with sub-divisions about getting the roads paved Representative Cleveland, much like you were commenting and there is good and there is bad. One good was that one place it did not require any curb guttering and/or side walk. It will simply just come in running

greater, throw some gravel, throw some black top. And as it sound simple more than that, but that's in the essence what it was. What I'm saying predominantly across the state as the state grows is that more of these curb, gutter sidewalk type of applications are being pretty much made mandatory and when you throw the cost of that in, in very honestly speaking, unless you're in that, what some people say that 1% tiles the portability of the neighborhood to do it for themselves, it's just no longer there with some of those additional amenities that are different. Plenty of departments and municipality, this counties of counters have added. A lot of phones that I've seen that there's no way a person in their lifetime, in a neighborhood could have come up with the money needed to do the project. And that's pretty much the ones where they're going to barely help first developers. Okay, Representative Queen, finally got to you. Thank you. I just wanted to say, we've had some standards for roads to be accepted in the state and they've been one standard fits all, and being from the mountains I can tell you, slope is a big issue and you don't want cutting field. What you can do in the coastal plain, you can run a, you look like an airport down through there, nice big wide street and lots of curb and yet you can do that in the mountains because the cutting field will not allow you to do it. So all I would say as we do this, let's realize that one size does not fit all across North Carolina because in the mountains, we have some really unique road situations and we don't want the state standard road on the side of a mountain because it would just ruin it. So, you've got to have some common sense when you get into issues of slope, is one of the things that I would ask the study to bare in mind that one size should not fit all, when they come up with their recommendations. OK, Representative McNeil? OK, Representative Faircloth? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question for the senator, the study would not put a stop to any current project that's underway, would it? Senator Pate. I don't believe so. I think this will be ongoing as the department moves forward, and they are supposed to report back by February 1st, 2016. Thank you. Follow up. This problem state wise going to involve a lot of different scenarios, and we already talked about several of them here. I would hope that the department in doing this study would include Homeowners Associations and Developers. They're developers that do a great job and do what they should and get into the state in the proper way. There're other developers that come in and they're going over night in this problems. So, I would hope this study would involve this other groups as well. Senator Pate. I agree with that Representative Faircloth and someone mentioned to me earlier today, about something that apparently some of the mountain counties have is some sort of service agreement or something of that nature to word, the verb it just escapes me right now. But, Mr.[xx] is coming forward, he's the one who mentioned [xx] he could refresh my memory and perhaps help us all. Mr. Chair if you recognize him? I recognize Miss Kelly and identify yourself and who you represent. Mr. Chairman, [xx] . Alright, just happened to see, the bill was on the calendar and I know that in 1991 the first year I worked down here, I was able to get a little bill passed to that authorized counties with protected mountain ridges. So, as your mountain counties, we did this in order not have it a part of a whole state because we didn't know whether everybody is interested or not. But, here we can and needed it badly. So, we had the statute changed to provide for the creation of a Special Service District for Road maintenance and counties with protected mountain ridges under the original Law and that is GS153A-301D and is worked very well, right then we've had 10 or 15 up here in county right now. Okay, for the comment, Senator Pate. Representative Robinson. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Concerning the amendment that we adopted, does this apply to state maintained highways, or any road or street within the HOA? Representative Dollar, you want

to answer that? This would apply, this section as I recall and I'll go back and make sure I've got before the floor, got a definitive answer for you. But these particular streets have already been turned over to the state. So, they have jurisdiction, and that's why the other portions that you don't see of this, of that statute provided that the homeowner association is to do the studies, traffic studies upto DOT standard and DOT is heavily involved in the process. Okay, any further clarification from staff, Mr. Periable[SP?]? Thank you, that section of statute is being amended only applause to state to maintain roads within the subdivision. Okay, further comments form the committee? Okay, Representative Waddell, I believe you had a motion. Thank you Mr. Chair. I moved that we give Senate Bill 581 as amended. Any favourable report. I'm assuming is going to be rolled into a PCS sent to the floor. That's my motion. So, the motion is accepted and [xx]. All in favor say, Aye. Oppose no. The Ayes have it. Senator Pate, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're adjourned. And members of the committee I wish the two co-chairs have been here but anyhow, I got representative Dollar here to help me out. Thank you.