Legislature(1995 - 1996)

04/21/1995 01:15 PM TRA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
 HB 210 - PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSING/TESTING                             
 Number 645                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS announced the next item on the agenda was HB 210.              
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked for a motion to adopt the CS for HB 210                  
 Version R, as the working document.                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS made a motion to adopt the CS for HB 210,              
 Version R, as the working document.                                           
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was objection.  Hearing none, the CS            
 Version R, was adopted as the working document.                               
 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY noted there has been previous discussion              
 and a small subcommittee working with the Division of Motor                   
 Vehicles (DMV) on HB 210.   He said a number of changes were made             
 which were reflected in the committee substitute before the                   
 committee members.  He asked if there were any questions.  He then            
 indicated there were proposed amendments before the committee.                
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS said he, too, discussed the amendments with the DMV.           
 He indicated that with the consent of the prime sponsor, the                  
 Administration and the committee, he would like to discuss and vote           
 on each amendment individually.  He suggested that Ms. Juanita                
 Hensley with the Department of Public Safety could present details            
 of previous meetings that she and the prime sponsor had regarding             
 this issue.                                                                   
 TAPE 95-16, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief of Driver Services, Division of Motor                  
 Vehicles, Department of Public Safety, asked if Chairman Davis                
 wanted her to speak directly to the amendments.  She stated she               
 worked directly with the sponsor of this bill to come up with the             
 draft that was before the committee.  She indicated that she had              
 reviewed the draft and coordinated information with the Department            
 of Law.  The amendments presented were the concerns that they have.           
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS suggested they make a motion for each particular               
 amendment and have discussion and debate as each amendment was                
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move Amendment 1.                       
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was objection.                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected to Amendment 1.                                 
 MS. HENSLEY explained Amendment 1 on page 4, lines 24-25, Section             
 (F) states "felonious attempt to commit an offense..."  She said it           
 had been the advice of the Department of Law that a felonious                 
 attempt is a felony.  Section (F) would not be needed because                 
 "felony" is already covered in Section (E).                                   
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked Representative Vezey if he would care to                 
 comment on this.                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he did not have any strong feelings on              
 this particular amendment.  He stated the intent was to try and               
 create a contract relationship between an entity of the state and             
 the private sector.  He indicated a person does not have to break             
 the law to have grounds under normal commercial law to terminate a            
 contract.  Crimes of moral turpitude are usually considered                   
 sufficient reasons to dissolve a contract.  He explained this is              
 what he was attempting to do here.  He said they were trying to               
 give the state more reasons for terminating a contract, but the               
 state is indicating that they do not want more reasons.                       
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS indicated he communicated with the Department of Law           
 in a meeting and said it's true that Section (E) is covered by                
 Section (F).  He then asked if the objection was still maintained             
 on Amendment 1.                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE withdrew his objection.                                  
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was any other objection to Amendment            
 1.  Hearing none,  Amendment 1 passed.                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES motioned to move Amendment 2.                            
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was objection on Amendment 2.                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected to Amendment 2, for the purpose of              
 Number 095                                                                    
 MS. HENSLEY explained the department feels that to take a person to           
 arbitration, the due process must still be carried out.  This would           
 not allow for full due process with superior court oversight as to            
 a decision being made.  Ms. Hensley said the department would                 
 propose changes on lines 18-21, deleting the language "shall submit           
 the issue to arbitration as provided under AS 09.43; the department           
 may not cancel or suspend a certificate or card under this                    
 paragraph unless the cancellation or suspension is supported by the           
 decision of the arbitrator."  Ms. Hensley suggested that language             
 be deleted and insert after examiner, "notice and hearing as                  
 provided under AS 28.05.141."                                                 
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked for confirmation that this was the                       
 department's current administrative hearing procedures.                       
 MS. HENSLEY said yes, the administrative procedures that are not              
 covered under the Administrator Procedures Act.  However, the                 
 person still may, if they feel they are aggrieved after the                   
 administrative hearing, file an appeal in superior court based on             
 the record itself and not on (indisc.) hearing.                               
 Number 120                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated the basic difference with this issue is           
 the state is accustomed to operating under a certain set of                   
 statutes and procedures for adjudicating complaints or differences.           
 What we are trying to establish is a contract.  The standard in the           
 state of Alaska and across the country for contract -- commercial             
 law -- is that contract disputes are arbitrated.  People are                  
 voluntarily entering into contracts that stipulate that any dispute           
 on that contract will be solved by arbitration.  Representative               
 Vezey felt there were advantages to the state.  Some of those                 
 advantages are:  Under a contract relationship, any methods of                
 dispute resolution can be used, providing both parties of the                 
 contract agree to it.  It is when an agreement cannot be reached              
 that they have to go to mandatory procedures, such as an                      
 administrative hearing procedure that the state and the DMV is                
 accustomed to using.  However, this is subject to appeal in the               
 trial courts.  He explained the advantage of arbitration is it does           
 not cost the state anything.  Both parties are required to pay for            
 the cost of the arbitration.  They are not using the court system,            
 rather they are using an arbitration system.  The courts have                 
 traditionally refused to review or overturn the findings of an                
 arbitrator, because they respect the arbitration process and the              
 right of parties to agree to arbitration.  In commercial law, it is           
 unusual for a court to take up a case that has been decided by an             
 arbitration tribunal, unless there is some sign of clear abuse.               
 Representative Vezey proposed arbitration will give the state                 
 greater flexibility than what they are currently bound to.  He                
 indicated it was a judgment value and either system achieves                  
 justice.  It is a question of how are we willing to look at going             
 to a new system.                                                              
 Number 174                                                                    
 MS. HENSLEY asked to address Representative Vezey's comments and              
 stated if we had to go through the provision of setting up an                 
 arbitration section or to deal with arbitrators, it would cost the            
 department to contract with an arbitrator and pay the cost of hotel           
 accommodations for that individual, if they had to come in from out           
 of town.  Presently, the department already has administrative                
 hearing officers on staff and the Department of Law already handles           
 their appeals through the superior court.  The mechanism is already           
 set up.  With the arbitrations area, they would have to set up a              
 separate procedure for that, which would be costly to the                     
 department.  Ms. Hensley did not feel the department would be able            
 to absorb the cost, because the DMV does not have the budget in               
 order to establish a program without receiving that cost of that              
 Number 189                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if the arbitration was to continue as is,                
 would the department establish a fiscal note for this bill?                   
 MS. HENSLEY said they would have to indicate what the cost of the             
 arbitration would be, because they do not have the necessary                  
 process set up in their department at this time.  In order to do              
 that, they would have to develop whatever costs would be associated           
 with that contract or the arbitrator.  In most cases, when using              
 arbitrators you do pay for all their expenses.  Whereas, currently            
 the department has hearing officers on staff.                                 
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS stated the arbitration language is in statute so               
 there would be no need for the regulations.                                   
 MS. HENSLEY stated there would be no regulations.                             
 Number 196                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she visualized an arbitrator to be more             
 neutral and fair than someone who is on staff with the department.            
 She presented an example of arbitrators having to come to Juneau if           
 that is where they had to work out of, or, if there was a                     
 contractor in Fairbanks, they would deal with an arbitrator from              
 Fairbanks.  To attach a fiscal note would be to presume that there            
 are going to be disputes.  She stated if there was any value to               
 this legislation, it should be placed that this would be an                   
 infrequent occurrence where there would be arbitration issues such            
 as this.  Based on that position, she supported the idea of an                
 arbitrator because of the fairness issue of not having someone                
 within the staff of the Department of Public Safety.                          
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked Ms. Hensley if snow machines and all             
 terrain vehicles (ATV) were included under the category of motor              
 MS. HENSLEY explained it is a requirement with the DMV that snow              
 machines be registered through Title 5.  This is not the case with            
 ATVs.  The federal government determined years ago that ATVs were             
 unsafe vehicles.                                                              
 Number 238                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he appreciated the department's                   
 position.  Unless he was mistaken about the Alaskan Uniform                   
 Arbitration law, he thought that both parties have to pay, up-                
 front, the anticipated costs of an arbitration proceeding.                    
 Typically, arbitration panels are not bound by Rule 82 that the               
 court proceedings are.  The prevailing party would be awarded full            
 costs and fees.  He indicated arbitration encourages mediation,               
 where both parties agree to pay the costs of mediation.  There are            
 very few limits placed on how an arbitrator is selected.  There is            
 a proposed panel that is organized and people are given the chance            
 to veto, or agree on an arbitrator or a mediator.  He added that              
 there were other means to settling disputes, but they are trying to           
 create the atmosphere of a commercial relationship between the                
 state and a contractor.                                                       
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was still objection to Amendment 2?             
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated he objected to the amendment.                     
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked for a role call vote.  Representatives Davis,            
 Brice, Williams and James opposed the Amendment.  Representative              
 MacLean voted in favor of Amendment 2.  Chairman Davis indicated              
 Amendment 2 failed to pass the committee.  He then announced                  
 Amendment 3.                                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN made a motion to move Amendment 3.                     
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was objection.                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she objected to Amendment 3.                      
 Number 292                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked Ms. Hensley to address Amendment 3.                      
 MS. HENSLEY explained that the DMV and the Department of Revenue              
 reviewed this amendment and both departments expressed concern for            
 Amendment 3.  She explained in order to have some type of an audit            
 trail on the contractors, the department would propose changes to             
 page 7, lines 8-13, by deleting the existing language and inserting           
 on line 8 after department, "as determined by contract."  She                 
 explained if they have a business which only processes 20                     
 transactions per month, then they might want the option to say, on            
 a monthly basis they can make the deposits.  She added it would               
 give the department more control of a business and the ability to             
 monitor that particular area more closely.  She commented this is             
 a good piece of legislation, but the department is just trying to             
 obtain the maximum out of it.  They are currently developing                  
 private indices; it's like a contract with government, privatizing            
 out.  They are trying to privatize areas such as the IM                       
 (inspection/maintenance) stations in Anchorage which are processing           
 approximately 100 registrations per day.  She noted there are                 
 currently 13 commission agents they are working with.  She said               
 this amendment just gives the department and the Department of                
 Revenue more control over the amount of money being collected and             
 when it is to be deposited, as well as the interest the state                 
 collects off that money.                                                      
 Number 303                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he did not have strong opposition to                
 Amendment 3.  His intent was to provide for a reasonable commercial           
 relationship between an agent and a proprietor (indisc).  He said             
 they modeled this after the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and                
 their manner of collecting payroll taxes.  Whenever an agent                  
 collects a sum of money that exceeds $5,000, it is due that week,             
 just as the payroll taxes are with the IRS.  If $5,000 is not                 
 collected during the course of the quarter, then they still have to           
 submit quarterly.  He felt it was a reasonable standard.                      
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS supported the amendment.  He stated it was hard to             
 imagine what the outcome of this might be.  He referred to the 13             
 contract agents and stated there are communities where there may be           
 five transactions per day, yet another contractor could do much               
 more, so different contracts are going to have different needs.  If           
 there is the flexibility such as what the department is requesting            
 in the amendment, it would be beneficial because no one method is             
 going to fit each contract.  He asked if there were further                   
 discussions on Amendment 3, and was the objection still maintained?           
 Hearing none, Amendment 3 passed.  He then offered Amendment 4.               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move Amendment 4.                       
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was any objection.                              
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN objected for purposes of discussion.  She              
 expressed concern for the section on the commercial drivers                   
 licenses CDL) program.                                                        
 MS. HENSLEY explained that 49 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) of            
 the Commercial Driver License Act allowed an individual to be                 
 grandfathered in until April 1, 1992.  She explained that this                
 stated if an employer certified that the person met the                       
 qualifications up until April 1, 1992, then the employer could                
 certify that individual had met those requirements and they had               
 been employed, and the individual would not be required to take a             
 skills test - a driving test.  After April 1, 1992, federal law               
 requires a skills test to be administered to an individual applying           
 for a commercial drivers license.  This section would place the DMV           
 out of compliance with the Commercial Driver License Safety Act of            
 1986, and it is subject to a 10 percent loss of federal highway               
 funds, if they are found in noncompliance of that program.  She               
 mentioned that a couple of years ago, 10 percent of the federal               
 highway fund equalled approximately $25 million.                              
 Number 359                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referenced the loss of funding and asked if              
 the funds are diverted, or does the state not get it.                         
 MS. HENSLEY explained it was part of the Intermodal System                    
 Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) funds and would not be                  
 diverted, as the "helmet money" was diverted; it would be totally             
 sanctioned against the state.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY disagreed with the DMV on this particular                
 issue because the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provide for               
 that particular type of certification through private channels.               
 The intent here was to allow for the program to be up by the state.           
 He noted they were not mentioning anything regarding grandfathering           
 people in after April 1, 1992, but they were only saying that a               
 program will be set up.  He mentioned that currently, there is a              
 program in Alaska that is providing professional driver training              
 which has received a number of accolades.  However, they do not               
 have the authority at this time to issue driver licenses.                     
 Representative Vezey indicated it would not take a great deal to              
 bring them into compliance.  He stated he disagreed with the                  
 characterization that this would put the state out of compliance              
 with the federal regulations.                                                 
 Number 375                                                                    
 MS. HENSLEY explained that under this bill, the DMV would have the            
 authority to contract or conduct third party testing, if the                  
 individual met all the requirements.  The third party testing would           
 be comprised of a commercial company, if the DMV chose to do a                
 third party testing.  The federal government requires extensive               
 monitoring of those third party testers, of which the DMV has never           
 had the budget to monitor, so they have never allowed a third party           
 tester to do commercial driver licensing.  However, the safety                
 regulations dealing with the employer responsibility with the                 
 single license requirement, implies that within this requirement it           
 states, "effective April 1, 1992, no person shall operate a                   
 commercial vehicle unless such person has taken and passed written            
 and driving tests which meet the federal standards contained in               
 subparts (f), (g) and (h) of this part, for commercial vehicles               
 that a person operates."  The department feels the remainder of the           
 bill would provide the department with the opportunity, if they               
 chose, to initiate a third party contract.  She stated currently,             
 they have the opportunity to do this, they've never been able to do           
 the monitoring that the federal government requires of third party            
 testers.  She said they were interested in the fact an employer can           
 say that an individual does meet the required standards without the           
 required skills testing which may be completed and maintained by              
 the employer, certifying that the person has passed all the skills            
 Number 440                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY withdrew his objection to Amendment 4.  He               
 stated it was not his intent to be in conflict with the federal               
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS stated if Amendment 4 had not passed, his intent was           
 to request that a note follow the bill to ensure the legality of it           
 was carried out.  He asked for objection on Amendment 4.  Hearing             
 none, Amendment 4 was passed.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS made a motion to move Amendment 5.                    
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was any objection.                              
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK objected to Amendment 5.                                 
 MS. HENSLEY acknowledged that Amendment 5 may be somewhat                     
 controversial.  Amendment 5 was drafted by the Department of Law,             
 proposing to delete on page 19, lines 18 and 19 in their entirety.            
 She referred to the DMV regulations and stated that they preferred            
 having as much as possible put into statute.  She added she has to            
 write the regulations and does not enjoy doing this, so if it can             
 be placed in statute and have everything spelled out as to the                
 desires of the department, then the department would like to not              
 have to have regulations.  However, the DMV and the Department of             
 Law feels there possibly could be some requirements that they would           
 have to have, particularly when dealing with some of the contract             
 issues, instead of having to come back to the legislature every               
 year and with those contracts in statute.  If the Occupational                
 Safety Hazard Administration (OSHA) requirement change or if the              
 insurance requirements change, then they would have to return every           
 year to the legislature and have all the statutes changed annually.           
 The DMV feels this was an area they wanted to leave open so they              
 would have the leeway.  She said the DMV has always had legislative           
 input on all of their regulations.                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained the purpose of that particular                 
 section was twofold.  First, they wanted to construct a bill that             
 was thorough and understandable.  The goal of privatization of a              
 service currently provided by the government, is something that has           
 not been met with much success in the state of Alaska.  He has                
 observed numerous attempts over the years, and they have all                  
 failed.  He explained they started out with the goal that the                 
 entire program would have to be placed in statute, so they would              
 know exactly what they were getting into and how it would work.               
 For that reason, he started off with the premise that there would             
 not be any regulations; the statutes would have to be complete and            
 functional.  The other aspect of this section is the realization              
 that this particular program may not work.  It is somewhat of an              
 experiment.  He explained other states are trying it, most notably            
 California.  He felt it was important that the legislature does               
 come back after a year or two of experience with this.  He did not            
 feel that the adoption of Amendment 5 would cause this program not            
 to work, but he did feel it would cause the legislature to take a             
 somewhat laissez faire attitude towards the statute.  He stated it            
 seems there is the tendency to say "well, we will let them work               
 that problem out in regulation, and let it go."  He remarked that             
 it forces us to take what is in the amendment very seriously.                 
 Number 450                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated with all due respect to his good                  
 colleague from district 32 and his abilities, he felt it would be             
 impossible to be so thorough to plan every contingency for the                
 possible success of a piece of legislation.  He indicated because             
 of that, by not adopting Amendment 5, we are tying hands on                   
 possibly even insignificant issues that cause such projects to                
 fail.  He added these were his concerns, when that type of language           
 is inserted.                                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES disagreed with Representative Brice and stated           
 she supported the idea of coming back and making a legislative                
 decision on anything that does not work.  She inquired as to the              
 three levels of decisions that affect the way state business is               
 run.  There is a statute, which is the underlining law, then there            
 are regulations which also are law, and policies as well.  If any             
 of those things that you mentioned would arise, that you would be             
 able to have a policy until there could be a legislative change.              
 She said she was uncomfortable with writing a statute, within the             
 length of time that we write statutes, that would encompass                   
 absolutely everything.  She stated she had mixed feelings about               
 this issue because the regulation process we have currently does              
 not seem to be working.  She noted she was not directing that                 
 comment specifically to the Department of Public Safety, but in               
 general.  She stated in her evaluation, writing regulations are               
 what the Administration does.  This is where most of the time and             
 energy is spent.  She added this is also where most of the laws are           
 being made.                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS noted he had been watching legislation go             
 through the process, which is a very timely process, where a lot of           
 egos get in the way and games are played.  He expressed concern               
 that the public will hurt, if we have to wait a legislative session           
 to get this changed to where it will work, rather than have to call           
 in experts.  He stated he was not always in agreement with the                
 regulations, but will work with them.  He said he would like to see           
 the bill go and have it worked on.  He suggested that the                     
 Administration should construct the regulations.                              
 MS. HENSLEY stated it has always been the department's intent, as             
 well as the DMV's intent, to work with the legislators on                     
 regulations.  The DMV would include legislative input on any                  
 regulations that would be adopted as a result of this legislation             
 Number 529                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS indicated his support for the inclusion of Amendment           
 5.  He stated he was is support of eliminating regulations and                
 incorporating things into statute.  He asked Ms. Hensley, "on a               
 scale from 1 to 10, how inclusive is this piece of legislation as             
 far as not needing regulations."                                              
 MS. HENSLEY stated it is just about where we (indisc.) she was not            
 sure if the DMV would even have to adopt a regulation.  Policies              
 may then have to become a regulation, if the department can't get             
 statute change.  If they came back for a statute change to                    
 implement that, then the regulation is a moot point.  However,                
 unless they do that, there may be some problems.  Based on                    
 everything the department has looked at, this piece of legislation            
 is quite intensive, as well as extensive.  From her viewpoint, the            
 department would not have to adopt many, if any, regulations to               
 implement this program.                                                       
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS referred to the contract formats in the bill, and              
 asked if there is any availability in the contract formats to make            
 changes, should the federal government pass down some mandates                
 relating to this.  He questioned whether or not it is within the              
 contract to make changes.                                                     
 MS. HENSLEY said no, there is not.  The contracts are set in                  
 statute and law.  These will be the contracts that they have to               
 abide by.  Any changes that are requested, would require the DMV to           
 return to the legislature and request a change, unless a regulation           
 could be adopted to include that into the contract.                           
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS said, "that would be my major concern, because this            
 division...the business being taken care of in this legislation...            
 has the federal government dealing with it to a certain degree also           
 and we can't control the changes that they make that may require              
 changes on our part."                                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she did not think if we have those                
 contracts in statute, that they can be changed by regulation.  By             
 deleting this section we have not said that regulations can change            
 the contracts.  She felt the statute will dictate.                            
 MS. HENSLEY stated Representative James was correct.  She commented           
 that the DMV has decided that they would not work on it with this             
 committee, but would take it up in the House State Affairs                    
 Committee, regarding the contracts.  The Department of Law has some           
 problems with the contracts being in statute, due to the changes              
 that are always being made, especially with the DMV and the federal           
 hand that they have over them.  She suggested putting in statute              
 what the legislature would like for the DMV to have in a contract,            
 but the contract, itself, not be in the statute, because of all the           
 changes being made.                                                           
 Number 546                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referenced the various sections throughout the           
 bill that reflect back to statements such as "as required by the              
 department," "provided for by the department", etc.  He indicated             
 the department has to have the ability to form the more intricate             
 statements.  He suggested this is what happens in regulations.  He            
 felt that type of language might cause the department some                    
 inability to work the various mandates of the bill.                           
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS commented that was a good point.  He asked if there            
 was further debate on Amendment 5.                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she still objected.                               
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked for a roll call vote on Amendment 5.                     
 Representatives MacLean, Williams and Brice were in support.                  
 Representative James and Davis were opposed to Amendment 5.                   
 He announced Amendment 5 passed.  He asked Ms. Hensley to address             
 the issue of why there was no fiscal note with the bill.                      
 Number 595                                                                    
 MS. HENSLEY explained when the DMV first reviewed this bill, it was           
 their understanding they would have a mandate where they would have           
 no option as to whether they could look at an area and determine              
 whether or not it would be cost effective for them to contract with           
 an agent, or whether it would be cost effective for the state to              
 continue with the DMV services that are provided.  She indicated in           
 some areas there may be both.  The first initial fiscal note they             
 prepared was "unbelievable" because of the oversight they would be            
 required to have.  It was not going to be a cost savings to the               
 state to contract with individuals.  She said that is why we have             
 worked with the sponsor in deleting the word "shall" and inserting            
 the word "may" so they would have some leeway and would not be a              
 mandate that this will be done.                                               
 MS. HENSLEY added with this particular draft that was before the              
 committee, the fiscal note would be zero.  However, Ms. Hensley               
 said she did want to go on record and say "that as we develop these           
 contracts with the various agents, and if we see that it is costing           
 for us to have the oversight and have the audit trails that we must           
 have, especially when you're looking at the division bringing in              
 $34 million or $36 million a year, those audit trails and that                
 accounting needs to be there.  There needs to be some training                
 done.  So, if we see and as those contracts increase, and we cannot           
 absorb it within the existing staff that we have, we would like to            
 go on record and say we will be coming back for an increment in the           
 budget to address those issues, but right now the fiscal note would           
 be zero."  She indicated she would provide a fiscal note to the               
 committee the following day.                                                  
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS stated the fiscal note will be accepted as a verbal            
 statement that it would be a zero fiscal note and will look for a             
 written statement in the near future.                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY referenced Version R of the bill, which                  
 contains the word "shall."  He thought there was another version              
 that read "may."                                                              
 MS. HENSLEY explained that was one of the recommendations the DMV             
 had made.  She thought it was an oversight when this went to the              
 drafter after their conversation.  She recommended that on page 1,            
 line 7, the word "shall" be deleted and insert the word "may."                
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move Amendment 6.                       
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was objection.  Hearing none,                   
 Amendment 6 passed.  He said he would entertain a motion to move              
 CSHB 210(TRA) as amended out of the House Transportation Committee.           
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move CSHB 210(TRA), Version             
 R, as amended out of the House Transportation Committee with                  
 individual recommendations and zero fiscal note.                              
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was objection.  Hearing none, CSHB
 210 (TRA) as amended was passed out of the House Transportation               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects