Senate bill to allow motor-vehicle racing on public roads prompts liability, notification and fee questions; laid over

Senate Bill 67, a committee substitute considered by the Senate Transportation Infrastructure Committee, would add a new section to the highway code to allow the West Virginia Department of Transportation to issue permits to motor-sports sanctioning bodies to organize and hold motor-vehicle racing events on public roads that are part of the state road system.

Why it matters: The bill shifts permitting authority to the Department of Transportation for races on state-maintained roads, clarifies that events held on property not controlled by the DOT would require permission from the property owner (for example, airports, municipalities or county commissions), and sets a $250 permit fee. Committee members raised questions about public safety, insurance limits, notification and the adequacy of the fee to cover administrative and emergency-response costs.

What the bill would do: Counsel summarized the measure: "What the committee substitute does is it creates a new section that allows the Department of Transportation to issue the permits, given that the roads are maintained by the Department of Transportation and in the state road system. So the bill enacts a new section in highway code that provides the Department of Transportation with authority to allow motor sports sanctioning bodies, to organize and hold motor vehicle racing events on public roads, to impose permit requirements, and to charge a $250 fee for each such permit." The committee substitute directs DOT to consider matters related to public safety and convenience and the sufficiency of the applicant's insurance when deciding whether to grant a permit.

Discussion highlights: Committee members asked whether counties must be notified and whether county permission is required. Counsel said the substitute does not impose a notification requirement in code but permits DOT to require notification if it deems necessary, and that if a race would be on a county- or city-maintained road the applicant must obtain permission from the property owner. On insurance, counsel said applicants "would be required to have insurance," and noted the language is intended to put applicants on notice although the state has constitutional immunity. Committee members pressed whether the substitute should specify minimum insurance limits or additional insureds; counsel said the draft leaves amounts to DOT discretion so the department can set requirements appropriate to the risk and venue.

Committee members also questioned whether the $250 permit fee is adequate. Counsel referenced a departmental estimate of administrative costs of roughly $1,700 per permit and said emergency responders and other event-related charges would be the responsibility of the event organizers. Counsel also said the department reported two events were held last year under similar circumstances.

Decision and next steps: The committee chair said the bill would be laid over to a future meeting to accommodate scheduling; the transcript records the chair saying, "So we will lay bill 67 over to a future meeting." No committee vote to advance the bill was recorded; it was not reported to the full Senate at this meeting.

Context and limits: The committee's discussion distinguished approval to proceed (a permit from DOT) from local permission requirements when events include property controlled by counties or municipalities. The transcript records multiple committee members urging clarification of insurance requirements and possible amendments to provide minimum liability thresholds or require additional insured designations. Counsel and committee members also noted that DOT would typically work with event organizers on traffic closure plans and emergency-service coordination.

What remains unresolved: Notification requirements and specific insurance limits were discussed but not codified in the substitute; the $250 fee vs. estimated administrative cost per permit was flagged as a potential mismatch; and the committee deferred further action to a future meeting.