Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/28/2017 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB82 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 82 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 82-RESTRICTED OFF HWY DRIVER'S LICENSE
1:10:34 PM
CO-CHAIR WOOL announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 82, "An Act relating to vehicle registration;
relating to off-highway restricted areas; and relating to motor
vehicle liability insurance."
1:10:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced himself and advised that this is the
second committee of referral.
1:11:19 PM
BERETT WILBER, Staff, Representative Johnathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, introduced herself.
1:11:41 PM
MS. WILBER turned to the PowerPoint presentation, "HB 82: Off-
Highway Driver's License," [difficulty with the PowerPoint
audio.]
1:12:09 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:12 p.m. to 1:13 p.m.
1:13:19 PM
MS. WILBER turned to slide 1, "What is an OHDL?" and explained
that the off-highway driver's license (OHDL) program existed in
Alaska prior to 1984, and that 294 off-highway communities
currently qualify for OHDL. The licenses, she explained, are
designed for rural people in off-road system communities who
perform a written test and receive their valid driver's license
through the mail. The OHDL functions as a provisional license
in on-road communities, and when driving in a non-off-highway
community the person must be accompanied by a licensed 21 years
of age or older driver. These 294 communities are exempt from
registration and insurance requirements for cars under current
law, she explained, and currently there are 1,120 OHDL drivers.
1:14:41 PM
MS. WILBER turned to slide 2, "294 off-highway communities" and
said the slide depicts all of the qualifying communities
throughout Alaska.
1:14:54 PM
MS. WILBER turned to slides 3-4, "Why do we care?" and "They
were confused and frustrated" respectively, and explained that
the residents of Angoon, Kake, and Hoonah are on the Alaska
Marine Highway System (AMHS) and these communities had been
eligible for off-highway licenses since the 1980s. Suddenly,
she said, in 2011, they were told they were no longer eligible
for off-highway licenses, so they contacted Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins. Slide 4 depicts the testimony of the various
residents.
MS. WILBER turned to slide 5, "Regulatory History!" depicting
the regulatory history for off-highway licenses and advised that
from 1984-2006, there were no specific regulations on the books
and the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) operated off-road
licenses in a common-sense manner. In 2006, after informally
administering the OHDL program for two decades, the DMV drafted
regulations due to a push toward the formalization of
regulations by the Palin administration. These regulations had
two requirements to be eligible, the community could not be
connected to the road system, and it could not have a DMV office
offering road testing, which is good common-sense criteria.
However, in 2011, the regulations changed and rather than simply
being about road access, suddenly the new regulations deemed
that communities with access to the land connecting to the state
highway system were ineligible, and the DMV interpreted the
Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) as a highway. Consequently,
it meant that for the people of Angoon, for example, it was
deemed that even though no DMV existed in Angoon, they had
access to the Juneau DMV via the AMHS and were no longer
eligible. She commented that HB 82, basically goes back to the
2006 criteria.
1:18:30 PM
MS. WILBER turned to slide 6, "JKT office gets in touch with the
DMV" and said she explained to the DMV the cost of a round-trip
ferry ride, food, and at least 1-2 nights on the ferry, and
asked the DMV to revisit this issue. Ms. Wilber stressed that
these regulations were applied inconsistently because many
communities on the AMHS continued to be eligible for OHDLs, such
as Old Harbor, Cold Bay, and Sandy Point, but not Angoon,
Hoonah, or Kake.
1:19:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, in response to Co-Chair Wool's
question as to the DMV's response to this discrepancy, said that
after directing 3-4 emails to the DMV with no response, a few
months later a new regulation was issued by the DMV that spoke
to this exact situation. He noted that his contact was not with
the current DMV leadership, and it was a frustrating sequence of
events and he still has the emails.
CO-CHAIR WOOL surmised that the DMV did respond with a new
regulation explaining its rationale having to do with traffic
counts and such.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that he never received a
response from the DMV to his 3-4 emails, but then he happened to
see that a new regulation was issued a few months later that may
have been a response to his emails.
CO-CHAIR WOOL opined that perhaps it justified their rationale.
