Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
02/18/2014 05:00 PM House RULES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB148 | |
| HB19 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 148 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 19-PERM. MOT. VEH. REGISTRATION/TRAILERS
5:18:37 PM
CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the next order of business would be
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." [Before the committee was
CSHB 19(TRA).]
5:18:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 28-LS0130\U.4, Strasbaugh, 2/7/14, which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "registration":
Insert "in the unorganized borough and in a
municipality that has elected to allow permanent
registration"
Page 1, line 13, following "old":
Insert "and the owner resides in the unorganized
borough or in a municipality that elects, by passage
of an appropriate ordinance, to allow the permanent
registration of motor vehicles"
Page 2, line 27, following "or":
Insert ", if the person resides within the
unorganized borough or in a municipality that elects,
by passage of an appropriate ordinance, to allow the
permanent registration of motor vehicles,"
CHAIR JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes.
5:19:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, a joint
prime sponsor of HB 19, related that although he is not overly
excited about Amendment 1 as there is already a local option
that allows municipalities to opt-out, he said he respects the
process.
5:20:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG acknowledged situations in which a
resident of Anchorage registered his/her car outside of
Anchorage. Therefore, he expressed concern that Amendment 1
looks to the residence of the owner rather than the location of
the trailer. The municipality will gain or lose revenue based
upon where the trailer is located rather than where the owner is
located. Representative Gruenberg then questioned whether the
principle location of the car should be targeted.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE offered that would be a different
amendment on a different subject.
5:22:13 PM
CHAIR JOHNSON said he believes that every municipality and
borough that has taxing authority has the ability to enforce
that taxing authority, and therefore that is not an issue that
the committee needs to address.
5:24:01 PM
JOSHUA WALTON, Staff, Representative Craig Johnson, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that cumulatively the changes embodied in
Amendment 1 provide that municipalities have the ability to opt-
in to offering permanent vehicle registrations to those owners
of noncommercial motor vehicles that are older than eight years.
Under existing statute, AS 28.10.431, municipalities may elect
to levy a biennial motor vehicle registration tax. The level of
the tax is determined by each individual municipality, collected
by the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) when drivers renew their
registrations, and then is dispersed to the appropriate
municipalities. By offering the option for drivers and owners
to permanently register their motor vehicles, the mechanism for
collecting that revenue stream is taken from the DMV and
provided to the municipalities because when an individual
permanently registers a motor vehicle, the DMV doesn't see them
again. The current language of the legislation allows for the
motor vehicle registration tax to continue to be levied by the
municipalities, it just doesn't provide an option by which the
municipalities can collect those taxes. Therefore,
municipalities would have to establish their own system for
collecting and enforcing the tax. The tax couldn't be collected
at the DMV, save the one-time tax at the time of the permanent
motor vehicle registration. Mr. Walton pointed out that every
vehicle that is permanently registered represents a permanent
loss of revenue to the municipality that has opted to adopt the
motor vehicle registration tax. He then pointed out that
Amendment 1 addresses a timing issue present in the legislation
as currently written. The legislation provides at the time of
the effective date of the legislation, for the immediate
availability of permanent registrations. However, Section 7 of
the legislation requires that a municipality provide to the DMV
notice of greater than a year. Specifically, written notice has
to be filed by January 1st in the year preceding the year in
which the tax is to take effect in order for a municipality to
levy a tax on permanent motor vehicle registrations. Therefore,
there is at least one year in which eligible residents can apply
for and receive permanent motor vehicle registrations but the
municipality can't collect the one-time tax during that year.
Amendment 1, he explained, would allow municipalities to opt-in
by passing an ordinance, which can include an effective date
that's more than a year out from passage. During that time, the
required notice to DMV can be made before the municipality opts-
in to the permanent motor vehicle registration system. The
aforementioned closes the gap, he highlighted.
5:29:14 PM
MR. WALTON, upon request by Chair Johnson, directed the
committee's attention to the language on page 4, lines 25-29, "A
municipality that chooses to change the tax imposed under (b) or
(l) of this section or establishes a tax for permanently
registered motor vehicles or trailers shall file a written
notice of the change with the department by January 1 of the
year preceding the year in which the change in tax is to take
effect." For example, starting from today the earliest a
municipality could give notice that it wanted to establish a
permanent motor vehicle registration tax would be January 1,
2015. Although the current language of HB 19 results in the
earliest date the tax could take effect being January 1, 2016,
the effective date clause specifies that it takes effect January
1, 2014. Therefore, there is a period of time between the
effective date of the legislation and the first day in which a
municipality could levy the tax, such that the permanent motor
vehicle registrations are available in the municipality but the
taxing capability is not.
5:30:43 PM
CHAIR JOHNSON related his understanding then that an individual
would be able to register his/her motor vehicle permanently and
never return to DMV. [The date specifications create] a
loophole of a year, year-and-a-half during which no tax would be
able to be collected under the existing legislation. Amendment
1 would address the aforementioned by providing the option.
MR. WALTON said that is correct because Amendment 1 allows for
the opt-in provision through the passage of an appropriate
ordinance; a cleverly worded ordinance could close the gap and
enable municipalities to offer permanent motor vehicle
registrations at the same time they are able to tax them.
5:31:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked why those dates were chosen.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE explained that it's routine to update the
effective dates, [particularly when] the hope was that this
legislation would've passed last year.
5:32:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised then that Amendment 1 changes
the legislation from being applied everywhere to applying if the
municipality passes an ordinance to adopt it, which is an opt-in
provision.
MR. WALTON confirmed that is correct. Given that there are
municipalities that currently have a motor vehicle registration
tax and rely on that revenue, [Amendment 1] would provide the
decision to offer permanent motor vehicle registrations to the
local level.
5:33:52 PM
CHAIR JOHNSON opened public testimony and encouraged people to
speak only to Amendment 1, not the legislation itself.
5:35:15 PM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), opined that Amendment 1 makes the option for
municipalities cleaner, quicker, and provides the municipalities
with a choice to review their finances and make a choice.
5:35:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired as to whether there have been any
calculations as to the difference in revenue Amendment 1 would
make in terms of local revenue.
MS. WASSERMAN related that DMV has figures regarding the revenue
if everyone opted-in.
5:36:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, noting that he is one of the joint prime
sponsors, declared a conflict of interest in this matter because
he owns multiple trailers. He then opined that it's difficult
to believe that the tax revenue generated from his multiple
trailers would be a significant amount for the municipality.
Therefore, he inquired as to how much revenue has made this
effort worth it.
5:38:30 PM
DAN O'HARA, Mayor, Bristol Bay Borough, began by saying he liked
Amendment 1. Referring to a list specifying the amount of
revenue being lost from the municipalities, Mayor O'Hara
informed the committee that Bristol Bay Borough would lose
$530,000 [under CSHB 19(TRA)], which could cover the cost of a
lot of snow removal. Mayor O'Hara informed the committee that
he hasn't received any calls on this legislation. He opined
that this [legislation] is coming from the top down rather than
from the ground level, which is important to him. Therefore, he
characterized Amendment 1 as great.
5:40:28 PM
JOE KLAYKA, Mayor, City of Bethel, related support for Amendment
1. He informed the committee that the City of Bethel is looking
at a $1 million shortfall this year because the Alaska Village
Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is taking over the local
utility company and because AVEC is a nonprofit the city will no
longer be able to tax the fuel. He further informed the
committee that it costs the City of Bethel an enormous amount of
money to put down calcium chloride on the roads in the summer.
Therefore, whatever money the city can collect is important to
it, and thus he supported the optional nature of Amendment 1.
5:41:24 PM
LUCINDA MAHONEY, Chief Finance Officer (CFO), Municipality of
Anchorage, related support for Amendment 1 because without it,
the Municipality of Anchorage would face a significant reduction
in revenue, an estimated $6-$7 million annually. The
aforementioned reduction would be a significant impact on the
municipality's budget and ability to retain employees. She
estimated that 63 percent of the vehicles in the municipality
would fall into this category, which is a significant component
of the municipality's budget.
5:42:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired as to other options that would be
available to the Municipality of Anchorage if Amendment 1 isn't
adopted.
MS. MAHONEY explained that if the bill as originally written
were to pass, the municipality would have the ability to
increase property taxes for the area. In response to Chair
Johnson, Ms. Mahoney estimated that the original legislation
would necessitate a 1.2 percent increase for every property
taxpayer. She opined that the aforementioned increase is
significant.
CHAIR JOHNSON estimated that such an increase would amount, on
average, to about $54 for an average house.
5:43:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER opined that $54 would be worth the hassle
of not having to keep track of it.
CHAIR JOHNSON said that's the option being offered.
5:44:23 PM
MIKE NAVARRE, Mayor, Kenai Peninsula Borough, announced his
support for Amendment 1. He commented that every time there is
a tax change, it's a tax shift and the borough is left to
struggle.
5:45:58 PM
CHAIR JOHNSON, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
5:46:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to Section 8 of the
legislation, which would repeal the $30 annual fee for trailers.
He inquired as to why that statute is being repealed because
many may not opt-in.
CHAIR JOHNSON clarified that the option to opt-in is in
reference to the municipality.
5:48:02 PM
CHAIR JOHNSON removed his objection to Amendment 1. There being
no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
5:48:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to why [AS 28.10.421(b)(6)]
is being repealed because it seems to him that unless someone
opts for a permanent registration, the [statute] would still
apply for a trailer.
5:49:45 PM
DARRELL BREESE, Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska State
Legislature, replied that the provision for the option of
trailer registration is being repealed because the price is
going to be the same as permanent registration. Currently,
commercial trailers are allowed to be registered for the life of
the trailer for a $25 fee. Therefore, it seemed fair, he
opined, for noncommercial trailers to have the option of the
same permanent registration as the commercial trailers.
5:50:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then inquired as to what the fee would
be under the legislation for a person to permanently register a
trailer rather do so under [AS 28.10.421(b)(6)].
MR. BREESE said that Section 4 specifies that the biennial fee
for registration is $30 and the permanent registration is an
additional $25 fee, which totals $55 for the permanent
registration. In further response to Representative Gruenberg,
Mr. Breese confirmed that the biennial registration is being
repealed for ease because most people aren't going to continue
the biennial registration if permanent registration is an
option. Furthermore, it puts the fee on par with the permanent
registration fee for commercial trailers.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE added that it would probably create a
greater level of compliance because it's common to not use a
trailer for several years.
5:53:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON moved to report CSHB 19(TRA), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
forthcoming fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
19(RLS) was reported from the House Rules Standing Committee and
is available for calendaring.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 148 vs A.pdf |
HRLS 2/18/2014 5:00:00 PM SRES 2/5/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 148 |
| SB 148 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HRLS 2/18/2014 5:00:00 PM SRES 2/5/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 148 |
| SB 148 Sponsor Statement.PDF |
HRLS 2/18/2014 5:00:00 PM |
SB 148 |
| SB 148 Supp Resolution City of Homer 14-005 20140113.pdf |
HRLS 2/18/2014 5:00:00 PM SRES 2/5/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 148 |
| SB 148 Map Proposed Exclusion to the Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat Area DNR.pdf |
HRLS 2/18/2014 5:00:00 PM SRES 2/5/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 148 |
| HB 19 DMV MVRT Imformation.pdf |
HRLS 2/18/2014 5:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 DMV Eligible Registration Classes.pdf |
HRLS 2/18/2014 5:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRLS 2/18/2014 5:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 Support Letters.pdf |
HRLS 2/18/2014 5:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 Opposition Letters.pdf |
HRLS 2/18/2014 5:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| CSHB 19(TRA) Fiscal Note DOA-DMV 2-15-13.pdf |
HRLS 2/18/2014 5:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| CSHB 19(TRA) Fiscal Note DOA-DMV 3-20-13.pdf |
HRLS 2/18/2014 5:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| CSHB 19(TRA) FY 2015 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HRLS 2/18/2014 5:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| CS HB 19(TRA) Amendment 1 U.4.pdf |
HRLS 2/18/2014 5:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB19 Version A.pdf |
HRLS 2/18/2014 5:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| CS HB 19(TRA).pdf |
HRLS 2/18/2014 5:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |