Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/22/2003 03:49 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 22, 2003
3:49 P.M.
TAPE HFC 03 - 60, Side A
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Williams called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 3:49 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Vice-Chair
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Bill Stoltze
Representative Jim Whitaker
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Harris, Co-Chair
Representative Carl Moses
ALSO PRESENT
Kevin Jardell, Assistant Commissioner, Department of
Administration; Joanne Gibbens, Program Administrator,
Division of Family and Youth Services, Department of Health
and Social Services; Jack Shay, Former Mayor, Ketchikan
Assembly, Borough of Ketchikan
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Duane Bannock, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration; Chuck Hosack, Division of
Motor Vehicles, Anchorage
SUMMARY
HB 170 An Act increasing certain motor vehicle
registration fees; and providing for an effective
date.
HB 170 was reported out of Committee with
"individual recommendations" and with fiscal note
#1 by the Department of Administration.
SB 123am An Act relating to adoptions and guardianships
that include a subsidy payment by the state;
eliminating annual review of the subsidy paid by
the state after adoption of a hard-to-place child
has occurred or a court has appointed a legal
guardian for a hard- to-place child; and providing
for an effective date.
SB 123am was reported out of Committee with
"individual recommendations" and with fiscal note
#1 by the Department of Health & Social Services.
HOUSE BILL NO. 170
An Act increasing certain motor vehicle registration
fees; and providing for an effective date.
DUANE BANNOCK, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION,
ANCHORAGE, explained that the bill would adjust and increase
most of the fees associated with motor vehicle registration.
Mr. Bannock offered to answer questions from the Committee.
Representative Stoltze asked if a leased vehicle would be
considered a commercial vehicle for purposes of licensing.
Mr. Bannock replied that they would be considered for rate
and fee schedule purposes a commercial vehicle.
Representative Stoltze pointed out that a person who leases
a vehicle would pay a substantially higher fee than a person
buying the same vehicle. Mr. Bannock indicated that was
accurate.
Representative Croft inquired the amount of profit currently
generated by the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Mr.
Bannock replied, last year, current revenues totaled $46
million dollars against a $10 million dollar budget. The
2004 projections are expenditures of approximately $9.5
million dollars and if HB 170 passes, revenues received will
total nearly $59 million dollars.
Representative Hawker asked the last date that a revision
had been made to the fee schedule. Mr. Bannock advised that
the lien and title fee have never been increased. The
commercial fees were adjusted slightly in 1997; prior to
that, two changes were made in non-commercial fees dating
back to the '70's and middle '80's.
Representative Stoltze remembered that there had been a
revision made in 2000. Mr. Bannock acknowledged that 2000
had been "a little before his time", however, he did not
know of any changes made then and that the last major change
was made in 1997.
Representative Stoltze discussed the bill on the trucking
industry, which had lowered fees on trailers to a set fee of
$10 dollars and had a corresponding change to cover
commercial tractors and trucks. Mr. Bannock interjected
that structure was changed in 1997 and then had been a
decrease in commercial trailer costs from a biannual
registration to a one-time permanent registration charge.
Representative Croft asked if there was anything in HB 170
that shifted the one-time fee. Mr. Bannock responded that
the only thing specific in HB 170 was a small change to the
commercial rate and a then a change on the commercial fees
for trailers. That language is indicated on Page 3, Line 5.
The other change to commercial fees is listed on Page 2,
Line 8, and ending on Page 3, Line 3.
CHUCK HOSACK, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIVISION OF
MOTOR VEHICLES, ANCHORAGE, noted that he was available to
answer questions of the Committee.
JACK SHAY, FORMER KETCHIKAN MAYOR, CURRENT ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
BOROUGH OF KETCHIKAN, voiced his appreciation for the
proposed bill and any legislation that would help the
community's revenue sharing.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1.
Co-Chair Williams OBJECTED.
Representative Croft explained that the effect of the
amendment would lower the fees implemented by the Division
of Motor Vehicles. The yearly cost of running that agency
is approximately $10 million dollars and that the State
currently makes nearly $40-$45 million dollars from fees
collected. Representative Croft stated that the fees that
he pays to DMV should be used to support that agency. HB
170 changes from that purpose to one of being a "money
maker", and claimed that was inappropriate. Costs should
amount more closely to the actual costs of running the
agency. He acknowledged that other states have attempted to
use this type-funding source to help budget gaps, irritating
constituents statewide.
Representative Croft advised that Amendment #1 would cut in
half the fees proposed in HB 170. That would bring in
approximately $20 million dollars State revenue. He
stressed that the proposed legislation no longer would be a
"user fee" but instead a "tax".
Mr. Bannock commented that regardless of the rate schedule,
DMV will continue to do their work and that the fee rate
should be decided by the Legislature.
Representative Hawker spoke against Amendment #1, noting
that there are many services impacted by motor vehicles
within the State. If the State were to factor in the cost
of highway patrol and the State Troopers and other aspects
directly related, the proposed fees would not be enough.
KEVIN JARDELL, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, commented that the Administration would be
opposed to the proposed amendment. He echoed sentiments
voiced by Representative Hawker noting that there are costs
associated beyond registration fees collected and that those
fees can be designated for service funds related to the
Division of Motor Vehicles.
Representative Joule understood that revenues need to be
raised, however, he pointed out that last year the alcohol
tax was raised and at this time, the State is reluctant to
place that money into alcohol related programs. He added
that there is no way to dedicate funds unless it is done
through a constitutional amendment. The money raised
through this legislation would be going into the general
fund and would not be used for highway maintenance.
Representative Joule recommended that a discussion take
place regarding the long-term health of the State budget.
Through the proposed legislation, the public will not know
where their user fee costs are used. He agreed that
revenues need to be raised, however, discussion must occur
regarding the whole plan.
Co-Chair Williams asked how much general fund money is used
for highway maintenance. Mr. Hosack did not know the
figures regarding the Department's highway maintenance
expenditures.
Mr. Jardell guaranteed that the revenue generated by the
proposed fees would not generate enough funds to cover the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities highway
maintenance fees.
Representative Foster commented that the budget for the
Northern Region, which consists of approximately 50
villages, totals nearly $10 million dollars a year. At the
current price of eight cents per gallon, those areas raise
approximately $100 thousand dollars. He guessed that the
ratio would total about 100 to 1 cash back. He stressed
that the fees would help to maintain not only the roads and
the hubs but also the runways. In his district's villages,
which for the most part do not have cars, the proposed
legislation would not have any impact. Representative
Foster emphasized that even if the money does not go to
roads, it can go to schools and/or welfare programs, which
his district desperately needs. He voiced his support for
the bill and against the amendment.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
#1.
IN FAVOR: Croft
OPPOSED: Hawker, Joule, Meyer, Stolze, Whitaker,
Chenault, Foster, Williams
Co-Chair Harris and Representative Moses were not present
for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (1-8).
Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 170 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Croft OBJECTED.
Representative Croft cautioned the Committee about the
legislation. He noted that the general fund budget
allocation for the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities totals approximately $100 million dollars. The
State should not pretend that the proposed fees in HB 170
would close the budget. The legislation raises
approximately $12 million dollars. He warned that the
proposed fee structure could carry too much weight. He
emphasized that raising fees high and avoiding a general
long-range fiscal plan should be avoided. The proposed fee
is not the way to fund schools and the general road system.
DMV fees should be used only to fund that program.
Co-Chair Williams pointed out that a proposed long range
fiscal "plan" has been discussed for years and that in the
long run, the money generated from passage of HB 170 would
help cover services needed now.
Representative Joule noted that he had not voted against the
amendment because he did not agree in taking funds away from
the current structure. However, he stated that he would
vote against moving the bill from Committee because it does
not fit into a long-range fiscal plan. The House Finance
Committee must "collect" the pieces of that puzzle and
address that long-range concern. He pointed out that the
Ways and Means Committee was attempting to address these
concerns and urged that HB 170, which will raise revenue,
sits in Committee while the plan is being "molded" and all
options are considered.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to move HB 170 from
Committee.
IN FAVOR: Meyer, Stolze, Whitaker, Chenault, Foster,
Hawker, Williams
OPPOSED: Joule, Croft
Co-Chair Harris and Representative Moses were not present
for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-2).
HB 170 was reported out of Committee with "individual
recommendations" and with fiscal note #1 by the Department
of Administration.
SENATE BILL NO. 123 am
An Act relating to adoptions and guardianships that
include a subsidy payment by the state; eliminating
annual review of the subsidy paid by the state after
adoption of a hard-to-place child has occurred or a
court has appointed a legal guardian for a hard- to-
place child; and providing for an effective date.
JOANNE GIBBENS, PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR, DIVISION OF FAMILY
AND YOUTH SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES, advised that SB 123 differs from the House version
HB 166 in two ways:
· SB 123 adds guardianships to the title in addition
to adoptions;
· SB 123 does put into law the requirement that upon
the request of the person caring for the child, the
Department "shall" review whether the subsidy is
appropriate or not. Elimination of the annual
review of the subsidy amount does not eliminate the
right of the adoptive parent or guardian to ask for
a review of the subsidy amount.
Representative Croft asked if that distinction was a
difference between using the language "shall" and/or "may".
Ms. Gibbens noted that the language was added on Page 1,
Line 12. Representative Croft understood that from her
testimony.
Representative Foster MOVED to report SB 123am out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
attached fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 123am was reported out of Committee with "individual
recommendations" and with fiscal note #1 by the Department
of Health and Social Services.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|