1:21:51 PM
MS. WILBER returned to slide 6 and offered that rather than
directly answering the question regarding whether ferry access
to a DMV counted as true access, the regulation read that every
community with an average daily traffic count of over 499 on any
segment of road in that community no longer qualified for an
off-highway driver's license. Suddenly, she expressed, there
was new criteria that definitively excluded these three
communities due to their traffic counts being over 499. In
response to Representative Kreiss-Tomkins' concern about this
new regulation and concern that a community, such as Sand Point
with twice the population of Angoon and potentially a larger
traffic count was eligible, the DMV advised that there was no
traffic data available for that community and its eligibility
status would not change, she said.
1:23:26 PM
MS. WILBER turned to slide 7, "Hello, HB 82" and noted that
subsequent to the DMV's response, HB 82 was drafted clarifying
the laws and regulations surrounding off-highway driver's
licenses. This legislation changes the criteria for off-highway
driver's licenses in a manner that aligns with the intent of the
off-highway driver's license program. The traffic count added
to regulation in 2014 was an arbitrary number, she said, and in
2013 Angoon's traffic count was 915 and not eligible, yet in
2015 its highest traffic count was 433, and suddenly it would
become eligible. She described that the flip-flopping of
eligibility for the off-highway driver's license program based
on when the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOTPF) performs a traffic count in a community, doesn't make
sense. For people living in Angoon it doesn't matter what the
traffic count is, they can't drive to a DMV and can't get their
driver's licenses in their community, and that should be the
criteria that governs whether or not a community is eligible for
off-highway driver's licenses.
1:24:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN referred to 499 being an arbitrary number
and noted that DOTPF picked that number for a safety reason and
asked whether the sponsor had information from the safety
officer at DOTPF as to the number.
MS. WILBER responded that she had spoken with DOTPF a number of
times about HB 82 and the traffic count, and it did not see the
499-traffic count as a safety issue. Rather, she related, it is
a regulation the DMV essentially borrowed from federal off-
highway commercial regulations and decided to apply it to off-
highway non-commercial driver's licenses in Alaska because it
was convenient. She explained that the response from the DOTPF
staff she spoke with do not feel that traffic count is a metric
that says anything meaningful as to whether a community is off-
highway or not. There is no meaningful safety difference in a
community with a traffic count of, for instance, 499 and another
community of 515, she said.
1:26:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to the 499 number and explained
that that number has been in state statute since the 1970s, but
not in regulation. In the event a community's average traffic
count is less than 499, it is not subject to vehicle
registration requirements that apply to on-road system
communities.
1:27:22 PM
MS. WILBER turned to slide 8, "What should matter?" and
described that traffic count as a difficult metric to decide
whether or not communities should be eligible for off-highway
licenses. Currently, she said, there is no systematic manner in
which the DOTPF shares traffic count data with the DMV. As a
result, there is friction if the DOTPF decides to run a traffic
count in an off-highway eligible rural community because there's
no systematic manner for the DOTPF to give that data to the DMV
to then decide whether or not a community should be on or off
the list. Traffic count is an arbitrary metric and by removing
it from the eligibility standards for off-highway driver's
license, the DMV would be saved the hassle of going back and
checking every year to determine whether communities have
traffic counts over 499, she said.
1:28:26 PM
CO-CHAIR WOOL asked whether Ms. Wilber said that the DOTPF
performs a traffic count analysis, but there was not a mechanism
to then inform the DMV that a community was ineligible for off-
highway driver's licenses.
MS. WILBER answered yes, she said that this is a fairly new
regulation and the list of off-highway eligible communities
already exists. At this point, she explained, if someone
applies for an off-highway driver's license, the DMV performs a
"kind of, on a one-off basis" check of the DOTPF traffic count
data and in the event a community is over 499, the DMV denies
that person the off-highway license and removes the community
from the eligibility list.
1:29:28 PM
CO-CHAIR WOOL asked whether there are traffic counts from all of
the off-highway driver's licenses communities. For example, the
communities on the ferry system that were still eligible, such
as Sand Point, and whether there are traffic count studies for
those communities, as well.
MS. WILBER answered that many of the communities do have traffic
count studies, it is the DOTPF responsibility to run the traffic
count program in all communities, and the DMV then uses those
traffic counts for this program. She stated that the DMV does
not request traffic counts, and the counts were never intended
to say anything meaningful about whether or not someone could
apply for a driver's license. At the time of drafting this
legislation, she was told that DMV just did not have traffic
count data for the other still eligible communities. Although,
in speaking with the DOTPF and reviewing an extensive traffic
count map, she said, to her, and from a DOTPF perspective, it
does appear there is traffic count data for those communities.
1:31:20 PM
MS. WILBER turned to slides 9, "Metrics" and commented that by
attaching traffic count data to the eligibility criteria of
whether or not a person should be eligible for an off-highway
driver's license unnecessarily bars rural communities from
accessing the off-highway driver's license program. Therefore,
she explained, people living in rural communities just do not
apply for driver's license because it is prohibitively difficult
and expensive, so they drive illegally. The goal of this bill
is to change that problem and allow the DMV to return to the
2006 regulation common sense system and make the criteria
logical and simple. There are two questions asked under HB 82
in order to qualify for an off-highway driver's license program,
if the community is off the road system, and whether a DMV was
not located in the community, she explained.
MS. WILBER described that slide 9 offers the results if HB 82
were to become law, and noted the information regarding
communities' currently eligible, newly eligible communities, and
OHDL towns with ferry access.
1:35:32 PM
CO-CHAIR WOOL questioned the methodology when there may be other
factor such as, the number of registered vehicles or how
isolated the community. Obviously, he said, Ms. Wilber was
saying that, at most, it would be just under 10 percent and that
was the highest in some of these communities. The low is .55,
but that was only 15 cars in a village of 1,000 people, and that
may be the reason for the low number.
MS. WILBER asked that the committee keep in mind that those
currently eligible communities such as, Sand Point, Hooper Bay,
Gustavus, are currently exempt from registration and insurance
requirements. Therefore, it is difficult to compare the
registered vehicles between exempt communities and non-exempt
communities. In terms of the average having imperfect
methodology, she said she absolutely agrees, it was not meant to
be any type of scientific analysis, but rather to illustrate the
fact that the bill would add a small number of people to this
program.
1:37:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that AS 28.10.011 lists exceptions
to "vehicles and communities that do have to have registered
vehicles" and subparagraph (10) read as follows:
(10) being driven or moved on a highway,
vehicular way, or a public parking place in the state
that is not connected by a land highway or vehicular
way to
(A) the land-connected state highway system;
or
(B) a highway or vehicular way with an
average daily traffic volume greater than 499;
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to a 1988 Attorney General Opinion
and said it was construed to be in the conjunctive and that the
notes read as follows:
Vehicles that are driven on roadways removed from
the main land connected highway system must be
registered and must have insurance unless, in addition
they are only driven on a road system consisting
solely of lightly traveled, or less than 500 vehicles
per day road.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP opined that the thinking at that time was
that large communities, such as Bethel, should have driver's
licenses. The lightly traveled roads spoke to the safety issue
which is where the 499-threshold originated, the numbers of
vehicles that would be in close proximity, the possibility of
vehicle accidents with injuries, property damage, and whether
insurance should be required.
1:39:31 PM
CO-CHAIR WOOL surmised that the 500 count was in statute prior
to ...
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP interjected that it's been there since 1980,
but that is as far back as he went.
CO-CHAIR WOOL said that meant the pre-existing regulation from
the DMV was ...
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP interjected, based on statute.
CO-CHAIR WOOL agreed, and he said to Ms. Wilber that within the
first period she referred to in her presentation there actually
was a statute and asked whether it was just unenforced. He
noted that within the regulation, the 499 number did not just
appear when she started making inquiries.
1:40:24 PM
MS. WILBER agreed that Representative Kopp was absolutely
correct about the 499 number being in statute for vehicle
registration exemption and insurance exemptions. However, the
traffic count of 499 was never in statute relating to the off-
highway driver's license program, which is what she meant when
she said that in 2011 "they borrowed" those, but they are also
in regulation governing off-highway commercial licenses at the
federal level and the number does appear in other provisions in
statute.
CO-CHAIR WOOL agreed, but he said that this is state, not
federal, and not about commercial licenses. He related that it
is more about registration and insurance at the state level in a
community with less than 500 traffic count exemption from
registration and insurance, nothing to do with off-highway
driver's licenses.
MS. WILBER answered in the affirmative.
1:41:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD referred to the fiscal note and
said it appears there is an "anticipated increase in costs to
process -- anticipation of increase off-road vehicle
recipients," and the fiscal note requests a Customer Service
Representative 1 and asked whether the DMV could absorb the
costs as opposed to adding staff.
MS. WILBER advised that Representative Sullivan-Leonard was
reviewing an "old fiscal note" and that the DMV had now zeroed
out the note.
1:42:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD referred to the letters of
support for HB 82, and asked whether anyone was against the
legislation, and if so, who and why.
MS. WILBER responded that no one had come out against this bill,
and they have worked closely with the DMV, the Department of
Public Safety (DPS), and the DOTPF to make sure the language fit
their requirements and make this program functional in a
meaningful and realistic manner.
1:43:37 PM
CO-CHAIR WOOL opened public testimony on HB 82.
1:43:47 PM
GEORGINA DAVIS-GASTELUM said she was speaking in support of HB
82, and on her own behalf. The residents of the rural
communities that are not considered off-highway have many
obstacles to overcome in order to obtain a driver's license, and
because there is not a DMV office in Kake they must travel to
Juneau, Sitka, Wrangell, or Petersburg to take the written and
road tests. She pointed out that the Sitka DMV only administers
road tests on Tuesdays, and if the ferry schedule coincided with
that schedule, the people would pay at least $100 one way, plus
hotel, plus food, but if it did not coincide, flying in a small
airplane would cost at least $300 roundtrip, plus hotels and
food, and if the person was storm bound, add $150 per day for
expenses plus time away from work. Moreover, in order to take
the road test, drivers must borrow a car, rent a car, or take
their own vehicle on the ferry at a cost of $240 one-way. Add
to those issues, if young children are in the family, child care
was also involved and finding a babysitter for several days.
MS. GASTELUM advised that the DMV website lists third-party
testers, independent businesses that administer road tests,
except Kake, Angoon, and Hoonah are not included, only Juneau.
She related that some rural drivers only wish to drive in the
village, herself included. She reminded the committee that
Kake's unemployment rates at times have exceeded 80 percent, and
it would be less of a financial burden if the written test was
solely required rather than paying the $700 expense, plus the
expense of taking the road test. She urged the committee to
consider HB 82, and to once again include Kake, Angoon, and
Hoonah as locations authorized for off-highway driver's
licenses.
1:46:22 PM
PAUL D. KENDALL Anchorage, Alaska, said he is not a public
employee or a retired public employee, is a member of a union,
and represents no conflict of interest. He offered concern that
people do not understand there is "nowhere to run, you cannot
run anywhere, they will come up river, they will look for you,
there are laws that apply." He said that "we are now" seeing
signs that say, "It's your responsibility to know the rules" and
there is an unbelievable assault on "us little people." This
legislation appeared to be another means of revenue generation
which doubly concerned him because there are the clashes between
cultures and society.
CO-CHAIR WOOL advised that this is a bill about off-highway
driver's licenses.
MR. KENDALL said he was aware, but the bill appeared to be
another means of revenue streaming which disconnects the body
where "we're trying to make it work out here and you folks --
you public servants seem to be -- seem to be a different type of
class and some type of a confrontation or something ...
CO-CHAIR WOOL explained that this bill is not a revenue
generator and it will not charge anyone any money for anything,
and that Mr. Kendall appeared to be off topic about the actual
bill regarding off-highway driver's licenses.
MR. KENDALL said that the folks in Anchorage are watching the
legislature and complaining about the length of the session,
[difficult to decipher] and offered concern about people in the
village having to buy a ticket for a license and fining them.
1:50:06 PM
CO-CHAIR WOOL closed public testimony on HB 82.
1:50:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked Marla Thompson, Division of Motor
Vehicles, how this bill would apply to the Bristol Bay community
of King Salmon and Naknek and the 15-mile Alaska Peninsula
Highway connecting the two communities. This bill deletes the
499-traffic count threshold, he related, and that community is
not connected to the state highway system other than it has a
state highway by itself with a total population of approximately
1,500 during the winter, and over 25,000 during the summer, with
a traffic count probably in excess of 10,000 per day from June 1
to July 31. He said there are significant safety situations
going on in those two months and asked how this bill would
affect that community.
1:51:34 PM
MARLA THOMPSON, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department
of Administration, answered that the DMV's goal is to make it
simple for folks and the DMV to implement this process. The
goal is to also have many business partners, and commission
agents such as city offices and such, that provide DMV services.
Currently, she said that DMV services are available at King
Salmon through a contract agent operated by the Bristol Bay
Borough. In the event the Bristol Bay Borough decided not to
provide those services any longer, the DMV would go out and find
another entity to help out and offer those services. This bill
makes clear there is an option for Alaskans to obtain a driver's
license, which is more of a permit if you drive within a non-
off-highway area, but there are only 1,800 licenses currently,
which is less than .3 percent of drivers. She related that the
DMV wants to make it simple for people and make it a simple
process for the DMV and not waste a lot of tax payer dollars
creating processes.
1:53:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that it is good for the committee
to consider that not all rural communities are similar, and some
have traffic volumes and counts that would approach decent sized
towns seasonally, which is a policy call in those environments.
He described the spirit and intent of the bill as being "right
on," and that he was trying to think of examples where the
committee could craft better legislation.
1:54:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, in response to Co-Chair Wool, advised that
he is from Bristol Bay.
CO-CHAIR WOOL surmised that Representative Kopp was saying that
the community was rural with not much traffic except during the
summer when thousands of cars show up on the ferry.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said to include fishermen and cannery
workers, but those cars are actually there year-round and are
activated for those few months.
CO-CHAIR WOOL surmised that the traffic counts goes well up, and
they are not incoming cars that would be driven by licensed
registered insured drivers but are dormant cars until the summer
busy season. He further surmised that Representative Kopp's
question, in general, was that if all of these cars were
activated in the summer, the traffic count would be fairly high
in a fairly large community. Except, he said, the committee was
told that the community did have a DMV office, so it would not
be exempt and was required to have licenses.
1:55:07 PM
CO-CHAIR WOOL asked Ms. Thompson whether Bristol Bay, with a DMV
office, would be non-exempt and the residents would be required
to obtain a regular driver's license.
MS. THOMPSON responded yes, she said the residents would have to
obtain a regular driver's license because any area with DMV
services would not be eligible for off-highway driver's license.
CO-CHAIR WOOL asked whether when Ms. Thompson said "DMV
services" she was also including the road test which is cost
prohibitive for some of the people in rural communities.
MS. THOMPSON agreed, and she said in some of these communities
that road tests would be difficult to perform anyway.
1:56:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered a scenario in off-highway
communities where someone was prone to getting into accidents
and damaging property, yet they were not required to carry
insurance. He asked the consequences for that person.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS advised he would speak briefly to
the previous committee discussion and said that Representative
Kopp brought into focus an important awareness issue, for
example, similar to King Salmon, Metlakatla is currently an off-
highway eligible community. Each year, during the first week of
August, its Founders Day, the population probably triples or
quadruples with many cars arriving on the ferry that becomes a
"hopping little place," and a traffic strip count would be off
the charts.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS related that there are definitely
fluxuating levels of traffic in different communities. In
speaking to the broader policy consideration, he said, the old
regulatory criteria are the same criteria this bill seeks to
restore. He described that at the time a community is large
enough to be kicked off the off-highway eligible list is
basically the time the DMV decides the community is big enough
to either establish an office in that community or offer road
tests on a regular basis.
1:58:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, in response to Representative
Neuman's question as to the consequences for the person prone to
accidents and damaging property without the requirement of
insurance, said that he has spent a lot of time in Angoon, Kake,
and Hoonah, "bouncing around town" and he could not think of a
similar instance identified in the question, although he could
picture that person in his mind. This may be a good question
for the Department of Public Safety (DPS) in its Village Public
Safety Officer (VPSO) program, he suggested, and assumed the
off-highway driver's license could be revoked, and if the person
continued to drive without a license, they would be subject to
the same sanctions as anyone driving without a driver's license.
1:59:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered concern as to whether there should
be an allowance for local VPSOs to have the authority to remove
these types of licenses for a person prone to accidents and just
does not care. He said that these people could be using alcohol
and/or drugs and getting into accident and there was no language
in the bill allowing a local community to have any say in
whether "they want to do this," or how to deal with that type of
situation.
CO-CHAIR WOOL commented that Representative Neuman was touching
on basic law enforcement and the issue was not only whether the
person was getting into accidents, but what if the person was
driving drunk in a small community without a trooper in a car.
2:01:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP advised there is a sanctionable offense
provision addressing a person having any moving violation or a
history of bad behavior within five years, wherein they will
either forfeit the license or they are not eligible in the first
place for an off-highway driver's license.
CO-CHAIR WOOL asked who would assign the moving violation in a
community without a police presence.
2:02:21 PM
MS. THOMPSON responded that she will perform research, but a
person can receive a ticket driving in a non-off-highway
community when not driving with an over 21-year-old licensed
driver. Her office will get back to the committee, she said.
CO-CHAIR WOOL quiered as to whether the off-highway driver's
license is essentially a learner's permit wherein the person in
a licensed community must drive with a driver over 21 years, but
if in an off-highway community the person can drive
unaccompanied.
MS. THOMPSON answered that an off-highway driver's license is
definitely a learner's permit. She offered the scenario of
someone going from Metlakatla to Juneau and renting a car, the
person would be required to have a regular driver's license to
rent that car.
CO-CHAIR WOOL pointed out that the language does not read
learner's permit and asked whether a learner's permit has a
shorter shelf life.
MS. THOMPSON agreed, and she said they have actually looked at
the design to make certain it says something similar to "for
off-highway use only."
2:04:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN related that he believes in local controls
and asked whether the local council could have some authority.
Previously, he said, he represented a community wherein if the
community did not have a law enforcement agency, a local
official could stand in that position. He commented that he was
unsure whether that was something Representative Kreiss-Tomkins
would want to pursue, but this aspect should be addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that in concept he agrees
with Representative Neuman, although local control has many
different sides, but in this particular instance it does make
sense that it becomes a community-by-community decision. He
said he pauses because the off-highway driver's license has been
around for a couple of decades and he said, "between the two of
us, we probably know about as much of OHDL policy and regulation
as maybe anyone with a pulse." To his knowledge, he said, they
have not come across any community that has had a problem with
the program or advised it wants the option to keep OHDLs out of
their community. Theoretically, he commented, it makes sense,
but his initial reaction is that he hasn't seen it in reality.
2:05:52 PM
MS. WILBER related that she specifically asked the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) if it had received complaints or concerns
from off-highway communities about the use of off-highway
driver's licenses, and its response was that it had not received
safety concerns. Although, people may contact DPS and expressed
their concerns as to why they were not eligible for the program,
she said.
CO-CHAIR WOOL referred to another concept described by Ms.
Thompson that was the sort of itinerant DMV person that shows up
in a community once or twice a year to perform testing and then
leaves town. He asked whether that would make the town or
village ineligible for the off-highway driver's license program.
MS. THOMPSON replied that there had been a discussion, which may
be included in the committee substitute, whether the DMV was
going to provide driver's services, meaning road tests, once a
year which would help in areas where it was difficult finding an
employee. The intent is to "get out there as fast as we can,"
but it would allow the DMV to come in and offer a road test.
Except, she reiterated, some communities are so small they are
not even road test qualified because there is not enough road or
curve or whatever might be necessary.
2:08:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD noted that it is important to
hear from local communities and asked whether the sponsor would
consider tapping into the Alaska Municipal League with Kathy
Wasserman and asking her to "send an e-blast out" to determine
whether there were concerns.
2:09:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that her suggestion
sounded like reasonable due diligence and he would be happy to
reach out to Ms. Wasserman.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP underscored a comment by Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins and said that the current law allowing rural
communities to have unregistered and uninsured vehicles on the
highway has been in place for many decades. He clarified that
it has always been a balance of risk versus liberty in allowing
people to drive and that there is a risk in any freedom, but it
has been on the books for a number of years and this bill
narrowly expands eligible communities by removing the minimum
daily traffic count.
[HB 82 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB82 Supporting Document-Letters 3.21.2017.pdf |
HTRA 3/28/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Supporting Documents - Power Point Overview 3.21.2017.pdf |
HTRA 3/28/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Supporting Document-Testimonials 3.21.2017.pdf |
HTRA 3/28/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 ver A 1.25.17.PDF |
HTRA 3/28/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 ver D 2.27.17.pdf |
HTRA 3/28/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Fiscal Note DOA-DMV 3.21.2017.pdf |
HTRA 3/28/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Sectional Analysis 3.21.2017.pdf |
HTRA 3/28/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Sponsor Statement 3.21.2017.pdf |
HTRA 3/28/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Additional Documents-Legal Memo 3.21.2017.pdf |
HTRA 3/28/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Summary of Changes ver A to ver J 3.21.2017.pdf |
HTRA 3/28/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 82 |
| CSHB82 ver J (STA) 3.21.17.PDF |
HTRA 3/28/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Supporting Document - Article KBBI 3.28.2017.pdf |
HTRA 3/28/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Fiscal Note DOA-DMV 3.28.2017.pdf |
HTRA 3/28/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 82 |