Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/30/1997 01:36 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 30, 1997
1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to repeal of regulations by the legislature.
- MOVED CSHJR 2(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 231
"An Act relating to regulation of snowmobiles."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 245
"An Act relating to minimum sentences for assault in the fourth
degree that is a crime involving domestic violence; providing that
a prisoner may not contact the victim of the offense when provided
access to a telephone or otherwise immediately after an arrest; and
amending Rule 5(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 39(JUD)
"An Act relating to hazardous chemicals, hazardous materials, and
hazardous waste."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 2
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROKEBERG, JAMES, Kohring
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 22 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 22 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/06/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/06/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/97 579 (H) STA RPT 3DP 1NR
03/07/97 579 (H) DP: JAMES, HODGINS, VEZEY
03/07/97 579 (H) NR: IVAN
03/07/97 579 (H) FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
04/01/97 901 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
04/30/97 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 231
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF SNOWMOBILES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MASEK
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/04/97 990 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/04/97 990 (H) JUDICIARY
04/30/97 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding Administration's
opposition to HJR 2.
PAMELA LaBOLLE, President
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
217 2nd Street, Suite 201
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2323
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 2.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2679
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 231.
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief
Driver Services
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 20020
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0020
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 231.
EDDIE GRASSER, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Beverly Masek
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2679
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 231.
JIM STRATTON, Director
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 1200
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5921
Telephone: (907) 269-8700
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 231.
KEVIN DAVIS, General Manager
Arctic Recreational Distributors
3074 Commercial Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 272-5351
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding HB 231.
BOB KOWALKE
Yamaha Motor Corporation USA
10720 Hillside Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 346-3545
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding HB 231.
TOM HEATKE, District Sales Manager
Polaris Industries
P.O. Box 871221
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-7644
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding HB 231.
JANA LITTLEWOOD
Alaska State Snowmobile Association
414 East 23rd
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 272-7453
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 231.
TIM BORGSTROM, Special Projects Director
Anchorage Economic Development Corporation
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1400
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 258-3700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding HB 231.
RANDY CROSBY, Trails Coordinator
Alaska State Snowmobile Association
3300 Wesleyan Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 333-3661
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding HB 231.
SUSAN OLSEN
1119 G Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 277-9968
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding HB 231.
CHARLES JOHNSON
2382 Skiland Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (907) 389-2594
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding HB 231.
STERLING MUTH, President
Fairbanks Snow Travelers (ph)
912 North Stol Drive
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-5858
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding HB 231.
WILLIAM EASTHAM, President
Mat-Su Motor Mushers
HC 30, Box 8286
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-3043
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding HB 231.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-72, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Green, Bunde, Rokeberg and Porter.
Representatives Croft, Berkowitz and James arrived at approximately
1:37 p.m., 1:40 p.m. and 1:46 p.m., respectively.
HJR 2 - REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE
Number 0038
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the first order of business was House
Joint Resolution No. 2, proposing an amendment to the Constitution
of the State of Alaska relating to repeal of regulations by the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, sponsor, said this issue had been
before the public on three previous occasions. It is an attempt by
the legislature to reassert what he believes is its constitutional
right to overcome "rogue regulations" via resolution, rather than
by creating a new law in the form of a bill subject to a governor's
veto.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the state has more than 9,500 pages of
regulations with the full force and effect of law. He stated, "And
because of our constitutional structure, with a very strong
executive, I believe the case that the courts had struck down, the
ability of the legislature to repeal by resolution, has imbalanced
the checks and balances in the separation of power doctrine in the
state of Alaska's constitution." He said this constitutional
amendment would, in part, rebalance the proper position of the
legislature relative to the executive branch.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG submitted that this proposition failed
previously before the voters because of incomplete understanding
and lack of full support by Alaskans. Now the body of regulations
"has exploded," and citizens' daily lives are touched by
regulations for which the legislature has had little or no input.
Number 0238
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT advised members that he is on the House
Joint Committee on Administrative Regulation Review and had looked
into this. He explained, "Their approach is short of giving us a
legislative veto. I think Colorado has a `sunset unless approval.'
Another state has a burden shift, so that if we declare that that
wasn't what we meant, it makes it much easier to challenge the
regulation; it doesn't wipe it out, but it affects ... the burden
of proof on challenging it."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked why they should go the full leap to a
legislative veto on regulations, rejected three times by the
people, instead of considering one of those intermediate ideas,
which may or may not require amending the state constitution.
Number 0311
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated if there are other ways to
ameliorate this problem, he is not against them. However, he
believes this issue is of major importance. He also believes that
having the input of the people and allowing this mechanism to go
forward speaks to case law in Alaska and would allow the
legislative branch to exercise what he believes is its existing
power, but which was struck down in the A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary case.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed this could be characterized as a
veto; it provides for "the exact, specific repeal of the discrete
regulation." He believes the legislature should have that ability,
without the major expense and time of reintroducing legislation.
He pointed out that a resolution requires a committee process and
the ability of the public and the executive branch to have input.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG cited as an example "the fire storm that's
created among the users of the airports of the state because of the
voluminous regulations that do not meet the demands of the users of
those airports." He said the 19th Legislature had passed a
specific law endeavoring to straighten out those regulations in the
last session, "and then the Administration takes it upon itself to
rewrite the entire regulation book and in essence contravene the
intent of the legislature." He submitted that HJR 2 should have
bipartisan support within the legislative branch.
Number 0482
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER pointed out that the proposition in the
resolution merely asks whether the legislature, by joint
resolution, may repeal a regulation adopted by the state or an
agency; it gives no rationale. He noted that the National
Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) had surveyed members
regarding whether the state should have the ability to override a
regulation "found to be improper or inconsistent with the law." He
suggested it may be effective to put that into the constitutional
amendment provision so that people will see what the legislature
intends to do.
Number 0553
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that was a good point and the sponsors
are looking into revising the language so that voters may
understand it better, both in the voter pamphlet and on the ballot
itself. However, he preferred to move the resolution along because
it had another committee of referral (the House Finance Committee).
Number 0614
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that regulations are adopted through the
administrative side of government; this would give the legislature
the right to override those. He asked for Representative
Rokeberg's estimate of this Administration's stance.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied that the Administration opposes it;
it had been heard in a prior committee and there was a letter in
committee packets regarding this.
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ said it seemed to invite questions
about what would happen with judicial powers. He asked: When
regulations are improper or inconsistent with laws, isn't that call
normally made within the judiciary?
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied that it was a point well-taken,
which was why they had not come forward with a rewrite, if, in
fact, they were going to. He said the judiciary had spoken by
restricting the power of the legislature, "and that's something we
want to ameliorate with this amendment."
Number 0705
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated his understanding that the concern may be
that a "rogue regulation-writer" had missed what was intended by
the legislation used as an authority to enact a regulation, rather
than a regulation being "wrong" or somehow illegal.
Number 0732
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied, "I would say on that, if we were
to be specific about that, then it would be a matter of proof
whether the legislature had standing in their interpretation to do
that. The way the existing resolution is drafted, it gives the
legislature the power to look at any regulation, not one that it
just judged was inconsistent with the intent of the law. So, there
is a very distinct differential there between those two points.
And I, for one, prefer the more open-ended, if you will, ability of
the legislature to review regulations, because, quite frankly, Mr.
Chairman, regulations are drafted in the guise of legislative
statutory authority but may be entirely off the mark or not even
germane to a particular bill sometimes. So, ... then it would
become ... problematic as to whether there was standing for the
legislature to do that, if that was the case."
Number 0800
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated they were actually going back now and
looking at the intent of some things at statehood.
Number 0824
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he agreed with everything the sponsor
had indicated was a reason for proposing this legislation.
Mentioning the concept of "three strikes, you're out," he asked:
If they didn't change the proposal or do a much better job in
selling it, why go through it again? He suggested it would be a
step in the right direction to change the proposal, without
altering or diminishing its intent and purpose, to overcome an
impression that the legislature is seeking irrational power.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER also suggested it wouldn't be prudent to
allow the legislature to go into the intent of the legislature that
wrote the statute enabling a regulation in question; that is a road
that court decisions have been down repeatedly. However, he didn't
think it improper at all for a legislature to come up with its own
finding that a regulation is inconsistent with its enabling law.
That is the job of the legislature.
Number 0930
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he would echo Representative Porter's
comments. Specifically, this had been rejected three times, and it
did not seem productive to try a fourth time. He agreed that it is
within the legislature's province to express its opinion that a
regulation does not implement a statute, and he mentioned the
possibility of having some substantive effect on the regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said Legislative Research had, at his request,
looked at other states that use this idea of shifting the burden of
proof, allowing the legislature to say, "That's not what we meant."
Then, if it is challenged, a court can look at it. In most
situations, the shift in the burden of proof might be dispositive.
However, a court could determine that a regulation falls within the
authority of the statute and that the rejection was for some other,
possibly political, reason. The five states which do that are
Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Vermont; all upheld
it to be constitutional, "some with constitutional change
authorizing that burden shift, some without it."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated, "I think the courts have determined
uniformly, not only in the A.L.I.V.E. case in Alaska but in federal
decisions limiting the federal Congress from doing this, in the
federal arena, that ... changing regulations by legislative action
that has no governor's veto is stepping beyond our sphere of power.
So, I'd be interested in pursuing alternatives that maybe don't go
this step for the fourth time."
Number 1070
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, also a sponsor of HJR 2, apologized
for her late arrival. She expressed appreciation for
Representative Croft's comments, then said the legislature can
currently void a regulation with a statute. However, if their
efforts to get the Administration to change a regulation had
failed, why would a governor sign a statute that got rid of it?
She said the legislature gave the Administration the power to write
regulations but now has nothing to say about them because of the
separation of powers. The legislature historically has written
skimpy laws that require departments to implement regulations.
"And then, when they do it, we don't like it," she added.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated she has trepidation about putting
this out to the public for a vote; however, she believes it was not
properly "sold" previously and perhaps needs some different
language. She had just filed another bill on negotiated rule-
making, which she believes has more merit and which may or may not
take care of this problem. She desires a multi-pronged approach.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she had not read the "pros and cons" on
the voter pamphlets for previous resolutions but suspects those
could do a better job of explaining the reason this is needed. In
addition, she believes the public is becoming more irritated about
regulations and may now have a different attitude. Therefore, she
would like to see this put on the ballot, although she does not
believe it is the "end-all, save-all" to problems with regulations.
Number 1265
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, came forward
to reaffirm the Administration's opposition to HJR 2. He stated
that many of the points had already been made and he would re-
emphasize a couple of them.
MR. BALDWIN explained that currently a legislative veto only occurs
in the constitution in two areas: in the power to disapprove
executive orders and in the power to disapprove boundary changes
proposed by the boundary commission. Noting that executive orders
involve reorganization and boundary changes are a legislative
function, he said both involve a power to change the law.
MR. BALDWIN contrasted that with regulations, which, if properly
done, merely implement or make specific the law. A legislative
veto in that area departs from the constitutional scheme, a set of
checks and balances carefully designed at statehood to ensure that
in certain crucial areas, one branch of government does not have an
overbalance of power. A device in existence since the kings of
England and perhaps beyond, a veto is basically intended to
preserve the integrity of the branch of government in which the
veto power rests; maintain equilibrium between branches; and act as
a check to hasty and ill-conceived legislation.
MR. BALDWIN restated that legislation changes the law. For a
regulation, which does not change the law, this apparent departure
from our scheme has no check on its exercise. Resolutions under
the U.S. constitution can be vetoed by the President; such vetoes
can be overridden, which is a check on the veto power. However,
under Alaska's constitution, resolutions are not vetoed. If a
resolution basically vetoes a regulation, what is the check on that
power?
MR. BALDWIN said that is precisely the item that has been used
against the legislature's desires here in the last three elections.
To the voters, it has been successfully characterized as a power
grab by the legislature, an attempt to get a step up in the
process. He stated, "It doesn't make you look good; it doesn't
make the institution of the legislature look good; it doesn't
really bring good repute to the institution of the legislature."
MR. BALDWIN said he didn't know that he could agree with everything
Representative Porter had said. However, he did believe that in
order to establish that high ground, something else should be done
rather than just going with what happened in the past; he did not
know what that should be.
MR. BALDWIN stated, "Beyond that, I would say the best approach is
the approach we have now, which is we, being state agencies or
state entities, are basically `creatures of statute.' And if you
don't like the way your creature is created, you can always go back
to the laboratory and redesign it and in that way affect how we
exercise the regulation-adoption power. So, I think there now is
an adequate check ... and a balance between the branches. And I
fear that going with the resolution that's before you would
unbalance the system. And for that reason, I think it should not
be passed out of this committee."
Number 1525
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said currently if the legislature writes a
statute that requires regulations to be written, and if it
subsequently decides that those regulations are not what was
envisioned, it has the ability to repeal the statute. He asked
whether that was not virtually the same thing being proposed here.
MR. BALDWIN said no, the process is much different. For example,
it is by rule and not by the constitution that three readings of a
resolution are required. That is not the same as for a law.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he was talking about the product.
MR. BALDWIN agreed with the characterization of this as a veto and
said, "It's just a flat `no.' It doesn't really give much guidance
beyond, `We don't like what you've done; go back and do it again.'"
In contrast, when a statute is passed, the agencies are directed in
their conduct and must conform to that.
Number 1605
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked why Mr. Baldwin thinks this would be
unconstitutional, based on the veto power of the legislature, when
in effect the legislature already has that power to repeal the
statute from which the regulation was generated.
MR. BALDWIN replied, "First of all, if you put it in the
constitution, it wouldn't be unconstitutional. So, I think you're
going about it in the correct way, by changing the constitution.
I think the way they went about it in the statutes, that led up to
the A.L.I.V.E. case, that was unconstitutional."
MR. BALDWIN said as a functional approach to government, he
believes it would be wrong because it unbalances the system of
checks and balances. What would be the check on the legislature's
power? Although legislators may like it, he himself did not, nor
did he believe the populace had liked it, according to the votes.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the only check on the legislature's
power to create law is constitutional. He suggested that Mr.
Baldwin was talking public policy.
MR. BALDWIN agreed.
Number 1667
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE emphasized that in repealing a regulation,
a statute can be vetoed, whereas a resolution cannot.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested that if it did not like a
regulation, the legislature could better define what was meant in
statute. She mentioned the A.L.I.V.E. case, the subsequent
inactivity of the Administrative Regulation Review Committee until
this year, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). She asked:
When the legislature gave authority to the Administration to write
regulations, could they have given it only partially, with some
kind of oversight? She said one suggestion was the requirement
that the sponsor of legislation which is being written into
regulations participate in that process.
Number 1756
MR. BALDWIN said while there are things that can be done as far as
limiting the delegation, those kinds of actions are also subject to
the constitution. For example, if a bill sponsor participated in
a regulation-adoption process, in effect that legislator would be
using law-making powers outside of the House or Senate chamber.
Because a legislator cannot act as an individual representative
with law-making power, such a delegation may be invalid. However,
availability to consult or advise may be valid, and it is probably
good for the agencies, to be aware of legislative intent.
MR. BALDWIN indicated that oversight, including use of an auditor,
for example, is an appropriate role for the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee, which makes its will felt to the
agencies involved in adopting regulations.
Number 1835
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether it was a general principle that
the legislature could not have a "veto" without amending the
constitution.
MR. BALDWIN replied, "Well, in the A.L.I.V.E. case, the court
looked at the two vetoes that I mentioned and believed that because
of the way the constitution was written and the debate at the time,
that any other attempt to add a legislative veto would be strictly
construed. In other words, it'd be very difficult to establish."
MR. BALDWIN said certain kinds of actions may be valid. For
example, that day the legislative finance committees were reviewing
leases of office buildings, "which is, in effect, a sort of a veto,
but it's sort of like a check-back-with-me-type of an action, you
know, where you go out there and you say, `You can enter into
leases but you've got to check back for more authority before you
complete the lease.' It isn't like a denial or a veto, but it's
like, `We'll give you part of the power now, and when you go out
and do the job, we'll give you the rest if we like the deal you
bring to us.' ... It's sort of like a veto, but there have been
cases upholding those kinds of activities in other states; we
haven't had a case in Alaska yet, but we certainly do those sorts
of things and transact that kind of business."
Number 1904
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, noting that timing would be a problem, asked
whether it would be appropriate, when the legislature gives
authority to the Administration to write regulations, to specify
that those regulations must be approved by the legislature. They
would thus be done by statute and subject to a veto.
MR. BALDWIN said he wanted to confer with the department's
regulations attorney before providing an answer.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated her point was to explore all the
alternatives.
PAMELA LaBOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, came
forward to testify in support of HJR 2. She advised members that
regulatory reform is one of her organization's highest priorities.
Their resolution requests an effective oversight mechanism to
ensure that regulations produce results that follow legislative
intent.
MS. LaBOLLE said a common complaint of the business community is
that too often, regulations ignore or miss the point of the
legislation. She believes that people do not have as great an
opportunity for effective input in the regulatory process as they
do in the legislative process. For that reason, and because
regulations carry the weight of law, her organization believes this
is an important concern. She agreed with Representative Porter
that it is important to state the legislature's intention. She
also believes that the public supports this concept.
Number 2041
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what the position of the Alaska State
Chamber of Commerce had been on the prior ballot propositions.
MS. LaBOLLE said that was before her time and she did not know how
involved the organization had been. She added, "However, last
year, when this was HJR 1, we did testify to the effect that should
this become a ballot proposition, we would actively work in support
... of the proposition."
Number 2088
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether the chamber was open to any
reasonable way that the legislature could develop an effective
oversight mechanism or whether this was the only mechanism they
supported.
MS. LaBOLLE responded that they were open to any and all ways.
This seemed to answer the need, but another answer would be
welcome.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether anyone else wished to testify, then
closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT offered Amendment 1, a hand-revised copy of 0-
LS0120\E.1, Bannister, 4/30/97. The original version read:
Page 1, line 2:
Delete "repeal of regulations by the legislature"
Insert "the burden of proof in a judicial proceeding for
the review or enforcement of regulations"
Page 1, line 6:
Delete "Repeal"
Insert "Review and Enforcement"
Following "Regulations." through line 9:
Delete all material.
Insert "In a judicial proceeding for the review or
enforcement of a regulation, the burden is on the agency that
adopted the regulation to establish that all or part of the
regulation is within the procedural and substantive authority
delegated by the legislature to the agency."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT apologized for the rough-hewn nature of it,
saying he had described what he wanted to the drafters but it had
not quite come through. He explained the amendment, as revised.
It leaves the first sentence of the resolution as-is. On page 1,
line 7, the first "repeal" would be replaced by "express
disapproval of". Therefore, beginning page 1, line 6, it would
read, "The legislature may, by joint resolution, express
disapproval of a regulation adopted by a State department or
agency."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT continued. Beginning at page 1, line 7,
following "agency.", the second sentence (through line 9) would be
replaced by, "In a judicial proceeding for the review or
enforcement of a regulation disapproved by the legislature, the
burden is on the agency that adopted the regulation to establish
that all or part of the regulation is within the procedural and
substantive authority delegated by the legislature to the agency."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that this would set up an
alternative to an outright repeal. A resolution by the
legislature, which would not require a governor's signature, would
stated that a regulation did not follow legislative intent. It
would change the burden of proof on that point. For example, if an
affected industry complained about a regulation, the industry would
have the burden of proof. After the legislature passed a
resolution saying, "That's not what we meant," the agency would
have the burden of proof in defending its regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said five states already do this, "some with
constitutional change, as this would allow, some without it; so,
there is some reason to think we could do this statutorily." An
interesting half-step, it was of particular interest to him because
it seemed to put everyone in their proper role: The legislature
discusses statutes and their scope; the Administration interprets
and writes regulations within that scope; and if there is
disagreement about whether a regulation is within the proper scope
of a statute, the judicial branch has been the arbiter in 200 years
of U.S. history. Representative Croft added, "And this would allow
us to have a voice, changing the impact on that judicial
determination, but not an outright veto."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he had discussed this with Representative
James, who was open to some of these ideas but may not want this in
her legislation. However, he believed this alternative approach
would be more palatable to Alaskans and more in keeping with the
constitutional roles, yet still give the legislature an effective
oversight mechanism on regulations.
Number 2303
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether the intent was that there be a two-
step process if the legislature could not persuade the writer of
the regulation that it missed the boat.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said there would be two options if they
disliked a regulation. They could try to change it by statute or
do this, simply repeal it.
Number 2348
CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that if an agency defended its
regulations, then the legislature would not have changed the
regulation unless it took a second step.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed and said he had missed that point. In
that case, the legislature would say, "This is not what we meant,"
and then there would be a judicial finding. He believed that the
judiciary would often agree with the legislature's determination.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he envisioned a situation where the
legislature made a political statement by resolution and the court
determined that even with the burden of proof, a regulation clearly
fell within statutory authority. "And so, we would be affecting
but not repealing regulation, and then our only option after that
would be to change it by the normal process," he concluded.
Number 2415
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would not think it appropriate to set
up a situation where the courts would be involved in each and every
dispute over a statute's interpretation in regulation. To him, the
Administration's ability to veto the legislature's veto was not
required. While he understood the rationale, it may set up a
procedure as protracted as the procedure for repealing the statute.
TAPE 97-72, SIDE B
Number 0006
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she tended to agree with that. She
believed the amendment did nothing but destroy the resolution and
its intent. She also believed that was already an opportunity.
From her own experience, only a small part of the regulation
problems she had viewed in the past five years involved regulations
that did not follow the legislative intent; the problem is
primarily because of legislation written insufficiently, with
regulations written too broadly to implement a narrow section.
After a regulation is written, it doesn't work "on the ground"
because the people who wrote it aren't working there.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the other problem is in the APA, which
outlines how regulations are promulgated and the public process.
The notice states what the public comment period will be and how it
will be handled, specifying that following that period, the
department can "change the regulations, leave them just like they
are, or do nothing." Therefore, the public process is a sham. The
people affected by the regulations have had their word, but it has
meant nothing because it did not change the way the regulations
were written. She cited current airport regulations as an example.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES restated that negotiated rule-making might be
a good idea. In the meantime, she wants to have this out there,
like it is, until 1998, to get it on the ballot. An option that
other states have used as well, it is easier, quicker, and a
"hammer" for the legislature that she believes would make a
difference in how agencies discuss these issues with the public and
the legislature. She indicated the legislature's only current
hammer was more like a padded xylophone stick, with little effect.
Even if it were never used, she believes having it will make a
difference in the way that agencies discuss these issues with the
public and the legislature. That is why she was willing to put
this out there, even though she doesn't think it is the solution.
Number 0148
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he was tempted to ask for a ruling of
the chair that Amendment 1 was out of order. It rewrites the
resolution, except for a few words in the title, is not artfully
constructed and speaks to a disapproval by the legislature of a
process that it has no ability to disapprove. He said it is beyond
hostile and kind of nonsense.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said he would not rule it out of order.
Number 0203
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT acknowledged that it was not artful. He
emphasized that it changed the resolution from a repeal to a
disapproval, moderating that effect. His intention was not to gut
the resolution but to find middle ground, acceptable to the public,
in the power continuum.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to Representative Porter's comments
and said although this is aimed at a judiciary solution, he didn't
see that coming into play in every dispute, nor did he want that.
There would continue to be the other "hammer" of a legislative
action, although it would have to survive a governor's veto. He
suggested that if the legislature went through the trouble of a
resolution disapproving a regulation, the most frequent result
would be spurring the agency to take a look at it. "They would
have their position weakened by our action and, therefore, would
take action themselves, we would hope," he concluded.
Number 0270
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that Representative Croft
introduce legislation relating to shifting the burden of proof,
which would not require a constitutional amendment. He said he
believes this is out of order because the resolution is for a
constitutional amendment.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether the objection was maintained.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said yes.
CHAIRMAN GREEN requested a roll call vote. Voting for Amendment 1
were Representatives Croft and Berkowitz. Voting against it were
Representatives Bunde, Porter, Rokeberg, James and Green.
Therefore, Amendment 1 failed, 5 to 2.
Number 0327
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members that he had also drafted an
amendment, which he would give to the sponsor to think about until
the next committee of referral. He explained, "I think it would be
appropriate to put something into this that will tell the voters,
first of all, and, of course, the courts, when they are looking at
this issue, what it is that we're endeavoring to do when we ...
would reject a regulation." He said he believed it could be done
between this committee and the House Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move HJR 2 from committee
with individual recommendations and fiscal note as attached.
CHAIRMAN GREEN objected for discussion purposes. He asked
Representative Porter to share the concept of his suggestion.
Number 0380
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER prefaced his response by saying he had not
yet thought it through. However, his concept was language that
would read "something to the effect, `The legislature may, after
finding that a regulation is inconsistent with its enabling law, by
joint resolution repeal a regulation adopted by a state agency --
or a state department or agency.'"
Number 0400
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pledged to work with the prime cosponsor to
ensure that the language clearly conveys to the public the
legislature's intentions regarding the ballot proposition. He also
offered to work towards coming up with ameliorating language to
meet the points made by the committee.
Number 0431
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said if they were going to amend it, he
believed the responsibility was on the present committee to do so.
Noting that the public had rejected it three times, he urged that
they hold this until there was an amendment to contemplate.
CHAIRMAN GREEN called a brief at-ease, then called the meeting back
to order.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER offered Amendment 2.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether Representative Porter was rescinding
his motion to move the resolution from committee.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied that with permission of the
committee, he would remove the motion to move the resolution and
instead offer Amendment 2, "which for the record would be on page
1, line 6, after the phrase `the legislature may', insert `, after
their finding that a regulation is inconsistent with its enabling
law,' and then continue, `by joint resolution'."
Number 0521
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that "sort of incorporates" the
opportunity in Representative Croft's amendment. If it includes
the reason that the legislature can do a resolution to annul a
regulation, and if the Administration disagrees with that
resolution, they can take it to the judiciary and dispute it or
else redo the regulation. She believes it makes for an equal
playing field and provides a hammer, although not a huge one.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated his understanding that this would be
the legislature's power to question whether the regulation was
within the enabling statute; the legislature could not repeal
regulations within the statute just because they did not like them.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES concurred.
CHAIRMAN GREEN commented that it effectively did what
Representative Croft had in mind.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether Representative James believed
that a court could determine that.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded, "We give them everything, don't we?
Do we care if they come out right with it or not? I don't always
agree with them, but, you know, they're the final word."
Number 0577
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested because this would be in the form
of a constitutional amendment, the courts would be reluctant to
override the legislature's finding that it was inconsistent. He
said this narrows the scope of the previous amendment but does no
"bodily harm." He added, "It may actually enhance it. I think as
the resolution passes through the building that that is an issue
that will, and should, be discussed further."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that certainly the finding would be part
of the back-up for the resolution, and there would be plenty of
time for dispute while it goes through the process.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection to Amendment
2. There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion that HJR 2, as amended, move
from committee with individual recommendations and fiscal note as
attached. There being no objection, CSHJR 2(JUD) moved from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 231 - REGULATION OF SNOWMOBILES
Number 0689
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next item of business was House Bill
No. 231, "An Act relating to regulation of snowmobiles."
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK, sponsor of HB 231, explained that the
bill resulted from work by the Alaska State Snowmobile Association
and the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. She views it as
an important tool in promoting a genuinely Alaskan activity and
creating opportunities for winter recreation.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK advised members that there has been a
statutory requirement for registering snowmobiles since 1968.
However, few Alaskans register their snowmobiles, which she
believes is primarily due to the registration process. The owner
of a new snowmobile must take the title to the Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) and wait in line to get the $5 registration. She
believes that there is no mail-in system for renewal, as there is
for vehicles, and that snowmobile owners must renew annually. This
bill would make registration easier.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said by allowing dealers to handle
registration at the time of purchase, HB 231 will create a better
process for compliance with current statutes. It will also allow
dealers and other agents to handle renewals. Furthermore, having
a good system in place will provide an accounting of the number of
machines in Alaska. This information is important for acquiring
monies available from the national "Recreational Trails Program"
(created by the National Recreational Trails Fund Act) for
construction, trail heads, signs and grooming equipment.
Establishment and maintenance of a good trail system throughout
Alaska will provide Alaskans a place to ride and, more importantly,
provide an opportunity to expand recreation and winter tourism.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK concluded by saying HB 231 will require input
and work from the public and the legislature, and she hopes to work
on it during the interim with the snowmobile groups, the Division
of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, and convention and visitor
bureaus. She noted that committee files contain a statement of
support from the Anchorage Convention and Visitors Bureau, and
other such bureaus support it statewide. She advised members that
Eddie Grasser could answer technical questions.
