Legislature(1999 - 2000)
01/26/1999 01:15 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
January 26, 1999
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative John Cowdery
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Allen Kemplen
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 8
"An Act naming the pedestrian underpass at Montana Creek on the
Parks Highway as Shelby's Way."
- TABLED
* HOUSE BILL NO. 7
"An Act relating to motor vehicle registration plates."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 8
SHORT TITLE: NAMING SHELBY'S WAY PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOHRING, Masek
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 19 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99
1/19/99 19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 19 (H) TRANSPORTATION
1/26/99 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 7
SHORT TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION PLATES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOHRING
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 19 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99
1/19/99 19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 19 (H) TRANSPORTATION, STATE AFFAIRS,
FINANCE
1/26/99 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
RANDY LORENZ, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Vic Kohring
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2186
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 7.
JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110200
Juneau, AK 99811-0200
Telephone: (907) 465-5648
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 7.
RON G. KING, Section Chief
Air Quality Improvement
Division of Air & Water Quality
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105
Juneau, AK 99801-1795
Telephone: (907) 465-5100
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition of HB 7.
LURA MORGAN, Division Manager
Environmental Services
Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services
P. O. Box 196650
Anchorage, AK 99519-6650
Telephone: (907) 343-4467
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 7.
DAVID HUDSON, First Sergeant
Division of Alaska State Troopers
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, AK 99507-1225
Telephone: (907) 269-5641
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 7.
TIM ROGERS, Legislative Program Coordinator
Municipality of Anchorage
P. O. Box 196650
Anchorage, AK 99519
Telephone: (907) 343-4467
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 7.
MARSHA CAREY, Controller
Anchorage Chrysler Dodge
2601 East Fifth Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-1331
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 7.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-1, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BEVERLY MASEK called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:15 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Masek, Hudson, Cowdery and
Sanders. Representatives Halcro, Kemplen and Kookesh joined the
meeting at 1:17 p.m.
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
CHAIR MASEK reviewed meeting guidelines as outlined in her
memorandum of 01-26-98. It was emphasized that each committee
member sign the recommendation sheet when a bill is voted to move
out of committee. Each member expressed their feelings regarding
their involvement on this committee and a brief synopsis of their
goals for the upcoming 2 years.
HB 8 - NAMING SHELBY'S WAY PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS
Number 0902
CHAIR MASEK brought House Bill No. 8 before the committee for the
first time, "An Act naming the pedestrian underpass at Montana
Creek on the Parks Highway as Shelby's Way."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that there is an ongoing, non-resolved
lawsuit with the State of Alaska involved in this bill. It was his
recommendation that HB 8 be tabled for now until there is some
indication by the Department of Law that further action would not
adversely affect the state's position in that lawsuit.
Number 0946
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to table HB 8 to the action of
the Chair.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO seconded the motion.
CHAIR MASEK noted no objection, and HB 8 was tabled to the call of
the Chair.
HB 7 - MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION PLATES
Number 1008
CHAIR MASEK introduced House Bill No. 7 to the committee for the
first time, "An Act relating to motor vehicle registration plates."
Number 1040
RANDY LORENZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Vic Kohring,
Alaska State Legislature, read the following sponsor statement into
the record:
Problem: With the passage of biennial motor vehicle
registration fee, many individuals have found themselves
paying fees twice, and I have talked to individuals who have
done so as much as three and four times, for the same service.
This occurs when an individual's vehicle becomes disabled
either by an accident or mechanical failure and the individual
is required to obtain a replacement vehicle, or they sell or
trade-in a vehicle. That individual must register the new
vehicle. That individual not only must buy new tags, but is
out the expense of the old unexpired tags as well.
Solution: By the owner retaining position of the plates,
he/she would only have to transfer the plates to the new
vehicle and pay any difference in the tax.
House Bill 7 allows for the plates to remain with the owner
affording the owner the ability to transfer the plates to
another vehicle by paying a small transfer fee and any
difference in tax as a result of the increased value of the
new vehicle.
House Bill 7 also brings regular plates in line with the way
vanity plates, disabled plates, and other special plates are
presently handled. The owner of the specialty plates retains
those plates, or at least has the opportunity to retain those
plates if they desire.
Added Value: Presently, an individual convicted of a DWI
offense can purchase a vehicle that has recent tags, not
register that vehicle, and still be able to drive on the
streets until such time as they happen to be caught by law
enforcement and found in violation. By the previous owner
retaining those plates, the individual would be driving the
vehicle with no plates, would stand out, and would easily be
picked up by law enforcement. House Bill 7 would prevent the
plates from being transferred with the vehicle.
Number 1166
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked how HB 7 would affect cab companies
and car rental companies.
MR. LORENZ stated that most car rental companies have plates
specifically designated and are already retaining them to use when
they change out stock. Cab companies would have to pay a transfer
fee and any increased difference in the cost of the vehicle. It
was his opinion that this bill would increase the offense for not
transferring vehicles in a timely manner and would actually afford
better control.
Number 1223
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY inquired as to how banks or lending
institutions would be affected, in terms of identification of
vehicles, when they have to repossess.
MR. LORENZ replied that the lending company would have the vehicle
identification number (VIN) available to them when the vehicle is
sold. He added that most private parties usually sell a vehicle
that is either broken or damaged, so they would already have plates
that could be transferred when the loan papers are signed.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY added that, despite the best intentions,
problems might arise after the papers are signed. Even though the
VIN number can be seen through the windshield, he expressed concern
that this would make it more difficult to repossess cars in
default.
MR. LORENZ acknowledged that this might be something to look into
further.
Number 1307
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON questioned the fiscal implications of HB 7.
It was his impression, according to the fiscal note, that this
would result in either a loss of revenue or an increased cost.
MR. LORENZ replied that Representative Kohring had looked over the
fiscal note, and that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) would
have to be queried as to who would be paying for these changes. He
added, "I really feel that the amount of money put on that fiscal
note is something that they are already forced to spend, and they
are trying to get the money out of it by using this bill."
MR. LORENZ referred to the $3.6 million figure, and felt this bill
only dealt with taking away the excess tax burden as a result of
buying a new vehicle or losing a vehicle and having to get another
vehicle. He further stated, "If the state is getting $3.6 million
dollars by overtaxing Alaskan citizens, I strongly urge it; but I
really think that if we look into it, we will find that there is a
lot more thrown in there. It is probably dealing with vehicles that
are leaving the state, vehicles that are breaking down, as well as
the cost of a lot of vehicles already out there taken into account
that would not come under this bill".
MR. LORENZ felt that the fiscal note is severely subject: that the
total operating cost should be "zeroed out," the loss of revenue
drastically brought down, and the cost investigated.
Number 1408
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON recognized that Southeast Alaska does not
have a vehicle emissions program like the rest of the state, and
questioned whether or not taking the tag when selling the vehicle
would have any bearing on that program.
MR. LORENZ responded that HB 7, in its present state, does give the
DMV the authority to have the "final say-so" with regard to
transferring plates. He added that the new owner could be
required to show proof that the vehicle meets standards of
emissions in the areas that have such controls.
MR. LORENZ also referred to an amendment, 1-LS0054\A.2, Ford,
01/25/99, which read:
Page 3, line 13, following "fees.":
Insert: If the registration plate or plates issued under this
subsection are transferred to a vehicle that will be operated
in an area subject to an emission control program established
under AS 46.14.400 or 46.14.510, the owner shall provide proof
satisfactory to the department that the vehicle meets emission
control requirements.
Number 1503
MR. LORENZ added that over 30 states presently use tags affixed to
each vehicle, separate from the plates, that show when the emission
is due. It is his feeling that the State of Alaska should
seriously consider using this system.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON related that he experienced this situation
when trading his vehicle from Juneau at an Anchorage location, and
expressed concern that care be taken with respect to this issue.
Number 1541
MR. LORENZ advised that he had spoken with the Department of Law.
He stated it was their feeling that, between this amendment and the
way the bill was already structured, there would be absolutely no
way a person could circumvent the emission control requirements of
an area.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO declared a potential conflict, due to the
fact that his company has over 1400 cars registered and titled in
the State of Alaska in any given year.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON objected to this conflict for the record, and
stated that the committee members would each have to vote.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked how it would come about that some
citizens would have to register vehicles three to four times in one
year.
MR. LORENZ cited a case involving one of Representative Kohring's
constituents. The woman had just renewed the tags for her vehicle
in the amount of a little over $200. Less than one month after
this, the vehicle developed transmission problems. The cost of
replacing the transmission was more than what the vehicle was
worth, so this individual purchased a second vehicle. The tags and
tax for the second vehicle came to over $400. The woman's daughter
was driving the car, got into an accident, and "totaled" the
vehicle. The insurance company covered the cost of the vehicle by
providing her with a new one, but she was then required to pay
another $400. This individual paid over $1000 in tags and taxes
within a six week period.
MR. LORENZ felt that this is very much a tax burden on the people
of Alaska. He added that, at least in the Mat-Su area and in a
good portion of Alaska, many of the jobs are not high paying, and
many citizens are single parents. It is his belief that HB 7 would
alleviate situations such as the above example.
Number 1711
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked whether it was really necessary to
create wholesale changes to the way the Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) plates vehicles in the State of Alaska. Instead, he
mentioned the possibility of instituting a system of credit to
accommodate such rare situations.
MR. LORENZ disagreed. He stated, "We are developing another
bureaucracy. We are going to have to develop somebody now to trace
that. Many states have now gone to the plates belonging to the
owner, and they have found it very cost effective. Presently, we
are already doing that with, I would say, probably very close to
25% of our plates. We have an awful lot of vanity plates out
there. I myself have veteran plates on my vehicle, which retain
with me and do not transfer with the car. We are already in place
doing it. It is just a matter of bringing the other plates in
alignment".
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO argued that, according to the Administration,
less than 5% of all vehicles registered in the state are vanity
plates. He asked how Mr. Lorenz achieved his figure of 20-25%
being vanity plates.
MR. LORENZ replied that he was just estimating and did not have
actual figures; however, the system is already in place and
running. Therefore, it is his belief that this would not be that
much of a change.
Number 1798
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO informed the committee that the average cost
of a new vehicle is about $21,000. He asked Mr. Lorenz if he was
advocating "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." He wondered
whether an individual who could spend $21,000 on a car would
experience a financial hardship from $200 for registration.
MR. LORENZ agreed that it would not be a financial hardship for
"the rich," but asserted it be would for most of the constituents
of Alaska who cannot afford a $21,000 car. He added that many of
the people he was referring to are "lucky to be able to afford a
$500 car." He stated that, as a result of their "economic strap,"
these cars usually does not last more than about a two-year period,
and that would be an added tax burden on a low-income family.
Number 1843
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO remarked that he had many concerns regarding
this bill. For instance, he stated, "My company, in a given year,
sells 600 cars. Some of those cars are put on a barge and sent to
Seattle. The license plate is basically the car's birthmark. That
is how we log it in. That is how we make sure that is where the car
is going, and it is pretty much how we tie our inventory".
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO, in addition, expressed concern from a public
safety standpoint. He explained that when a state trooper or local
police officer pulls over a car, the officer uses the plate number,
not the VIN, to identify the vehicle. If the car is stolen, the
license plate reflects that. He related concern that allowing
people to keep plates and put them on any other car, in view of the
viability of getting individuals to actually go down and
re-register, raises some serious safety issues.
Number 1900
MR. LORENZ referred to the number of states that have already gone
to this system and do not have a problem with it. He asserted,
"We are not talking about that many vehicles. We are only talking
about those people that are going to be --- we are referring to,
basically, from private party to private party. Most private
parties are buying other vehicles because theirs already broke
down, and they already have plates in possession that they can put
on that vehicle. So, that is not a real concern."
MR. LORENZ added that it is also a current requirement under state
law that a bill of sale be attached to those vehicles that do not
have plates on the car. The bill of sale would show when the
transfer took place; therefore, it is Mr. Lorenz' opinion that it
would not be a problem. He further added that it is currently not
a problem with new cars that do not yet have plates.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO responded that new cars do not have plates
because they have temporary tags. These temporary tags are
registered with the DMV, and when the plates come in, they are put
on by the dealer.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked whether Mr. Lorenz was aware of federal
funds that are tied to the municipality being able to manage their
clean air quality, and reiterated the importance of the emission
control program. He expressed concern that the $500 to $1000
category of cars mentioned would be much older, and these should be
a main target of emission control programs to ensure they are up to
standard in not polluting the air.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO specified that he felt the intent of this
bill is very commendable; however, it is his belief that the end
result would create a lot of hardship. He detailed some of these
issues: public safety, DMV costs associated in reprogramming
computers, federal funds for emission controls if programs slip,
and motor vehicle taxes taken in the amount of $3.7 million.
Number 2016
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH stated he was really uncomfortable with this
bill, and that patterning an entire bill after a problem occurring
with one individual was very unfair to the people of Alaska. He
believes core issues should be addressed without creating more
bureaucracy. He requested more specific information: for example,
historical background on how this program is working in other
states. He added, "We are looking at the wrong end of the horse."
Number 2082
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY related his understanding that plates in
Alaska can be purchased for more than one year at a time, and that
some trailers that require plates could be purchased for up to five
years. He referred to those individuals would could not afford
registration or even insurance, and stated that often this is not
discovered until after a tragedy occurs.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY gave his daughter as an example. She has a
4-wheel drive vehicle for winter use and a 2-wheel drive vehicle
for use in the summer. He questioned whether she could just switch
plates between the two vehicles.
Number 2140
MR. LORENZ said no. He further explained that any vehicle retained,
even if not driven, would have to have a plate. He mentioned
another category of individuals: those who purchase a vehicle but
do not bother to register them until the renewal time is up on the
plates. In that case, the vehicle would be driven by the person
who bought it, but not the registered owner of the vehicle.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY related seeing plates in rural Alaska dated
1984, and that was more than 10 years after that date. He
acknowledged that enforcement of some of these issues was a
problem.
Number 2193
CHAIR MASEK invited Mr. Lorenz to return to the committee with
specific information, such as the percentage of people in the state
this bill would impact.
Number 2229
JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator, Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration, came forward to testify on behalf of
the DMV. She read the following into the record:
House Bill 7 kind of gives DMV a lot of heartache and a lot of
pain, because we feel that we've got a really good system
right now, and this basically turns the apple cart totally
upside down. Alaska has traditionally allowed plates to
remain with the vehicle when it is sold. There are 16 states
that currently use this method. In 30 states, the plates
remain with the owner and may be transferred to a new vehicle.
Not all of these states allow the unused portion of the
registration, however, to be used on the new vehicle. The
remaining four states use a combination of two methods. Both
of these systems have advantages and disadvantages.
The states we have talked to that currently have the system we
have that have switched over to going to the person as opposed
to the vehicle state that they would never switch again. I
mean, it was one of those things that it was a nightmare for
them to switch from the vehicle to the person, and they would
not switch. They recommend that, if you currently have that
system, to stay with the system of plate-to-vehicle as opposed
to plate-to-person.
Alaska has allowed certain plates, such as personalized
plates, to be transferred from one vehicle to another, but the
registration fees are not transferred with the plate. The
registration fees are paid for a particular vehicle, and they
remain with that vehicle. The number of vehicles with
registration plates that can be transferred represent less
than 5% of the total vehicles registered. So the personalized
plates are less than 5% of the total registered vehicles in
the state, not 25%.
No one is actually paying twice. Instead, they are paying a
registration fee for each vehicle that they are operating on
the roadways. The argument could be made that a person paid
for 24 months of registration but did not get to use the
vehicle or was in an accident or mechanical failure. In
response to this, the registration fees have always been for
either a one or two year period, and the full fees have been
due regardless of how much or how little the vehicle is being
used. A person who uses a vehicle one day pays the same as a
person who uses a vehicle 365 days. A person who drives 10
miles to work pays the same as a person who drives 100 miles
a day to work.
Although registration fees are not dedicated funds, it can be
argued that public services that normally could be associated
with these fees, such as our road system, emergency services,
state troopers, Alaska Court System, DMV offices, etc., are
available year round for these services and do not go away
when one person does not use their vehicles.
Secondly, if DMV were to allow plates and fees to be
transferred from one vehicle to another, major changes would
have to be made to the vehicle registration computer system.
Currently, the law says that the registration period remains
the same, regardless of the ownership changes. Under this
proposed concept, the registration plates would be identified
with the owner, rather than the vehicle. Changes would have
to be made to properly account for the fees and to transfer
them to the new vehicles and expire the registration period
for the previous vehicles. Since the DMV registration system
also serves as an accounting system that links particular fees
to a particular vehicle, this would mean major changes. That
is why you see the $968,000 operational cost for computer
programming changes.
Lastly, the bill would make it difficult to enforce programs,
such as the emission inspection program, that are enforced
through the registration process. This would have a
detrimental effect on air quality and may jeopardize federal
funds for failing to meet the federal air quality standards.
Out of the concept of the bill that is proposed, and I am not
talking about the bill that is in front of you, it would be
possible to transfer a plate from a currently registered
vehicle to one that does not meet the emissions standards. By
doing this repeatedly, the vehicle would evade inspections for
several years. I believe that the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) is here as well and will be addressing
those clean air problems.
To kind of, also, say something about Representative Cowdery
saying that he was in rural Alaska and saw several vehicles
that had 1984 registration plates on them --- vehicles that
are in rural Alaska, extreme rural villages, that have fewer
than 499 average daily traffic going up and down the road are
exempt registration. So, they don't have to register the
vehicles. If you are out in McGrath, you don't have to
register a car out in McGrath; they are exempt from that.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if these rural areas were exempt from
insurance as well.
MS. HENSLEY said yes. She added that Charles Hosack, Deputy
Director for the DMV, was standing on-line from Anchorage and could
answer a lot of the fiscal questions. She also volunteered to
answer as many questions as possible, and to refer those she could
not answer to Mr. Hosack.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH requested a copy of the verbal testimony
just given after it was "cleaned up."
CHAIR MASEK echoed his request for a copy for each committee
member, and Ms. Hensley agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked when the state went to a two-year
licensing and registration program.
MS. HENSLEY replied that this program went into effect in 1997.
TAPE 99-2, SIDE A
Number 0037
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY inquired as to the difference in cost of
registering a $22,000 vehicle versus a $2,000 vehicle.
MS. HENSLEY explained that the cost is $68 per two-year period for
a passenger car and $78 per two-year period for a pick-up truck.
She added that this registration fee applies regardless of the cost
of the vehicle; however, this does not include local municipal
taxes. The DMV collects those taxes and remits them to the
municipalities. "Mat-Su borough, Kenai borough, Ketchikan, Bethel
all charge different tax tables than what Anchorage or some of the
other communities charge", she indicated.
Number 0132
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO reopened the issue of older vehicles. He
questioned whether, in most municipalities, local taxes were lower
the older the vehicle.
MS. HENSLEY specified that a brand new passenger vehicle in
Anchorage would have property taxes of $121 per year, and a vehicle
eight years old or older would have taxes of $16 per year. The
exception to the rule, however, is Mat-Su borough. In that
municipality, the opposite applies; the newer vehicle carries a
less expensive tax. She explained that the removal of abandoned
vehicles in that borough is much more expensive; consequently, they
have placed a higher tax table on older vehicles.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO pointed out that this was a local tax issue,
and not a statewide DMV issue.
MS. HENSLEY agreed, and added that the only thing the DMV does is
enforce collection of taxes for the municipalities.
Number 0258
CHAIR MASEK questioned whether or not a bill was passed "a couple
of years ago" that gave boroughs and municipalities control to
raise or lower those taxes.
MS. HENSLEY confirmed this, and explained that the municipalities
are given the option to use the tax table as set in statute or set
their own tax base. They are required to notify the DMV one year
in advance so they can collect those taxes for them. Some examples
of this include Mat-Su, Kenai and Ketchikan. She emphasized,
however, that this would have nothing to do with the actual cost of
registration, and is strictly a municipal tax program. The DMV
does not get involved when a vehicle has been destroyed and a
person requests a refund of their taxes; that would be between the
individual and the municipalities.
CHAIR MASEK addressed the issue of an individual selling a vehicle
and the buyer not changing the registration right away. If the DMV
is notified by the seller that they no longer own that car, she
questioned, would it not show up on record that the seller no
longer owns the vehicle?
MS. HENSLEY affirmed that the record would show the vehicle was
sold if the seller mailed the assignment of interest, on the bottom
part of the title, to the DMV. It is a state law, she added, that
the new owner register under their name; however, the DMV cannot
enforce this. She wondered how the new owner could legally drive
the car if, under HB 7, the tags were removed from the car and kept
with the seller. They would not legally be able to drive to the
DMV to purchase their new plates.
Number 0510
RON G. KING, Section Chief, Air Quality Improvement, Division of
Air & Water Quality, Department of Environmental Conservation, came
forward to testify on behalf of the Department of Environmental
Conservation. He explained that one of the programs he is
responsible for is the vehicle inspection program, and added that
this program is operated in Anchorage and Fairbanks by local
communities. The program's principal means of enforcement right
now is vehicle registration. Under federal law, the program is to
be equal to, in stringency, the vehicle registration process. He
reported that some states do use "vehicle stickers" placed on the
windows; however, in most cases it is a vehicle sticker in addition
to vehicle registration.
MR. KING informed the committee that his department will provide
their fiscal note on HB 7 in the near future. He added that
changing from a registration-based to a plate-based program for the
DMV would have significant impacts on vehicle inspection programs,
including decreased compliance rates. For example, he cited Willow
and Houston, and explained that their registration grew
approximately 400% at the start of the inspection and maintenance
program (I/M). In moving the plate from one vehicle to another,
the DEC would have no way of tracking the vehicle to take
enforcement actions; therefore, they are opposed to HB 7 as it
stands at this time.
Number 0674
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO acknowledged the effort that has been made in
trying to meet clean air standards. He questioned whether or not
HB 7 would negatively affect "quality of life".
MR. KING said yes. He agreed that vehicle inspection programs and
the citizens of Anchorage, Fairbanks and the Mat-Su Valley have
made tremendous efforts. Specifically, he explained, air quality
violations have gone from as many as 130 a year in Fairbanks in the
first part of 1980 to four or five today. Anchorage had only one
violation in the month of January, and last year "made two years".
MR. KING reiterated that, under HB 7, compliance will suffer, and
this will mean more cars operating on the road with higher
emissions. This will result in potentially continued violation of
the standards.
CHAIR MASEK again requested the fiscal note from the DEC, and
thanked Mr. King for testifying.
Number 0827
LURA MORGAN, Division Manager, Environmental Services, Anchorage
Department of Health and Human Services, provided the following
testimony via teleconference on behalf of their department:
As you may know, the EPA recently reclassified Anchorage as a
serious non-attainment area for carbon monoxide air pollution.
There are currently only 7 cities, including Anchorage and
Fairbanks, in the United States that are designated as serious
non-attainment areas for CO. Over 80% of the carbon monoxide
pollution in Anchorage is produced by cars and trucks. The
vehicle inspection and maintenance program is a key element of
our carbon monoxide pollution control program. As was already
stated, we have made great strides toward reaching compliance
with federal air pollution standards, and the Anchorage I/M
program has been a big part of these air quality improvements.
Over the last 15 years, carbon monoxide pollution levels have
been cut in half in Anchorage, and we are very close, as was
mentioned earlier, to achieving our goal of meeting federal
air quality standards.
We are concerned that HB 7 will have a negative impact on our
I/M program and on our air quality. The vast majority of
citizens in Anchorage comply with the requirements to have air
pollution emissions from their cars and trucks tested every
two years. There is, however, a minority of vehicle owners
that evade the law. Some vehicle owners who fail an I/M test
may choose to not re-register their vehicle and take their
chances. From an air quality standpoint, it is particularly
important that we identify these I/M evaders, because vehicles
that fail the I/M test can emit up to 100 times more carbon
monoxide than vehicles that meet I/M emission standards. For
this reason, a significant part of the I/M program is
identifying these I/M evaders and bringing them into
compliance with emission standards.
Identifying I/M evaders is already difficult. HB 7 could make
this task even more so. Two of our best tools for identifying
evaders are on-street enforcement by the Anchorage Police
Department and the DMV registration file. If HB 7 becomes
law, license plate information will no longer be coupled with
the vehicle. It will become much more difficult to determine
whether the I/M test is current or not or whether the
registration for the vehicle was moved outside the I/M area.
If HB 7 becomes law, license plate switching from vehicle to
vehicle will be the practice. Although HB 7 requires the
vehicle owners to get the approval of DMV before switching
plates, there will almost certainly be an increase in illegal
or inadvertent switching that will take place without DMV
approval. If a vehicle fails an I/M test, for example, the
owner could use plates from another registered vehicle and
avoid the I/M testing requirement until the registration on
that vehicle expires. This would allow the vehicle owner to
illegally drive a potentially heavy polluting vehicle for many
months with little possibility of detection.
In short, we are concerned about the impact that HB 7 could
have on the effectiveness of the I/M program and on air
quality in Anchorage. We ask that you consider these impacts
when considering the bill. Thank you for listening to these
concerns.
Number 1030
DAVID HUDSON, First Sergeant, Division of Alaska State Troopers,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He expressed concern
that HB 7 would allow the potential for driving a motor vehicle on
the highway without any license plate at all for 30 days.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON concurred that this was a concern of his as
well. He acknowledged that much of the state trooper's work is
tied to being able to trace a license plate to an accident or
crime. He asked for clarification that this was also a concern for
the Division of Alaska State Troopers.
SERGEANT HUDSON confirmed that this was their concern; it would be
much more difficult identifying a vehicle without a license plate.
Number 1137
TIM ROGERS, Legislative Program Coordinator, Municipality of
Anchorage, provided testimony via teleconference. "Our number one
concern is the air quality issue," he explained. "We believe that
needs to be resolved before this bill moves forward." He outlined
two more concerns: the public safety issue enumerated by Sergeant
Hudson, and a potential loss of between $200,000 and $400,000 per
year in tax revenue for the municipality of Anchorage. He
requested that all three of these issues be resolved before this
bill moves out of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked whether the $200,000 to $400,000
deficit in tax revenue would be passed on to the property owners in
Anchorage by way of increased property taxes.
MR. ROGERS said yes.
CHAIR MASEK requested a copy of Mr. Rogers written testimony if
available.
Number 1256
MARSHA CAREY, Controller, Anchorage Chrysler Dodge, provided
testimony in support of HB 7. In December of 1997, she related,
she was part of a 6-member reengineering team consisting of DMV
employees and others. After 3 days of debating this issue, the
team covered every item previously mentioned. She provided the
following written testimony:
I am writing you in favor of HB 7. Allowing the public to
take possession of their vehicle plates will be beneficial to
the consumer and to the DMV in the long run. I do realize the
cost we are currently facing to implement this legislation,
but please caution yourselves against any costs that are
currently implied regardless of any changes to the current
procedures. For example, DMV is currently in need of a new
computer system; therefore, any cost associated with
programming or purchasing new equipment should not be an
issue. Are you aware DMV cannot cross-reference searching a
person to registered owner on "ALVIN" (current computer)? This
type of hardware or software is obviously limited and
outdated. I have also been informed the current system is not
Y2K compatible.
Please consider the following information as support for this
bill.
License plate belongs to person, not vehicle:
Cost of transferring plate to new or used vehicle:
* Title fee $5
* Lien fee $5
* Plate transfer fee $5
New owner required to switch title in a timely manner to
obtain new plate or validate their prepaid plate. Benefits:
* No plate on vehicle is motivation to transfer title.
* Insurance binder required at time of transfer to insure
coverage. Currently, insurance validation is very weak.
We need to become more stringent on proof of insurance.
(No proof....no registration).
* Fraudulent plate use made to be more serious offense.
Ten day title transfer requirement currently carries no
meaningful penalty.
* Enforce meaningful fine for non-compliance. Currently,
non-transfer of title occurs frequently because people
try to avoid responsibility of ownership due to risk
associated with driving without insurance, parking fines
and law enforcement evasion.
* Assignment of interest becomes valid temporary for 5
days.
Another issue at hand is collection of Motor Vehicle
Registration Tax (MVRT). Return the collection of these taxes
to the cities and boroughs. Perhaps attach this tax to the
personal property tax or to the Permanent Fund program. (Note
PFD records have the most current addresses of Alaskans).
This will help DMV clean up their name file.
Emissions programs are currently trying to change the
certificate system to window sticker identification. Place
the responsibility of emissions enforcement back to the city
that requires the standard.
A DMV Reengineering Team I served on, along with DMV employees
and other outside sources, presented these suggestions. We
spent 3 days in December of 1997 reviewing and discussing
several different issues. The information that is provided in
this letter reflects the ideas that were generated by this
group.
Number 1632
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO reiterated that one of the driving forces
behind this bill is the hardship it causes when people buy a $1000
to $2000 vehicle and it causes them a disproportionate amount to
re-register. He asked Ms. Carey how many cars on the Anchorage
Chrysler lot were valued at $2000 or less.
MS. CAREY stated that, unfortunately, there were none at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO addressed the issue of law enforcement
checking a license plate for background as opposed to getting out
of the car and checking the VIN. He added, "More importantly, my
concern is, I take delivery of cars from Fairbanks to Petersburg,
and if I'm responsible for the plates, that means that the next
year I have to ship the same amount of cars into each individual
location to use those plates. I think it creates a tremendous
hardship, not only for myself, but....."
MS. CAREY questioned why that would be the case.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO explained that when cars are sold, whether
they are wholesale, retail or program cars, he would have extra
plates leftover.
MS. CAREY disagreed, stating that a plate transfer could occur for
a $5.00 fee.
Number 1779
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON requested that the sponsor of HB 7
specifically address what the potential savings would be to the
people at large. He wondered how many transfers or sales would
accrue a cumulative economic benefit to people versus the cost to
the DMV and loss of revenue. He added that the loss of revenue
issue is important, and that $3.5 million dollars lost in the
income stream would have to be made up somewhere, either by
increased cost of registration overall or something of that nature.
These two figures need to be presented to the committee, he
stressed, before a policy decision can be made.
Number 1886
MR. LORENZ assured the committee that these issues would be
researched and the committee informed of the findings.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO encouraged delving deeper than the
Administration's fiscal note by addressing loss to municipalities
throughout the state, shifting the tax burden, and possible loss of
federal clean air funds.
CHAIR MASEK indicated the bill would be held over.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR MASEK adjourned the House Transportation Standing Committee
meeting at 2:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|