Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/19/2013 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB87 | |
| HB19 | |
| HB153 | |
| HB94 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 153 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 94 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 19
"An Act relating to permanent motor vehicle
registration; relating to the registration fee for
noncommercial trailers and to the motor vehicle tax
for trailers; and providing for an effective date."
1:55:36 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that he had the Department of
Administration (DOA) online. He reminded that public
testimony had been taken on the bill in a prior finance
meeting. He imagined that most people appreciated the
notion of permanent registration. He anticipated questions
about the fiscal note. He asked staff to provide a brief
overview of the legislation.
DARRELL BREESE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
explained that HB 19 allowed for permanent registration,
offered through the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for
non-commercial motor vehicles older than eight years and
non-commercial trailers older than eight years. The
permanent registration would cost $25 in addition to the
regular biannual registration. The owner of the vehicle or
trailer had a choice to pay biannual registration fees as
established in statute or to select the permanent vehicle
or trailer registration. He pointed out that the permanent
registration for vehicles or trailers was nontransferable.
If a vehicle or trailer was sold, the new owner must
register with DMV.
Co-Chair Stoltze pointed out the "opt-out" provision for
the municipalities.
Mr. Breeze added that the bill offered municipalities a
provision to establish their own motor vehicle registration
tax rate for vehicles that were permanently registered.
Currently municipalities had the option based on the age of
the vehicles, but HB 19 allowed municipalities to adopt, by
ordinance passed by city council or a local assembly.
Co-Chair Stoltze added that the municipalities could
collect the portion of the registration fee that the state
provided to local governments. He wished to provide an
option for the public to avoid government fees. He stated
that he himself had an older boat trailer and pickup truck
and was impacted by the legislation. He wished to detail
the fiscal note.
AMY ERICKSON, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, was available to answer questions.
2:00:20 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked why the DMV collected on the
behalf of some municipalities. Ms. Erickson did not have
the history.
Co-Chair Stoltze commented on the assumptions stated on the
fiscal note. He noted that the department projected the
fiscal impact or revenue loss based on predictions
regarding choice of permanent registration. He added that
the permanent registration might not benefit those people
who chose to leave Alaska to relocate to another state or
country.
2:02:40 PM
Representative Gara asked to combine his legislation
related to permanent licensing registration for hunting
and fishing.
Co-Chair Stoltze answered that he had concerns about the
fish and game fund and the effect that a combined act of
legislation would have, although he was amenable to the
concept.
Representative Gara stated that his bill, HB 157, was
written to avoid any impact on the fish and game fund.
2:03:48 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman expressed concern about two-year
registration for DMV, which was implemented to help reduce
division costs. Since DMV brought in more money than they
needed, he suggested legislation to reintroduce single-year
registration.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the department was unwilling
to provide information regarding the fiscal impact of a
return to a single-year registration.
Representative Wilson asked about the loss of revenue shown
in the fiscal note. She asked if the division would
continue to operate with a surplus if HB 19 were enacted.
Ms. Erickson replied yes.
Co-Chair Stoltze pointed out the short-term positive
earnings in the division's near future, as documented in
the fiscal note. He asked to know the exact short-term
impact on the department.
Ms. Erickson replied that the department anticipated a
surplus greater than $6,000,000 in 2014 and approximately
$7,000,500 in 2015. The calculations were based on the
number of vehicles. The department estimated that 478,000
motor vehicles and 115,000 trailers were eligible for
permanent registration.
2:06:05 PM
Representative Gara asked if the projection became negative
over time.
Ms. Erickson responded that most vehicles registered
biannually would no longer bring revenue. The increase of
$25 for the permanent registration led to the projected
surplus, but after 2015 the revenues were no longer
available to the division.
2:06:50 PM
Representative Gara asked for an estimate of annual loss to
the division or communities.
Ms. Erickson stated that the revenue loss impacted the
state rather than DMV. She clarified that once vehicles
were permanently registered, the revenue loss would
compound.
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that the projections were merely
speculations.
2:07:34 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman questioned the assumption of the fiscal
note. He supposed that some people might learn about the
option and choose to register a vehicle that was otherwise
ignored, leading to further revenue for the state.
Co-Chair Stoltze agreed that speculations were merely that.
Representative Munoz asked about the percentage of the
permanent fee that was to be shared with communities. She
asked if the formula would remain consistent.
Mr. Breese responded that the permanent registration fee
went directly to DMV and thus the state. The cities and
municipalities that had motor vehicle registration tax were
those that were passed and approved by each separate
community. The permanent registration fee would be
appropriated as the legislature chose.
Co-Chair Stolze agreed and clarified that the legislature
appropriated funds through the constitutional appropriation
process.
Representative Munoz asked the estimated savings to the
individual for the average life of a car.
Mr. Breese stated that the savings was difficult to
estimate. He noted that the average age of vehicles in the
state was 13 years old. Five years of permanent
registration was calculated in an estimate making the
savings difficult to discern.
Co-Chair Stoltze opined that government gets its tax out of
the vehicle at some point.
2:11:06 PM
AT EASE
2:13:22 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Kawasaki MOVED Amendment 1 to be written
properly for the floor.
Page 1, line 2, following "trailers;":
Insert "providing that permanent motor vehicle
registration may not be considered when determining
the eligibility of an individual for a permanent fund
dividend;"
Page 5, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 8. AS 43.23.015(a) is amended to read:
(a) The commissioner shall adopt regulations under
AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedures Act) [THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT (AS 44.62)] for
determining the eligibility of individuals for
permanent fund dividends. The commissioner may require
an individual to provide proof of eligibility, and the
commissioner may use other information available from
other state departments or agencies to determine the
eligibility of an individual. The commissioner shall
consider all relevant circumstances in determining the
eligibility of an individual. However, the
commissioner may not consider the issuance of a
permanent motor vehicle registration under
AS 28.10.155 as a factor in determining the
eligibility of an individual, and the residency of an
individual's spouse may not be the principal factor
relied on [UPON] by the commissioner in determining
the residency of the individual."
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki discussed policy regarding
qualification for the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD). He
stated that establishing residency for the PFD used proof
of home ownership, employment records, school records,
voter registration, motor vehicle registration records and
licenses for items or activities such as hunting and
fishing. He wanted to ensure that the bill was not used
exclusively to determine or establish residency. He wanted
to ensure that the person did have a permanent vehicle
registration. He planned to amend his amendment in the near
future to allow the registration to be used for eligibility
for the PFD.
2:14:46 PM
Representative Wilson pointed out that a vehicle
registration was considered proof of Alaskan residence in
the PFD application process.
Representative Gara explained that some people applied
dishonestly for the PFD. The commissioner utilized a
vehicle registration when determining residency, but with
HB 19, a person might pay $25 one time and continue to use
the documentation to prove that they were eligible for a
PFD.
Co-Chair Stoltze countered that a negative trigger often
provided a red flag.
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW his amendment.
Representative Costello detailed the fiscal note. She noted
the change in revenues for FY 14 - FY 19, which illustrated
a fiscal impact of $100,100 for FY 14 for database
upgrades. The fiscal note also illustrated changes in state
revenues for FY 14 as an increase of $5,346,000, in FY 15
an increase of $5,982,000, FY 16 a decrease of $17,836,000,
FY 17 a decrease of $20,128,000, FY 18 a decrease of
$20,128,000 and FY 19 projected a decrease of $22,420,000.
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that the fiscal note projections
were purely speculative.
2:19:03 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 19(TRA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED
Representative Kawasaki noted that the bill packet
contained collections for communities with a motor vehicle
registration tax. He pointed out that some communities
would feel a significant impact from the revenue losses. He
WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
CSHB 19 (TRA) was REPORTED out of committee with "no
recommendation" and with one new fiscal note from the
Department of Administration.
2:20:35 PM
AT EASE
2:23:03 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB153 Support Documents - Wickersham Letter.PDF |
HFIN 3/19/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 153 |
| HB153 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/19/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 153 |
| HB153 Hickel Citation.pdf |
HFIN 3/19/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 153 |
| HB153 Google Map.pdf |
HFIN 3/19/2013 1:30:00 PM STRA 4/2/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 153 |
| HB153 Ak Republican Party Resolution.pdf |
HFIN 3/19/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 153 |
| Marshall letter of support.pdf |
HFIN 3/19/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 94 |
| Con and Nellie Miller Bridge Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/19/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 94 |
| HB 87 CS FIN WORKDRAFT O Version.pdf |
HFIN 3/19/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB 87 SESA statute language opinion LAW DEED.pdf |
HFIN 3/19/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB 87 Kawasaki Amendment to CS-O version.pdf |
HFIN 3/19/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB 19 Amendment Kawasaki.pdf |
HFIN 3/19/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |