02/04/2016 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB229 | |
| HCR15 | |
| HB273 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 273 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 229 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HCR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 4, 2016
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Liz Vazquez
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Talerico
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 229
"An Act relating to regulation notice and review by the
legislature; and relating to the Administrative Regulation
Review Committee."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 15
Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature relating to the jurisdiction of standing committees.
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 273
"An Act relating to the transfer of the title to a vehicle,
including certain manufactured homes and trailers, on the death
of the owner; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 229
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL ADMIN. REG. REVIEW COMMITTEE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CHENAULT
01/19/16 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/16
01/19/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/16 (H) STA, FIN
02/04/16 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HCR 15
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM RULES: REGULATION REVIEW
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CHENAULT
01/19/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/16 (H) STA
02/04/16 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 273
SHORT TITLE: VEHICLES: TRANSFER ON DEATH TITLE
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
01/22/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/16 (H) STA
02/04/16 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
TOM WRIGHT, Staff
Representative Mike Chenault
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 229 on behalf of
Representative Chenault, prime sponsor.
TOM WRIGHT, Staff
Representative Mike Chenault
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HCR 15 on behalf of
Representative Chenault, prime sponsor.
DENEEN TUCK, Staff
Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 273 on behalf of House State
Affairs Standing Committee, sponsor, on which Representative
Lynn serves as chair.
AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director
Alaska Trucking Association (ATA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 273.
NICOLE THAM, Driver Services Manager
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the division had no
objection to HB 273.
MR. BOB MAIER, Executive Director
Alaska Manufactured Housing Association (AMHA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 273.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:07:02 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. Representatives Keller, Stutes,
Vazquez, Kreiss-Tomkins, Gruenberg, and Lynn were present at the
call to order.
HB 229-REPEAL ADMIN. REG. REVIEW COMMITTEE
8:07:57 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 229, "An Act relating to regulation notice and
review by the legislature; and relating to the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee."
8:08:20 AM
TOM WRIGHT, Staff, Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 229 on behalf of Representative
Chenault, prime sponsor. He related that the purpose of HB 229
is to repeal the statutes pertaining to the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee. He stated that according to the
Legislative Research Services report, included in the committee
packet, the Administrative Regulation Review Committee has not
overturned any regulations going back to the Twenty-Third Alaska
State Legislature of 2003-2004.
8:10:27 AM
MR. WRIGHT stated that although AS 24.20.445 provides that the
committee can suspend regulations for a "certain time period,"
the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in a 1980 case, State v.
A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary, that the legislature has no implied power
to veto agency regulations by informal legislative action, and
such actions violate Article II of the state constitution. The
action that is available to the Administrative Regulation Review
Committee [to veto agency regulations] is to either supersede or
nullify regulations by way of introducing legislation. However,
Legislative Research Services was not able to find any effort
[by Administrative Regulation Review Committee] to do so from
2003 to the present.
MR. WRIGHT stated that the proposed legislation would repeal all
references to the Administrative Regulation Review Committee
throughout the statutes. One of the statutes that would be
deleted is Section 44.62.320, "Submittal for legislative
review." This statute calls for regulations that are filed by
the lieutenant governor to be submitted to the chair and all
members of the Administrative Regulation Review Committee for
review under AS 24.20.400 through AS 24.20.460 along with the
fiscal information. Legislative Legal and Research Services no
longer has an attorney assigned to review regulations, as that
position was not filled due to cost-cutting efforts. The budget
for this committee was $100,000 in the past and was halved last
year, so would result in savings in the legislative budget of
$53,000.
MR. WRIGHT relayed that to take the place of the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee, there is a resolution that will be
addressed later giving standing committees or any committees the
power to review those regulations. Instead of the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee, it would be up to a
standing committee to decide if it wanted to take up
regulations, nullify regulations, or address regulations through
legislation.
8:13:28 AM
CHAIR LYNN conjectured that if the committee identified a
regulation causing a problem, the members would then have the
ability hold a hearing on that particular regulation.
MR. WRIGHT confirmed Chair Lynn's supposition and added that he
believes that ability already exists and HB 229 just clarifies
that the jurisdiction for regulation review would be turned over
to the standing committee. In this way there's a fallback to
address those regulations if they fall under the committee's
jurisdiction.
CHAIR LYNN restated that a particular regulation could be
proposed for review in a committee and action taken as with any
proposed legislation.
MR. WRIGHT emphasized that he intends no disrespect to those who
initiated and served on the Administrative Regulation Review
Committee when he asserts that there is probably more expertise
among members of a committee who deal with certain issues. He
maintained that the intentions were good; however, the purpose
and intent was never really fulfilled and, by virtue of the
State v. A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary Alaska Supreme Court case,
regulations cannot be suspended through informal action. This
aligns with the sponsor's desire to take statutes off the books
that aren't working, not intended, or outdated. He concluded by
reaffirming that this also would be a cost-saving measure for
the legislature.
8:15:30 AM
MR. WRIGHT, in response to Chair Lynn, reiterated that the
fiscal note indicates a savings of $53,000 under HB 229.
Originally $100,000 was allocated to the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee and that amount was cut in half last
year. The cost was for the purpose of having staff on board who
would devote their time to overseeing regulations and bringing
them up before the committee. A person in Legislative Legal and
Research Services distributed memos to the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee and to the presiding officers. The
sponsor believes that the intent and the purpose can be achieved
by standing committees and special committees.
8:17:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked Mr. Wright if the sponsor is open to
going beyond just giving the standing committees the "power to
review" - that is, looking at the regulation and making an
evaluation.
MR. WRIGHT responded that the sponsor believes in the power of
the committee and the power of the committee chairs and
consequently, is open to anything the committees would like to
have done. His only concern that there not be a large fiscal
note attached to any potential amendments to the proposed
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER advocated for considering the proposed
legislation in terms of preserving the role of the legislature
constitutionally. He opined that even though budget issues are
a concern, they shouldn't be the deciding factor.
MR. WRIGHT said the sponsor does not want to lessen the role of
the legislature in any of the processes that are available to
it.
8:19:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reminded the committee of the amendment
to HB 126, Code of Military Justice, heard in yesterday's House
floor session, which said that when further regulations dealing
with the code of military justice are promulgated by the
National Guard, those regulations shall be sent to the
legislature for review.
MR. WRIGHT acknowledged that occurrence. He went on to say that
when he first saw the [mentioned] amendment, he had a few
concerns. The amendment did state that the legislature could
nullify regulations "by law," which means through statutory
action. He said that he did not want something passed that the
legislature couldn't achieve.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if, in the event HB 229 passes
and the aforementioned amendment remains in the proposed
military legislation, any new regulation dealing with the code
of military justice would be referred to committee by the
commissioner of the Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs
(DMVA) or by the governor.
MR. WRIGHT replied that he did not know because he was not
familiar with that particular proposed military legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asserted that he was asking for
clarification on the process - that is, whether the commissioner
or the governor would refer the regulation to the appropriate
committee for review.
MR. WRIGHT responded that Representative Keller had been working
on an amendment to address procedural issues. He said that
since the lieutenant governor has the final say on all
regulations, his presumption is that the review of regulations
would be coordinated through the lieutenant governor's office
and would include referral to the speaker of the House and on to
the appropriate committees. He stated that he did not see the
committees becoming total regulation review committees because
of the time that has to be spent on legislation, budget, and
other issues, but that the committees would have the opportunity
to review the regulations if something seems onerous or
outdated. In that event the legislature or standing committee
has the ability to take action, which, Mr. Wright explained,
would be addressed in the Uniform Rules change resolution in the
proposed legislation.
8:22:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed his hope that there would be
a mechanism for referring regulations to committees during
interim, emphasizing that there are many regulations and
committee activity during interim is limited. He also voiced
his concern regarding the additional work the proposed
legislation would create for committee staff during interim.
MR. WRIGHT added that committee chairs and committee members
would also be affected by the additional work, not just staff.
He suggested that regulations could informally be passed from
the Speaker's Office to the committee chair without referral,
and the chair could decide whether to bring a regulation to
committee for review. In regard to interim, Mr. Wright
maintained that the chair of any committee could call a meeting
at any time as long as it is properly noticed.
8:24:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ said she thinks the role of the
legislature in reviewing regulations is absolutely critical, and
she supports the goal of the proposed legislation. However, she
went on to say, she is not convinced that what is proposed in
the bill is an appropriate alternative mechanism for regulation
review. She cited her past experience in administrative law in
which she observed that sometimes regulations usurp the intent
of legislation. She agreed that regulation review is an
important role and that standing committees possess special
knowledge to do such review. She contended that her concern is
in regard to the appropriateness of the mechanism as proposed.
MR. WRIGHT asserted that Representative Vazquez's comments
support his justification for the proposed legislation. Many
regulations are enacted because of legislation taken up by
committees who are familiar with the issues. Consequently these
committees are better able to make a determination as to whether
a regulation fits the scope of the legislation.
8:27:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ expressed her discomfort with the
informal process described by Mr. Wright for regulation review.
She said that she supported a more systematic, statutory
mechanism that insures that every regulation is given attention
and not just the ones of special interest to certain committee
members.
MR. WRIGHT said that Representative Keller has some ideas to
address Ms. Vazquez's concern, and mentioned that a more formal
process could be inserted into HB 229.
8:28:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER emphasized his appreciation for the
proposed legislation and stated his belief that HB 229
highlights unfulfilled legislative responsibilities, which has
been a great source of frustration to him. The legislature asks
the departments to write regulations in accordance with the
statutes that the legislature passes. Representative Keller
allowed that despite the best intentions, these regulations are
often difficult to trace back to the context of the statutes.
He added that administrative review lawyers are experts in code
not statute. He posited that the legislature tends to be weak
compared to the other two branches, and that this issue was one
of balance of power. He further opined that while the proposed
legislation cannot solve this concern, it may prevent more loss
of power.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER contended that the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee is a very frustrating experience
even with qualified staff, and they have never once overruled
one regulation. He reiterated that the bill sponsor has now
discovered that the Alaska Supreme Court disallows [overruling
regulation] unless by new legislation. Agreeing with
Representative Vazquez's concern, Representative Keller conceded
that as it stands, the proposed legislation would be no more
effective in ensuring legislative review of regulations than
currently exists. He asked for the committee's help in coming
up with a process to enhance the legislative role in regulation
review. Representative Keller stated his belief that the only
way to ensure regulation review is to hire three or four
attorneys for that specific purpose.
8:31:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said that with the committee's patience,
he would work toward proposing amendments that would get rid of
a process that isn't working, as well as maintain the authority
of the legislature.
MR. WRIGHT expressed the sponsor's willingness to work with
committee members on amendments. He agreed with Representative
Keller's sentiments about regulations not following the intent
of legislation and related it to his experience with federal
regulations and laws that Congress passes, and the disconnect
between the two.
8:33:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated his appreciation for Mr. Wright's
comment and cited issues that he had worked on in which state
regulations were nothing more than compliance to U.S.
regulations with no link to Alaska state law. He appealed for a
mechanism to evaluate regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said that he had one amendment ready to
review. He asked the committee members for suggestions for
improvement, keeping in mind the sponsor's request that there be
no fiscal note.
8:36:13 AM
MR. WRIGHT offered that most of the committee members have
chaired a committee, and he requested that each member evaluate
how they would apply Representative Keller's amendment as a
committee chair.
8:37:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like to address the issue
from a legal standpoint. The problem, as Mr. Wright mentioned,
emanates from a controversy in the legislature in the 1980s
involving the Teamsters Union Local No. 959; a case in which the
Senator representing the Kenai Peninsula, Paul Fischer, took an
interest. The constitution will not allow the legislature to
amend or repeal a regulation unless by law, which means the
governor has the right to veto it. The controversy culminated
in the Alaska Supreme Court case, State v. A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary,
and as a result, the legislature twice passed constitutional
amendments that went before the voters to change the
constitution to allow the legislature to take action on a
regulation by resolution and twice the voters turned it down.
Representative Gruenberg stated his belief that the committee
should evaluate this case in terms of what the legislature can
legally do. He reiterated that the legislature cannot overturn
or amend a regulation once it is promulgated. He suggested,
however, the possibility of putting language in appropriate
legislation that would require regulations be submitted to the
legislature before they became effective.
8:41:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG emphasized that this is a
constitutional issue, but he suggested perhaps the issue could
be addressed in a creative manner without changing the
constitution.
8:41:21 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked if Representative Gruenberg was suggesting that
the legislature would have to give permission for the
administration to propose a regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied that his suggestion was that
the legislature would have to allow the regulation, stop the
regulation, or review the regulation. He offered that he wanted
to find out what the options were.
CHAIR LYNN expressed his concern that this may be a never-ending
process.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed that he wanted to avoid that
consequence.
8:41:52 AM
MR. WRIGHT claimed that the sponsor's goal is not to turn every
committee into a regulation review committee but to rely on the
power of the chair to determine which regulations to bring
before the committee for review, for possible reversal or
suspension.
8:42:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG maintained that his suggestion -
requiring regulations be submitted to the legislature before
becoming effective - may be a legal mechanism to achieve the
desire goal.
8:43:23 AM
CHAIR LYNN ascertained no one wished to testify.
8:43:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated his belief that there is
considerable public interest in the proposed legislation. He
noted the lieutenant governor has no authority in context to
regulations but merely files them; and the legislature has the
right to challenge and annul regulations by statute unless doing
so violates a constitutional right.
MR. WRIGHT warned that the committee be concerned with
separation of power issues in regard to regulations and the
legislature.
8:45:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 29-
LS1104\A.1, Gardner, 2/3/16], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete the second occurrence of "and"
Page 1, line 2, following "Committee":
Insert "; relating to the duration, review, and
extension of regulations; and providing for an
effective date"
Page 9, following line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 22. AS 44.66 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Article 2. Duration, Review, and Extension of
Regulations.
Sec. 44.66.100. Submission of regulations.
According to the schedule established by AS 44.66.110,
a state agency shall submit to the legislature for
review and possible annulment or repeal by the
legislature the regulations that have been adopted by
the state agency, including regulations adopted by a
state agency located in the state agency or a
predecessor of the state agency, and that are still in
effect at the time of the submission.
Sec. 44.66.110. Schedule for submission of
regulations. A state agency shall submit regulations
under AS 44.66.100 according to the following
schedule:
(1) if the state agency adopted the
regulations on or after January 3, 1959, and before
January 1, 1999, the state agency shall submit the
regulations within the first 10 days after the
convening of the Thirty-First Alaska State
Legislature;
(2) if the state agency adopted the
regulations on or after January 1, 1999, and before
July 1, 2009, the state agency shall submit the
regulations within the first 10 days after the
convening of the Thirty-Second Alaska State
Legislature;
(3) if the state agency adopted the
regulations on or after July 1, 2009, the state agency
shall submit the regulations within the first 10 days
after the convening of the Thirty-Third Alaska State
Legislature.
Sec. 44.66.120. Duration of regulations. (a)
Unless the regulation provides for earlier
termination, a regulation adopted on or after
January 1, 2017, terminates five years after the date
of adoption.
(b) Unless the regulation provides for earlier
termination, a regulation adopted on or after
January 1, 2017, must contain a statement that the
regulation terminates five years after the date of its
adoption unless the legislature extends the regulation
under this section.
(c) The legislature may extend a regulation
scheduled for termination under (a) of this section by
law. Each extension may not exceed five years.
Sec. 44.66.190. Definitions. In AS 44.66.100 -
44.66.190,
(1) "adopted" means filed by the lieutenant
governor under AS 44.62.080(a);
(2) "regulation" has the meaning given in
AS 44.62.640, but does not include an order of repeal;
in this paragraph, "order of repeal" has the meaning
given in AS 44.62.640;
(3) "state agency" means a department,
institution, board, commission, division, authority,
public corporation, or other administrative unit of
the executive branch of state government."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 9, following line 22:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 25. Section 22 of this Act takes effect
January 1, 2017."
8:45:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for purpose of discussion.
[HB 229 was held over.]
HCR 15-UNIFORM RULES: REGULATION REVIEW
8:46:16 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 15 Proposing an amendment to the
Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature relating to the
jurisdiction of standing committees.
8:47:04 AM
TOM WRIGHT, Staff, Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HCR 15 on behalf of Representative
Chenault, prime sponsor. He testified that HCR 15 is offered in
conjunction with HB 229 and proposes a change in Uniform Rule 20
to allow standing committees of jurisdiction to include
oversight over regulations proposed or adopted to implement
agency or departmental programs and activities. He further
stated that this change in the legislature's Uniform Rules would
replace the function provided by the Administrative Regulation
Review Committee.
CHAIR LYNN asked Mr. Wright whether HCR 15 would need to be
moved out of committee along with HB 229 for both to work.
MR. WRIGHT replied in the affirmative.
8:48:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reminded the committee that because the
proposed resolution would amend the Uniform Rules, a two-thirds
vote of each house would be required.
MR. WRIGHT confirmed that was the case.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that it is not often that the
legislature has the opportunity to look at Rule 20 - a
fundamentally important uniform rule prescribing the
jurisdiction of each standing committee - and the proposed
legislation will give the legislature that opportunity. He went
on to ask Mr. Wright if he was aware of any changes that should
be made to Rule 20 on the jurisdiction of any committee.
MR. WRIGHT responded that he was not. He asserted that he and
the speaker use Uniform Rule 20 extensively to determine
committee assignments for proposed legislation coming through
their office.
[HCR 15 was held over.]
8:51:53 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:52 a.m. to 8:53 a.m.
HB 273-VEHICLES: TRANSFER ON DEATH TITLE
8:53:10 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the final order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 273, "An Act relating to the transfer of the title to a
vehicle, including certain manufactured homes and trailers, on
the death of the owner; and providing for an effective date."
8:53:20 AM
DENEEN TUCK, Staff, Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee, sponsor, on which Representative Lynn serves as
chair, announced that HB 273 was proposed by the House State
Affairs Standing Committee, and she deferred to Representative
Gruenberg for presentation.
8:53:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG thanked the chair and committee members
for their cooperation in haring the proposed legislation.
8:54:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that HB 273 is based on the
concept of "transfer on death" (TOD) in which people can plan
their estates avoiding the problems, delay, and expense of
probate. The proposed legislation follows other TOD provisions
in statutes in Alaska - TOD bank accounts, TOD brokerage
accounts, and TOD deeds for real estate. Representative
Gruenberg expressed that the TOD concept has been very
successful and HB 273 proposes to expand that concept to
vehicles. He professed that the only litigation in Alaska
concerning TOD of which he was aware was a case brought to his
attention by probate attorney Beth Chapman. He said he is
working on an amendment to address that issue and Ms. Chapman
will be available at the next meeting to testify.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG continued that 15 states have similar
legislation to HB 273 and four states have expanded the TOD
concept to watercraft. The proposed legislation was drafted
with the help of the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) using the
legislation from the 15 states. The proposed legislation does
not include watercraft or snow machines, as they are titled
differently, and aircraft are under federal jurisdiction.
9:00:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG went on to describe the process, which
he maintained is very simple. The vehicle registration
application would provide a place to designate a beneficiary.
Only human owners could designate beneficiaries; corporations
could not, because they do not die. The beneficiary designation
may be an individual, two people in a joint tenancy, or an
organization. He offered that the proposed legislation could be
applied to charitable giving. Representative Gruenberg
continued by stating that under HB 273, vehicle liens would
remain with the vehicle. The beneficiary could be changed by
reregistering the car. If the vehicle was sold, the beneficiary
designation would become invalidated. He said the beneficiary
may decline to accept the property.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 3, line 17, to discuss
one remaining issue: namely, the claims of unsecured creditors.
He explained that the draft version of the proposed legislation
was initially written so that a claim against the vehicle's
owner would not survive the transfer to the beneficiary upon the
owner's death. Responding to concerns of Representative Lynn
and his staff, the proposed legislation [Version P] now states
that upon transfer to the designated beneficiary, the TOD title
of the vehicle would be subject to "claims of creditors against
the owner or the owner's estate." Representative Gruenberg
further indicated that subsequent legal advice, illuminating the
potential for complicated and time-consuming probate, prompted
him to pursue drafting an amendment that would ensure the
language in the proposed legislation will be the same as
language in the transfer on death deed (TODD) bill - that is,
giving creditors a year to make a claim. He added that the
proposed amendment would be forthcoming.
9:06:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, citing the expense and time involved with
legislation, asked Representative Gruenberg to describe what HB
273 would provide beyond what is currently available by listing
a second owner for a vehicle.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG alluded to a statute in Title 28 to
discuss "joint tenancy with the right of survivorship" and
"tenancy in common" as they apply to vehicle ownership. He
defined joint tenancy with the right of survivorship as a co-
ownership in which ownership may pass only to the surviving
joint owner or owners in case of the death of a joint tenant.
Tenancy in common he described as shared ownership; however,
when a person dies, his/her interest in the vehicle is passed on
to whomever he/she has chosen. Representative Gruenberg made
the point that in either case, the tenants are current owners
with rights of ownership. He emphasized that TOD titles are
quite different. The owner maintains full ownership during his
or her lifetime, and transfer of the vehicle to the beneficiary
is an automatic pass through upon death of the owner.
9:10:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked for more information to understand
the need for this legislation in terms of public interest.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG declared that it is impossible to know
how many will take advantage of this, but he has been informed
that the concept of the TODD and the TOD brokerage accounts is
very popular. He further insisted that many people have
expressed an interest, he has heard no opposition, and it will
take time for awareness. In response to Representative Keller's
concern for the legislature's limited time, Representative
Gruenberg mentioned that the proposed legislation would only be
heard in the current committee and on the floor.
9:12:41 AM
AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association
(ATA), testified in support of HB 273. He stated that ATA is a
statewide organization representing the interests of nearly 200
member companies from Barrow to Ketchikan. He affirmed that ATA
believes that the proposed legislation would make the transfer
of a vehicle upon death much easier. He further asserted that
the process makes the intentions clear and would allow for the
transfer of the vehicle without probate. Mr. Thompson added
that although many of the ATA members are corporations, there
are a significant number of individuals in the organization who
could benefit from HB 273. He asked for committee support of
the proposed legislation.
9:13:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ requested clarification for why 120 days
was chosen for the length of time the beneficiary must survive
the owner before the title to the vehicle would be transferred.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that the length of time
chosen is as designated in probate code, and that the time
interval applies to all of the TOD statutes in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then made a correction - the specified
time in the proposed legislation is 120 hours, not days.
9:15:32 AM
NICOLE THAM, Driver Services Manager, Division of Motor Vehicles
(DMV), Department of Administration (DOA), stated that the
division had no objection to HB 273.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER mentioned that the fiscal note states that
the DMV will absorb the costs of implementing the requirements
of the proposed legislation. He asked Ms. Tham to describe
exactly what the DMV would be absorbing.
9:16:49 AM
MS. THAM responded that the DMV would incur about three weeks of
programming costs, which would be absorbed through the title fee
collected for the issuance of a TOD title. She also stated that
the DMV would need to update the title form, registration form,
and application form, but didn't know at this time the expense
related to these modifications. She asserted that the DMV would
be able to absorb this cost as well.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 4, lines 20-
22, to explain that the authority would be given to the DMV to
set any additional fees necessary to implement HB 273.
MS. THAM confirmed Representative Gruenberg's statement.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to a letter in the committee
packet from the Alaska Automotive Dealers Association (AADA) in
support of the proposed legislation.
9:19:36 AM
BOB MAIER, Executive Director, Alaska Manufactured Housing
Association (AMHA), testified in support of HB 273. He
explained that AMHA is a statewide organization of manufactured
home community owners and managers.
CHAIR LYNN asked if manufactured homes includes trailers.
MR. MAIER stated that trailers are included as manufactured
homes. Mr. Maier added that he had one concern, which was with
the phrase "certain manufactured homes", and he offered his
understanding that there was an amendment forthcoming for
clarification.
9:21:28 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 273 was held over.
9:22:03 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:22
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB0273P.PDF |
HSTA 2/4/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 273 |
| 02 HB273 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 2/4/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 273 |
| 03 HB273 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 2/4/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 273 |
| 04 HB 273 Fiscal Note DOA-Motor Vehicles 2-1-2016.pdf |
HSTA 2/4/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 273 |
| 01 HB0229A.PDF |
HSTA 2/4/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 229 |
| 02 HB229 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 2/4/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 229 |
| 03 HB229 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 2/4/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 229 |
| 04 HB229 Leg Research-Meetings.pdf |
HSTA 2/4/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 229 |
| 05 HB229 State v ALIVE Voluntary summary and headnotes.pdf |
HSTA 2/4/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 229 |
| 06 HB229 Statutes.pdf |
HSTA 2/4/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 229 |
| 07 HB229-LEG-COU-01-29-16.pdf |
HSTA 2/4/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 229 |
| 08 HB229 - Fiscal Note - DOL Civil 2-1-2016.pdf |
HSTA 2/4/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 229 |
| 01 HCR15A.PDF |
HSTA 2/4/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HCR 15 |
| 02 HCR15 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 2/4/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HCR 15 |
| 03 HCR15 Uniform Rule 20.pdf |
HSTA 2/4/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HCR 15 |
| 04 HCR15-LEG-COU-02-01-16.pdf |
HSTA 2/4/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HCR 15 |