Number 0959
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked how the Recreational Trails Program worked,
whether it supplied money based on the number of snow machines
registered in Alaska or whether Alaska, being one of 40 states with
snowmobiles, would get one-fortieth of the funds, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied that only 15 to 20 percent of owners
register currently. With an accurate account of who in Alaska
registered their snow machines, and how many, they would be
eligible for this national Recreational Trails Program through the
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.
Number 1020
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what the current registration process
is. For example, how does one know whether a snow machine is
registered? Is there a license attached to it?
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated her belief that an owner goes into the
DMV to fill out a registration form and is given the title and a
sticker with the registration number to put on the snow machine.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked whether it required proof of ownership.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said yes.
Number 1120
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services, Division of Motor Vehicles
(DMV), Department of Public Safety, testified that the DMV has
registered 12,000-14,000 snow machines statewide. The process,
somewhat as Representative Masek had stated, is that after purchase
of a machine, the owner comes to the DMV and fills out the
application. She clarified that the owner does not get a title;
the DMV does not title snow machines in the state. The owner
receives a registration, just as people do for their cars, and a
registration tab that must be put on the cowling of the snow
machine. It is a two-year registration for $5. The DMV does not
issue metal license tags for this.
Number 1286
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that during previous discussion of
snowmobile registration in the legislature, people promoted it
because of theft, as it would provide a way to trace stolen
machines. He said he assumed that was still a reason for
registration, in addition to obtaining federal trails money based
on the number of snow machines in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE next referred to page 2, line 3, which says,
"A snowmobile dealer shall" register it. He suggested that would
take care of a lot of enforcement problems, and he believed it was
important. However, he wanted to make sure it did not conflict
with page 1, line 9, which says, "An agent may accept" a
registration.
CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested there were agents other than dealers, for
which this bill provides.
MS. HENSLEY agreed and explained that the bill is trying to allow
new vehicle sales to be registered at the point of sale. But for
anyone else who has a snow vehicle, they can have contract agents
to do the registration.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he agreed with registering snowmobiles to
reduce theft and get financial support for facilities. Referring
to page 2, lines 12 through 15, he asked why, then, they would
exempt machines used on private property, in snow machine races or
in communities where motor vehicles are not required to be
registered, because theft would still occur and it was important to
have as many machines registered as possible to obtain the federal
funds. Therefore, they may not want to exempt (2), (3) and (4).
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked why those were excluded.
Number 1355
EDDIE GRASSER, Legislative Assistant to Representative Beverly
Masek, suggested that Jim Stratton from the Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation, who had spent a lot of time writing this, could
answer that, or possibly someone from the Alaska State Snowmobile
Association could. Mr. Grasser said he himself grew up on a farm,
where they had unregistered vehicles used only on the farm, on
private property. He assumed that somebody using a snow machine
strictly on private property, for whatever reason, would fall in
the same category.
JIM STRATTON, Director, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation,
Department of Natural Resources, came forward to testify. He
referred to item (2) on page 2, line 12, "used strictly on private
property for private, noncommercial purposes", and said that
related to use of snowmobiles for farming, for example, or as work
equipment.
MR. STRATTON referred to item (3), "used only in sanctioned
snowmobile races", and said those types of specially-built snow
machines are typically used only for racing. The division had felt
it was not appropriate to require their registration because they
were not for use on public lands or on the trail system.
MR. STRATTON referred to item (4), "used exclusively in communities
exempt from motor vehicle registration under AS 28.10.011", and
said when he got involved with the Alaska State Snowmobile
Association in developing this legislation, the main emphasis was
to create more funding for recreational trails. Recreational trail
riding is primarily in the railbelt area, which has the largest
population. Therefore, registering snowmobiles in the bush did not
fit in.
MR. STRATTON said that instead of including all snowmobiles in
Alaska at the very beginning, they had wanted to ensure the bill's
passage; if the residents of the bush wanted to participate, they
then could ask to be included and to have their snowmobiles
registered. He added, "And at that time, then, they could ...
partake of some of the registration money, which we eventually see
as getting to the level of being able to provide grants out to
snowmobile clubs and communities around the state."
MR. STRATTON said besides the theft question, the big push is the
number of riders in the state, not only for more federal money,
"but we will begin to generate some money of our own." If the
legislature sees fit to reinvest that into snowmobile trails, those
recreational trails will primarily benefit cities where automobiles
are registered. "And so, we felt that was just a clean way to do
it and to make it parallel that way," he concluded.
Number 1550
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether this section generally
replicates what exists already, in terms of which snow machines
must be registered.
MR. STRATTON said no, this is a change.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he did not know whether it was expanded
or contracted, but he did not agree with (2), (3) or (4). He
explained, "If number (2) is to get at this huge agricultural --
well, we don't have one; so, I don't know what that's about. ...
Number (3), I would agree with that if the sanctioned snowmobile
races were on a quarter-mile track like dragsters or something.
But these things go all over the state on public lands .... That's
where these races are. So, to the extent that they could
contribute a little bit to that, I don't see that's a big problem."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to item (4), "used exclusively in
communities exempt from motor vehicle registration". He said that
was because of lack of roads, which was what vehicle registration
is about. However, snowmobiles use public lands, just like
everybody else. "So, I really don't think that (2), (3) or (4) are
appropriate," he concluded.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked how a snowmobile is used for farming.
Number 1643
MR. GRASSER said he himself had used snow machines for farming,
which included herding animals. For example, they had kept 60
horses on approximately 1,500 acres in the Matanuska Valley. As a
young boy, he had used a snow machine to transfer the herd from one
part of the farm to another in the wintertime.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she agreed with Representative Porter's
concerns on this issue, indicating that if they were going to
register snow machines, they ought to just do it. She also had a
little problem philosophically with doing it just to get some
federal funds. Furthermore, she believed the theft issue made
registration important. She asked whether it cost $5.
MS. HENSLEY said it is $5 for a two-year period.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested that was hardly worth the paper on
which it is written. She asked how much work the department does
to keep track of these registrations and whether $5 for two years
is enough for the paperwork, regardless of whether federal funds
are available.
MS. HENSLEY emphasized that only 12,000 to 14,000 are registered
now. With this legislation, including point-of-sale registration,
all vehicles being registered, keeping track of all those vehicles
and ensuring that they are in the computer system, the Division of
Information Services (DIS) charge-backs, based on the space used in
the system by the DMV, would increase. She had no doubt that it
would increase the costs to the DMV.
MS. HENSLEY agreed that the fee possibly should be looked at,
whether for operation of the program or for monies for trail
maintenance, to obtain matching funds or even for additional funds
through the federal programs for trails.
MS. HENSLEY advised members that under current law, snow machines
are required to be registered before competing in any type of race
or "game program." She believes the increase in registrations over
the last few years is basically because of the theft situation and
because for race clubs, for example, registration is required by
law before snowmobiles are allowed to operate in those races.
Number 1855
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK, responding to Representative James, said the
intent is to get funding to help the snowmobilers with the trails.
But it also will establish trails for recreational snowmobilers.
In Anchorage, for example, there is no place to use snow machines.
People must drive 100 miles or more to do so. She believes this is
a good way to establish a recreation trail that will be safe and
for multiple uses. Where she herself snow machines on the Yentna
River, there are snowmobiles, dog mushers and skiers. They need to
look at safety factors, including putting up signs, for example.
Number 1950
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she understood those kinds of things and
had been a snow machine user herself. Her concern over the
registration was whether the money was enough. Not only would
there be the original registration, but whenever a machine was sold
or junked, there would be additional work. She was not convinced
this would pay for itself or provide any money.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES also asked how this would be enforced, noting
there was no penalty for failing to register. In addition,
machines may need to be counted by category to obtain federal
funds. She believes they need to think seriously about how this
will work.
Number 2036
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Hensley whether the DMV provides
copies of the registrations to local municipalities for purposes of
personal property tax. He also asked how many jurisdictions have
a personal property tax on snowmobiles.
MS. HENSLEY said she could not answer either question. The DMV
does currently registers the vehicles, and a municipality could
request from the DMV a listing of all snow machines registered
within that municipal boundary. Referring to Representative
Masek's comments about working on this over the interim, she noted
that it is under Title 5, relating to amusements and sports. The
DMV proposes putting this all under Title 28, which contains all
the other registration of motor vehicles, because the snow machine
is a motor vehicle. The DMV also proposes working out some of the
other issues with the legislation.
VICE CHAIRMAN BUNDE took over chairing the meeting in the absence
of Chairman Green. He announced that follow-up should be brief, as
there were many people wishing to testify.
Number 2181
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired about taking up Representative
Masek's proposed amendments while there was still a quorum.
VICE CHAIRMAN BUNDE said he would prefer to take testimony first.
He advised members that the hearing must conclude by 3:30 p.m.
because of another committee meeting. He asked testifiers to limit
comments to two minutes in order to accommodate all speakers.
KEVIN DAVIS, General Manager, Arctic Recreational Distributors,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage, specifying that his
Anchorage-based company is a wholesaler from which all of the
Arctic Cat dealers in Alaska buy their machines. They support
point-of-sale registration and believe it will help with recovery
of stolen machines, among other things. Referring to the trail
system proposed by the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation,
he suggested that using examples from other states, including
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Washington and California, the
proposed system could be paid for in just a few years through the
registration of snowmobiles. When snowmobilers renew their
registrations, that continues to help with the funds. In many
cases, states have ended up with extra funds, beyond those used to
maintain and construct trails. He emphasized that this is not
something new because there are examples that can be copied.
TAPE 97-73, SIDE A
Number 0006
VICE CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Mr. Davis to send the committee an idea
of what other states charge for registration, if he had that
information.
BOB KOWALKE, Yamaha Motor Corporation USA, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage, saying he has been in the business
for 29 years, including snow machines, motorcycles and all-terrain
vehicles. He likened the snow machine business in Alaska to a
creek that has grown into a river over the years. He believes that
it is up to everyone involved to harvest the power behind that
river constructively. The monetary impact on the state from snow
machines is beginning to be recognized; it could increase if they
use these monies to develop trails and increase policing of stolen
machines, for example. He concluded by saying the first step in
moving ahead is this point-of-purchase registration.
TOM HEATKE, District Sales Manager, Polaris Industries, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage, saying he represents roughly 55
dealers in the state and over 400 employees. He really stands
behind the point-of-sale registration in concept. He had moved up
here from Minnesota. With the seven or eight months of winter in
Alaska, he saw no reason why there could not be a decent trail
system to encourage tourists. He concluded by saying he concurred
with the previous two speakers.
JANA LITTLEWOOD, Alaska State Snowmobile Association, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage, saying they strongly support the
concept of a point-of-sale registration. She said accurate numbers
of snowmobilers must be available to gain access to funding sources
such as the gas tax reimbursement and the national Recreational
Trails Program fund.
MS. LITTLEWOOD said this legislation is the first step toward a
snowmobile program in Alaska that will promote safe, alcohol-free
riding and responsibly create a statewide trail system that works.
She reported that they had worked closely with the state Division
of Parks and Outdoor Recreation to create this bill, and they do
support it. While some recreational users have differences with
that division, they have seen the division make what she believes
are correct decisions. They want to allow that division the
opportunity to follow through with their commitment to snowmobile
trails.
MS. LITTLEWOOD said they had written a transferable registration
into this bill to help deal with theft issues. Their first
priority, however, is getting an accurate count of snowmobiles in
Alaska in order to move forward, which this point-of-sale
registration will achieve. Once there is a trail system and
program to show users, then they could look at raising some fees.
TIM BORGSTROM, Special Projects Director, Anchorage Economic
Development Corporation, testified via teleconference next, saying
he had been working on "winter infrastructure development projects"
for over 12 months. They recognize Anchorage as a "winter city"
with a summer season, and his job is developing ways to diversify
the economy.
MR. BORGSTROM had studied all the "winter states" in North America,
approximately 27 including Canadian provinces, discovering the
phenomenon that snowmobile trail construction for resident users
leads to additional infrastructure, which evolves into a tourism
industry. In North America, snowmobiling is a $7-billion-per-year
industry. In Alaska, the 1995-1996 winter season brought more than
$54 million in retail sales for snowmobiles and accessories.
MR. BORGSTROM believes with point-of-sale registration, they can
tap into monies that historically have not returned to
snowmobilers, to develop a trail network that would bring national
and international tourists to Alaska in the winter. In West
Yellowstone, Montana, the "granddaddy of winter snowmobiling," they
accommodate up to 6,000 or 7,000 rental vehicles weekly, people
going there just to snowmobile. Becoming a popular industry, it is
something he believes Alaskans can effectively manage and organize
in concert with the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. He
feels that there is a tremendous opportunity to replace the "closed
for the season" signs in downtown businesses with "open for winter
business" signs.
RANDY CROSBY, Trails Coordinator, Alaska State Snowmobile
Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said
HB 231, in addressing registration, is an important part of
providing for the needs of snowmobilers, both residents and
visitors. He expressed hope that through development and refining
of this bill, Alaska will be able to collect monies from snowmobile
owners to eventually provide trails, frontage, education and other
needs that will eventually help all Alaskans. One has only to look
at other states in the snowbelt to see how a well-developed
snowmobile infrastructure benefits citizens economically and
socially; snowmobile registration is one key element of that
infrastructure. He hopes that as this bill progresses, the
legislature and Governor Knowles will work with the DMV and the
"snowmobile community" to provide that these registration fees are
directed to trails, safety and education.
SUSAN OLSEN testified via teleconference from Anchorage, speaking
as a supporter of the Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition, which seeks a
fair and equitable allocation between motorized and nonmotorized
uses on state lands. She had originally come to support the bill,
prior to seeing the amendments. She emphasized that registration
is a fine first step.
MS. OLSEN pointed out that there currently are conflicts between
snowmobilers and those who seek quiet wilderness experiences, such
as skiers. As trail development goes forward, it needs to be
coordinated something like the Mat-Su trails plan that is already
in preparation. She emphasized that the differences in the two
types of users must be acknowledged, with the rights of both
recognized. She concluded by saying that multiple-use trails do
not work, as the uses are incompatible. The original bill gives
recognition to that for the first time, and she hopes that as it
goes forward, it keeps these other, larger issues in mind in
addition to registration.
Number 0805
VICE CHAIRMAN BUNDE turned the gavel back to Chairman Green.
CHARLES JOHNSON testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying
he is a member of the Fairbanks Snow Travelers (ph), the Alaska
State Snowmobile Association and the nordic ski club in Fairbanks.
He believes that multiple uses are compatible. Noting that the
amendments would have the DMV administer this, he asked whether
that had happened yet or was still just a proposal.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said they had not yet taken up any amendments.
MR. JOHNSON stated that he favored snowmobile registration "and
everything that has been said." He would prefer that it remain
with the DMV, which is already set up to do registrations, already
doing them, and mandated to do so.
MR. JOHNSON said on talk shows and in letters to the editors, they
hear about problems with snowmobilers trespassing and roaring up
and down through rural subdivisions at midnight. He believes
having a sticker on the machine would cause people to think twice
about doing that; it would aid in identifying snowmobiles involved
in crimes such as trespassing and disturbing the peace. He
believes all snowmobiles should be registered.
Number 0939
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked two questions of all testifiers,
requesting that they send in a response: Should all snow machines
be registered, or should the exemptions discussed earlier continue?
And did they support or oppose putting identification numbers on
tracks, which he understands they do in the Lower 48 in order to
apprehend scofflaws?
STERLING MUTH, President, Fairbanks Snow Travelers (ph), testified
via teleconference, saying he was a former safety officer of the
Alaska State Snowmobile Association as well. His organization
supports HB 231 with the proposed amendments. They believe the DMV
needs to do the registration, and they cannot support it if any
other organization is involved in that. He noted that some members
had mailed in their registrations to the DMV; therefore, that is
already possible but could use some standardization.
MR. MUTH believes the point-of-sale registration is needed to
receive Alaska's fair share of the gas tax dollars, which is based
on the number of machines registered. Another positive outcome of
the bill would be a reduction of theft. He believes that multiple-
use trails work with coordination, education and understanding.
For example, his organization grooms hundreds of miles of trails
that are connected with dog mushers' trails, and they all use the
trails together. Mentioning enforcement, he reported that people
are writing tickets in parks near Anchorage for those who do not
display their registration decals. He concluded by restating the
desire for the DMV to do the registration.
WILLIAM EASTHAM, President, Mat-Su Motor Mushers, testified via
teleconference, stating simply that they support the bill with the
sponsor's proposed amendments.
Number 1145
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he must attend another meeting.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that they would lose their quorum; he also had
to attend that meeting. He announced HB 231 would be held over.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested taking a close look at the level of
the registration fee either by the next hearing or over the
interim, commenting that "you can't lose money per unit and make it
up by volume." He believes the DMV would go increasingly in the
hole with this expanded activity at $5 for two years.
Number 1233
MR. GRASSER advised members that he had just spoken with Mr.
Stratton and Ms. Hensley; as he believed he had mentioned to
Representative Masek, all of them would like to pursue Ms.
Hensley's suggestion of rewriting this into Title 28 so that it
comes in line with other DMV regulatory authority derived from
statute. They had also just discussed calling dealers and snow
machine groups to check into the fee structure.
(HB 231 was held over.)
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1259
CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|