Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
02/14/2013 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB19 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 19-PERM. MOT. VEH. REGISTRATION/TRAILERS
1:07:10 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the only 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."
1:07:32 PM
DARREL BREESE, Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze, speaking on
behalf of the sponsor, Representative Bill Stoltze, stated that
HB 19 would allow for permanent registration of motor vehicles
older than eight years and for noncommercial trailers. He
explained that owners would have an option to pay a $25 fee in
addition to the regular registration fee for permanent
registration. This bill would add several provisions, including
one to allow municipalities to cover any potential loss in
revenue by establishing a motor vehicle registration tax (MVRT).
Currently, the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) collects the
MVRT on behalf of the municipalities, with 16 municipalities
having established this tax. The bill would also not allow the
DMV will to collect any MVRT tax on behalf of a municipality if
the rate is set above $100.
1:09:04 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked him to explain the provision for the DMV
not collecting the MVRT if the rate is set higher than $100.
MR. BREESE answered that currently, the state collects the MVRT
on behalf of municipalities, who levy the tax. The DMV
currently collects the MVRT and charges an eight percent
administrative cost to do so. The MVRT's rate varies based on
the MVRT rate adopted by each of the 16 municipalities. Section
9 of HB 19 relates that municipalities who set their tax rate
for registration of motor vehicles or noncommercial trailers
above $100 must collect the one-time tax at the time of
registration. He related that Section 9 shifts the burden of
the tax collection for MVRT rates higher than $100 from the DMV
to the individual municipality.
1:10:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked for further clarification. He
understood the DMV could only collect a one-time registration
tax.
MR. BREESE further explained that current statute allows for the
MVRT to be collected once at the time of registration. However,
if the City of North Pole sets the MVRT higher than $100, the
city would need to collect the entire tax.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON related he has several cars that are
older than eight years. He asked for the reason for the
constraint. For example, the community would have the burden to
collect the tax if a municipality set the tax at $125.
MR. BREESE answered that most people don't realize the MVRT is a
municipal tax and not a state tax.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked whether the sponsor would support
an amendment that would remove the cap on the MVRT collected by
the DMV on behalf of municipalities.
MR. BREESE said the sponsor likes the bill as it stands but he
will allow the committee to proceed and consider the measure.
1:13:15 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON understood that the $100 MVRT in question is a
municipal tax.
MR. BREESE answered yes; the MVRT is a municipal tax. He
clarified that if municipalities choose to enact the MVRT in
excess of $100 the DMV would not collect it. He pointed out the
$100 figure is an arbitrary number and only one community in
Alaska - Dutch Harbor/Unalaska - would be affected since that
community currently sets the MVRT at $116. He explained that
the Dutch Harbor/Unalaska community would need to lower its tax
to $100 or less, if it wishes the DMV to continue to collect the
MVRT. He reminded the committee that the MVRT is a municipal
tax. Further, he pointed out that municipalities who collect
their own taxes would also not pay the eight percent it does to
DMV in administrative costs, so those funds would be available
to cover any additional costs to implement collections of the
MVRT.
CHAIR P. WILSON pointed out a spreadsheet in members' packets
entitled, "Estimated Revenue MVRT Change Using Current MVRT
Rates" that identifies the effect of HB 19 and the revenue
losses in the 16 communities over time for permanent
registration of vehicles.
1:15:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE understood the MVRT is collected for
vehicle registration taxes, but municipalities also have
property taxes. He asked whether the MVRT could be collected at
the same time using the same process.
MR. BREESE answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked for further clarification on whether
the municipal MVRT is solely a vehicle tax and does not contain
any personal property taxes.
MR. BREESE answered not to my knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked what the MVRT is used for by
municipalities.
MR. BREESE related his understanding that the MVRT is deposited
into the municipal general funds and each municipal legislative
body would decide how to allocate its funding. He offered his
belief that Unalaska uses its revenue to remove abandoned and
junk vehicles. He said he was not aware of how the funds are
otherwise allocated. In further response, he reiterated the
funds would be deposited into each municipal general fund and
allocated by the municipality for its specific purposes.
1:16:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE related his understanding that a
municipality could replace general fund revenue from someplace
else within the municipality.
MR. BREESE answered yes; however, the bill also allows
municipalities to increase the MVRT rates for permanently
registered vehicles or noncommercial trailers by ordinance once
every two years to make up potential revenue losses.
1:17:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to the 16 communities and asked if
any impose other taxes.
MR. BREESE answered yes, several do, but he was unsure of the
specific taxes levied.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether any of the municipalities
depend solely on the MVRT for revenue.
MR. BREESE answered no, not to his knowledge.
1:18:05 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for clarification on the other types of
taxes municipalities collect.
MR. BREESE recalled that Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough have real and personal property taxes, cigarette taxes,
gas taxes, and business taxes and other taxes exist, although he
was unsure of the specific taxes collected.
1:18:55 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for the specific reason for the bill.
MR. BREESE answered that several constituents requested this.
He recalled the issue arose initially when some constituents
moved from Montana. He recalled that Montana has had similar
legislation in place for several years, which started the
conversation. The idea has grown as a matter of convenience for
constituents to not to have to routinely re-register vehicles.
Further, the sponsor believes sufficient fees have already been
paid for the vehicle registration during the initial eight years
of the vehicle's life. The genesis for offering permanent
registration for noncommercial trailers is to extend the
benefits commercial trailer owners have had, noting that
permanent registration has been an option since 1998 for a fee
of $20.
1:20:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the fee for registration on
trucks was increased at the time the fees for commercial
trailers was decreased to offset the fee. He asked whether this
fee is inside or outside the Municipality of Anchorage's (MOA)
tax cap.
MR. BREESE said he was unsure.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON surmised it probably is not inside the
tax cap.
1:21:31 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related a tax cap is set at a certain
rate to limit the total taxes in a municipality, often related
to property taxes. He was unsure if the MVRT fell into the
category limited by the MOA's tax cap. If not, the fee may fall
outside the cap, and not be accounted for under the law that set
the tax cap. Therefore, it would be an additional fee.
1:22:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS asked whether he has specific figures for
the number of eight-year and older motor vehicles. She wondered
whether the DMV would reduce staff by an employee of two if the
permanent registration removes a substantial amount of work for
staff.
MR. BREESE deferred to the DMV to specifically answer; however,
he referred to page two of the fiscal note, and pointed out that
the DMV estimates 470,400 noncommercial vehicles would be
eligible for permanent registration in FY 14. Additionally, the
fiscal note projects vehicles not renewed would represent
approximately 20 percent of the total vehicles annually;
however, this is offset by the number new vehicles registered
each year so it would probably level out over time.
1:24:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS understood the only community that
would be affected would be Dutch Harbor/Unalaska, since it
assesses a MVRT in excess of $100.
MR. BREESE responded that all municipalities will be affected
due to a loss of revenue currently collected every two years
since some vehicles would be permanently registered. Thus after
two years municipalities with an MVRT would not have an
opportunity to collect taxes on the vehicles permanently
registered. He clarified that Dutch Harbor/Unalaska is the only
community with an MVRT set at a fee higher than the $100 cap.
1:25:15 PM
AMY ERICKSON, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), began by offering to address
Representative Gattis's earlier question on how HB 19 would
impact the DMV's employees. She stated that only 11 percent of
motor vehicle registrations happen in-house and the rest are
online transactions. Therefore the DMV would not be impacted.
1:26:07 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked how many communities collect a MVRT that
is more than $100.
MS. ERICKSON said only Dutch Harbor/Unalaska collects more with
a MVRT of $116, but the rest of the communities fall under $100.
1:26:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked about the cost to the DMV. He
asked whether the bill would have any unintended consequence to
the small community of Dutch Harbor/Unalaska and the process
that the community would use to identify the vehicles exempted
and pursue the registrations. He suggested the DMV would likely
incur additional costs to track the vehicles permanently
registered.
MS. ERICKSON answered that the DMV would need to supply each
community with the vehicles due for registration.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON suggested it could increase DMV's
expenses that the communities would need to individually collect
the balance.
MS. ERICKSON responded that the process just described sounds
logical.
1:28:02 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether any information exists. She
understood the DMV retains eight percent in administrative costs
for collecting the current MVRT. She asked whether Ms. Erickson
could estimate the cost a community would incur to collect the
MVRT on its own.
MS. ERICKSON she was unsure. She clarified that the eight
percent fee that DMV retains is returned to the general fund and
is not held by the DMV.
1:28:59 PM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), stated the AML has concerns about HB 19 since the AML's
communities have not taken a formal stand on the bill. She
explained that each community acts separately. She recalled
only one community has expressed opposition to the bill and she
did not recall any communities have written in support of the
bill. She explained that the AML has concerns about the bill
after seeing the revised figures from DMV on the potential
impacts of HB 19. She said that most of the concerns relate to
Section 9, since it would limit the amount of the MVRT collected
by the DMV to $100. For example, the City and Borough of Juneau
(CBJ) collects about $78 and could raise its tax to $100;
however, each two years the CBJ would lose the $77 fee from each
motor vehicle owner that opted for permanent vehicle
registration. Most of the 16 communities use the funds for road
maintenance and junk car removal, she said.
MS. WASSERMAN recalled the Matanuska-Susitna Borough has
indicated it passes on its fees to Palmer, Wasilla and Houston
municipal governments. Additionally, she expressed concern
about the effective date since in order to raise taxes the
question must go to a vote. She outlined the process:
municipalities would need to pass an ordinance, which would go
to an election - with sufficient noticing - and the results
would be reported to the DMV prior to enacting the MVRT. She
suggested it may be a two-year lag, perhaps a little less, but
she recalled the DMV needs at least one year to implement any
changes and an election could take seven or eight months to
complete.
1:32:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the MVRT falls inside or
outside the municipal tax cap.
MS. WASSERMAN answered that she was unsure of how each
municipality works internally. She surmised the cap was related
to property taxes. She reiterated she was unsure.
1:32:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed his concern that if the MVRT
falls within the cap the impact on municipalities would result
in a $6 million increase in 2019 property taxes for his
constituents. He related that if the MVRT falls outside the tax
cap and will not be passed on to constituents in the form of
property tax increases then he would have less concern with the
bill. Ultimately, the burden should not fall on homeowners, he
said.
1:33:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON suggested this could potentially hurt
municipal revenues. He offered his belief that revenues in
Fairbanks fall under the tax cap to ensure taxation does not
outpace development or impede private investment. He recalled
Ms. Erickson indicated it could affect the DMV's costs. The
bill could affect potentially hurt municipalities, since the
cost of mailing may increase the costs too. He noted that some
communities collect from $13,000 to $18,000 in MVRT. He
concluded this could have a significant impact on smaller
communities. He wondered if HB 19 would create any unintended
consequences, such as more municipalities would need to be
bailed out at some point.
MS. WASSERMAN agreed. She acknowledged that municipalities are
also stretched for funds, yet have certain responsibilities they
must provide. Thus the 16 municipalities may need to pass the
burden on to property tax owners or some service must go by the
wayside. However, holding a vote on taxes is also unwelcome.
She said this system has been working very efficiently and
effectively for the municipalities and to date the AML has not
heard any complaints. She assumed most people would prefer not
to pay taxes.
1:36:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked if the AML could support the bill
if the committee removed Section 9. He acknowledged that not
registering older vehicles would save people money. He asked
whether removing Section 9 would balance it out.
MS. WASSERMAN answered that the AML would look more favorably on
the bill, although she would need to discuss it with individual
municipalities.
1:37:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS stated she has received comments from her
constituents, but none from her municipality. She related her
constituents believe they have already paid their MVRT taxes up
front for eight years. Further, these constituents will pay
taxes again when they buy a new car. Therefore her constituents
want relief on the tail end. Even though she was unsure of the
average age of a vehicle in Alaska she suggested that such a
vehicle has likely used up its useful life.
1:38:50 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the constituents will still want
to drive the eight-year-old vehicles on the road.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS agreed.
1:39:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE did not find anything in the bill that
would limit a municipality's ability to levy a tax.
MS. WASSERMAN answered that is correct.
1:39:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE suggested that money would not be taken
away from the municipalities, but it would be up to a
municipality to collect taxes on vehicles eight years or older.
MS. WASSERMAN responded that was incorrect since the
municipalities would also need to set up the tax collection
system and infrastructure necessary to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether the municipalities currently
have tax collection methods and staff.
MS. WASSERMAN answered yes; but the system is for different
taxes and the municipalities would need to figure out how to
obtain information from the DMV as to the age of each car.
Further, the MVRT would be levied differently from property
taxes. She concluded HB 19 would result in some type of added
infrastructure.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether all communities have local
police forces.
MS. WASSERMAN replied that she was unsure if Nenana or Whittier
has police, although she thought the communities may each have
one officer. She agreed Anchorage and Bethel has a police
force, but she thought that the Bristol Bay area relies on the
Alaska State Troopers for enforcement.
1:40:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for clarification that in
considering the projected loss the AML has assumed these
municipalities will decide not to collect the fees.
MS. WASSERMAN answered yes. She referred to the figures as
representing potential impacts since the AML is unsure how long
a vehicle would be used after the permanent registration. She
pointed out the older vehicles could be on the road from 2 to 10
more years. Additionally, the AML is unsure which communities
would decide to collect to make up any lost revenue. She said
it is difficult to predict.
1:42:01 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON said she was unsure about the age of cars but
she acknowledged that her community has numerous old cars. She
did not know the effect of the bill on her community, but she
indicated the roads still need to be maintained. She saw [the
permanent registration] as problematic and related her own
personal experience. She agreed that the number of vehicles is
unpredictable. She asked Mr. Breese to speak to Ms. Wasserman's
earlier comments.
1:44:31 PM
MR. BREESE questioned Ms. Wasserman's comments that the voters
would need to approve any tax. He explained that this is true
in some communities, but in Anchorage and Matanuska-Susitna
Borough the MVRT can be approved by the city council or assembly
by passing an ordinance. He offered his belief since these
communities represent the highest populations in the state, it
would impact the majority of vehicles that would qualify.
Therefore in Anchorage or the Matanuska-Susitna Borough a simple
ordinance change could change the MVRT rate, which is laid out
in statute and is currently in HB 19.
MR. BREESE reiterated that some cities require votes for all
taxes, but not for the MVRT in Anchorage or the MSB. He
provided the committee with a handout with the number of
vehicles eight years or older in each community that would
qualify under the bill, as follows: Anchorage, 190,075; Bethel,
2,440; Bristol Bay, 1,676; Cordova, 2,403; Dillingham, 1,748;
Juneau, 20,526; Kenai, 55,885; Ketchikan, 9,308; Kodiak, 8,940;
Matanuska-Susitna, 83,919; Nenana, 833; Nome, 1,647; Petersburg,
2,513; Sitka, 5,809; Unalaska, 1,796; and Whittier, 327. He
suggested this addresses how many vehicles are eligible for each
of the communities. He reiterated that 20 percent of the
vehicles would not be registered; however, as new vehicles are
registered more vehicles enter the pool. Additionally,
permanent registration is not transferable so in the event the
owner sells the vehicle with permanent registration, the new
owner would need to register the vehicle and select whether to
use the permanent registration.
1:46:28 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that if 20 percent of the vehicles are
eligible for permanent registration, coastal communities must
take care of the [abandoned or junk] vehicles. She further
recalled a Juneau person came into her office recently and
complained about people driving with expired registrations.
1:47:24 PM
MS. WASSERMAN pointed out that Ms. Erickson has figures for the
percentage of cars on Alaska's highways over eight years old.
MS. ERICKSON referred to the fiscal note. She said that 72
percent of current vehicles on the road are eight years or
older. She also stated that the average age of vehicles is 13
years old.
CHAIR P. WILSON said she spoke to the sponsor about changing the
vehicle age in the bill. The sponsor prefers not to change the
age of the vehicles eligible for permanent registration.
1:48:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether municipalities would
still be affected if Section 9, which caps the amount a
municipality can collect at $100, were removed from the bill
since these municipalities could not collect the MVRT through
the DMV.
MS. WASSERMAN answered yes; however, last year the AML worked
closely with the sponsor's staff, Mr. Breese on the MVRT bill.
Last year's bill did not contain the language in Section 9. In
fact, the sponsor removed the language AML had issues with last
year and subsequently the AML took a neutral position on the
bill. While AML did not support the bill, the AML agreed it
would remain neutral on the bill. She indicated that Section 9
was added this session to the MVRT bill currently before the
committee, HB 19. Although, municipalities would likely still
be affected she thought they will agree to remain neutral on HB
19.
1:50:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS was unsure why municipalities
would remain neutral since Section 9 would only affect Dutch
Harbor/Unalaska.
MS. WASSERMAN answered that the municipalities are uneasy about
taking a negative position on the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON understood the department would not
collect the tax; however, he thought Ms. Erickson said the
municipalities could opt to collect any MVRT beyond $100. He
asked for further clarification on the effect of removing
Section 9 from the bill. He further asked whether removing
Section 9 would remove the ability of the DMV to collect the
MVRT on behalf of municipalities.
MR. BREESE shook his head no.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked the negative response given by the
sponsor's staff [shook head no] be reflected in the record.
1:51:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON understood the effect of removing
Section 9 would be to remove the cap of the MVRT.
[The committee and sponsor's staff appeared to agree.]
1:51:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested a method exists for communities
to avoid losing revenue by implementing a system. Such a system
would be similar to the Municipality of Anchorage's (MOA's)
emission's standards [IM program], in which the MOA would issue
a sticker. The registered owner could receive a ticket if a
vehicle did not have a sticker. He surmised such a program
could be a revenue generator for cities and municipalities;
however it might also be a politically tough issue. He also
thought it could be a neutral issue, as well. He emphasized his
concern about passing the buck from one community or area to
another; especially since it might cost owners more to
permanently register a vehicle. He was unsure if [the permanent
registration] would be a big plus since some communities might
impose an extra sticker or star on the window.
1:53:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON suggested that the Fairbanks North Star
Borough (FNSB) does not have policing authority. He expressed
concern that the borough would need to become policing agents.
He indicated that the FNSB is a second-class borough and not a
home rule city. He also mentioned that Nenana does not have the
sophistication, necessarily [to implement this]. He asked
whether the Alaska State Troopers would need to monitor [the
permanent registered vehicles for compliance]. He agreed with
Representative Johnson that he also did not want to pass the
burden on to municipalities. He spoke to his own experience as
mayor and the financial challenges the communities face with
declining property values. He reiterated his concern that the
bill might pass on to communities an opportunity to charge more.
He suggested the simple fix would be to remove the cap and
owners would continue to pay the eight percent municipal MVRT to
the DMV, which will bring about $1 million to the general fund.
1:55:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON thought [Repetitive Isaacson] might be
misunderstanding the source of the loss of revenue. He
explained that it would not happen due to the loss of the $100
MVRT in year one of the program, but in year two, three, and
four, during the renewal cycle [when taxes for permanently
registered vehicles would not be collected]. He further
explained his comments demonstrated how municipalities could
avoid such a loss. He advised the committee he just spoke to
the MOA and this proposal [in HB 19] would fall under the tax
cap. Thus if the legislature removes the $6,818,910 million in
[2019], referring to the handout in members' packets entitled
"MVRT Collections by Community (HB 19 Scenario,)" the lost
revenue would be passed on to property owners via the MOA's
property tax roll. He predicted the $2,889,180 in MVRT
reductions and savings in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB)
would be passed on in the form of increased property taxes. He
concluded by stating that [the effect of] passing HB 19 would
increase property taxes.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:56 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
2:00:07 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 19.
2:00:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 28-LS0130\A.1, Gardner, 2/14/13, which read as follows:
Page 5, lines 7 - 11:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
CHAIR P. WILSON explained that this would remove the MVRT cap.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected. He asked whether deleting AS
28.10.421 (c) (3) and (4) would cause any difficulties for the
department.
MS. ERICKSON said she was online.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, after determining his concern was in
Section 10 [a different section of the bill], withdrew his
objection.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE maintained his objection for the purpose of
discussion.
2:02:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE expressed concern about removing Section 9.
He related a scenario in which a person elected to use permanent
registration for an eight-year old vehicle; however, the average
age of the vehicle is 13 years. He did not believe
municipalities were restricted from imposing a tax. One way
municipalities could recover lost revenue would be to raise
taxes on the first eight years of a vehicle's registration.
Thus Section 9 tends to restrict the amount municipalities can
raise, he said. He asked for the overall point of the bill and
whether the purpose of HB 19 is to increase taxes or if it is to
eliminate a perceived hassle for many citizens since they need
to renew vehicle registration.
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested that the majority of people could
register online. Another consideration would be whether the
legislature should legislate how municipalities operate. In one
instance, the bill would allow the municipalities a means to
handle revenue losses, but on the other hand the bill would
allow people to avoid paying registration. However, the
permanently registered vehicles would still operate on roads.
She suggested that municipalities might consider other
solutions.
2:05:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked for the current average tax.
MS. WASSERMAN deferred to the DOR.
MS. ERICKSON stated the MVRT ranges from $16 at the lowest to
$116 at the highest.
2:06:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS related her understanding of the purpose
of the bill. First, the bill would reduce taxes at a specific
point in the age of the vehicle, which will give some relief to
owners. The second benefit would be relief from changing
plates, adhering stickers, and ensuring that the paperwork is in
the vehicle. She said from her personal experience, that she
doesn't always have the snowmachines or boats available at the
time of registration for the [noncommercial trailers] or
vehicle. She maintained that relief from the aforementioned
paperwork represents a huge convenience, which is paramount.
For example, a vehicle might be in storage and the sticker might
not get adhered timely. She concluded that getting stopped on
the road [by enforcement] is a huge hassle.
CHAIR P. WILSON reminded members Amendment 1 is before the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE withdrew his objection. There being no
further objections, Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:08:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked that he doesn't want to slow
down the bill. In summary, the committee has been considering
the convenience to the public versus tax increases. While he
appreciated the convenience, the burden would likely be passed
on to all the property owners in his community. He emphasized
he loves convenience; however, even only 11 percent of current
vehicle renewals are being renewed in person, the .02 percent
increase [in lost revenue] would be absorbed by all property
owners. He expressed concern about the tax increase and
concluded by saying he did not want to hold up the bill, but
will speak to the sponsor about the aforementioned issue. He
further suggested some of the communities should speak up
instead of being neutral.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE understood the committee eliminated Section
9 of HB 19; however, the way Section 8 is written,
municipalities are free to raise the MVRT on newer vehicles. He
offered his belief that the language allows municipalities to
raise the MVRT as a separate issue without raising property
taxes.
CHAIR P. WILSON offered her belief that is the current law.
2:11:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested passage of HB 19 would
incentivize motor vehicles with excessive pollution and penalize
motor vehicles that are ecologically friendly. He indicated,
with respect to the bill, that additional problems arise for
him.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE pointed out it would be up to the
municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON responded that most municipalities are
not able to do this and he predicted it would be a tax increase
for general population for people who have older motor vehicles.
He said, "I happen to be one of them. I'm just not prepared to
raise taxes for convenience. Thank you, Madame Chair."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS remarked that she typically registers her
vehicles online, but another part of the convenience is getting
the sticker applied to the license plate one time and not having
to deal with it again.
2:13:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON appreciated the discussion. He said he
did not want to dis-incentivize the purchase of new motor
vehicles. In terms of the municipalities, a person who has an
objection to a tax the person goes to city hall and voice
his/her concern to the assembly or council member, which he
thought would limit [the amount of any taxes]. However, he
expressed concern about transferring the MVRT to property taxes
or increases to sales taxes. He pointed out that the Department
[of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)]
publishes each community's tax scheme. He agreed with
Representative Johnson that the bill may also increase municipal
property taxes. He said, "At this moment, I don't have a pass
or no pass. I think I'm just going to have a no recommendation.
I don't know what to do. I need to know more about this."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON reiterated he did not wish to hold the
bill up, but it could be an interesting floor debate.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he was looking forward to the
debate on the floor [of the House]. He concurred with
Representative Isaacson that the concern about local taxation
should be at the ballot box of the local elections and not in
the state legislature.
2:15:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE moved to report HB 19, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 19(TRA) was
reported from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
2:16:13 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 19 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM HTRA 2/14/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 Supporting DMV Registration Classes.pdf |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM HTRA 2/14/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB19 Support Motor Vehicle Registration Taxes Rates.pdf |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM HTRA 2/14/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB19 Version A.pdf |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM HTRA 2/14/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB-19 Opposition letter.msg |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM HTRA 2/14/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 Support Hansen.msg |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM HTRA 2/14/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019-DOA-DMV-2-07-13.pdf |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM HTRA 2/14/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB19 AML Ltr 2-14-13.pdf |
HTRA 2/14/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB19 Support Chase.msg |
HTRA 2/14/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 MVRT estimate 90% renewel no assum MVRT2-14-13.pdf |
HTRA 2/14/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 MVRT Collections by Community 2-24-13.xlsx |
HTRA 2/14/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |