02/18/1998 01:02 PM House TRA

Audio	Topic

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled

Schedule
Detailed Minutes
Documents
Doc

txt

HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE February 18, 1998 1:02 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative William K. (Bill) Williams, Chairman Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair Representative John Cowdery Representative Bill Hudson Representative Jerry Sanders Representative Kim Elton Representative Albert Kookesh MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR * HOUSE BILL NO. 361 "An Act relating to private maintenance of state highways." - MOVED CSHB 361(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE * HOUSE BILL NO. 358 "An Act relating to impoundment or forfeiture of a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD * HOUSE BILL NO. 290 "An Act relating to motor vehicle license plates for ranchers, farmers, and dairymen." - HEARD AND HELD (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 361 SHORT TITLE: PRIVATE MAINTENANCE OF STATE HIGHWAY SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) MASEK Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 01/28/98 2153 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)

01/28/98 2153 (H) TRANSPORTATION 02/18/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 358 SHORT TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLE IMPOUNDMENT AND FORFEITURE SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KELLY Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action

01/28/98 2153 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)

01/28/98 2153 (H) TRANSPORTATION 02/18/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 290 SHORT TITLE: LICENSE PLATES: RANCHES, FARMS, AND DAIRY SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) GREEN BY REQUEST Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action

01/12/98 2020 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/98

01/12/98 2020 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)

01/12/98 2020 (H) TRANSPORTATION 02/18/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17 WITNESS REGISTER DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison Office of the Commissioner Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 3132 Channel Drive Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3904 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 361. EDDIE GRASSER, Legislative Assistant to Representative Masek Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 432 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2679 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative Masek, sponsor of HB 361. REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 411 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-6598 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 358. TED BACHMAN, Captain Commander of Operations Division of Alaska State Troopers Director's Office Department of Public Safety 5700 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Telephone: 269-5650 POSITION STATEMENT Testified in support of an amendment to HB 358. BRUCE CAMPBELL, Legislative Assistant to Representative Kelly Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 411 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-6598 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 358 on behalf of Representative Kelly. CLIFF GROH, Assistant Attorney Municipality of Anchorage P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519 Telephone: (907) 343-4233 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 358. ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division Department of Law 310 K Street, Suite 308 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 465-3428 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 358. PATRICIA MACK, Volunteer Mothers Against Drunk Driving 412 Baranof Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Telephone: (907) 452-4924 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 358. SALLY ECKLUND Mothers Against Drunk Driving 1325 Kalakaket Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Telephone: (907) 479-4807 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 358. DAVID HUFFAKER 1132 Gilmore Trail Fairbanks, Alaska 99712 Telephone: (907) 457-4833 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 358. AL NEAR P.O. Box 80847 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 474-4090 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 358. JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Green Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 118 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-6841 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative Green, sponsor of HB 290. MIKE MOSESIAN, Mosesian Farms 13700 Specking Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99515 Telephone: (907) 345-4476 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 290. JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Administration P.O. Box 20020 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Telephone: (907) 465-4361 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 290. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-5, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN WILLIAM K. (BILL) WILLIAMS called the House Transportation Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Williams, Masek, Cowdery, Hudson, and Sanders. Representatives Elton and Kookesh arrived at 1:06 and 1:07 respectively. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS called the committee at ease at 1:03 p.m. He called the committee back to order at 1:05 p.m. HB 361 - PRIVATE MAINTENANCE OF STATE HIGHWAY Number 0076 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the first order of business is HB 361, "An Act relating to private maintenance of state highways," sponsored by Representative Masek. Number 0092 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK said HB 361 was introduced to resolve the conflict over private maintenance of the state-owned highway. Currently it is difficult at best for the Department of Transportation [and Public Facilities, DOT/PF] to deal with private parties that undertake the maintenance of a state highway where the state has declined to maintain it during the winter months. She indicated it was not her intention to keep private parties from maintaining state highways. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated, "It's merely my purpose to make sure the proper tools are in place so that maintenance conforms to standards necessary to protect other segments of the public. HB 361 will do that by giving the DOT/PF clear statutory authority to regulate such activity." Number 0203 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY asked if someone from the state or people from the right-of-way were present. Number 0230 DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities came before the committee. He said, "The department is supportive of this piece of legislation [HB 361], the only one thing that we thought the committee may want to consider, and we've talked to Representative Masek's staff about it, was possibly adding some provision that provides that the person wishing to maintain a state highway needs to get department approval prior to undertaking that. "Upon approval" in writing from the department or something like that, they may undertake it. That was really the only concern, I think it was just so that we could that way know where roads are being maintained by private individuals and we can sort of monitor that and take away approval if necessary. If the roads are being maintained in a dangerous manner perhaps, or something of that nature." REPRESENTATIVE MASEK indicated she did not have a problem with inserting that language. MR. POSHARD mentioned he did not have proposed language. Number 0363 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked Mr. Poshard to repeat what he said. MR. POSHARD reiterated it would require a private individual, who undertakes to maintain a state highway, that they receive written approval from DOT/PF prior to commencing that activity. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked how long would it take, the formality of writing a letter and asking for authorization. Would that have to go through John Horn, Regional Director, Central Region, DOT/PF? Number 0447 MR. POSHARD replied a letter to the regional director or to Gene Kulawik, Director, Maintenance and Operations, who resides in Anchorage. Either one would be an appropriate contact. He said, "And I certainly would hope that we could make a decision promptly enough to satisfy anyone who would be asking to take over the maintenance of a road." REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY referred to line 11, after highway, would it be appropriated to say, "must have Department of Transportation and Public Facilities letter of approval", or "letter of authorization" there. A required letter? MR. POSHARD replied that would be fine. Or possibly in the same sentence [page 1, line 9], after department, "A person who undertakes to maintain a highway that is not maintained by the department must receive written approval from the department and may not recover compensation from [the state or the public for the costs that the person incurs in maintaining a highway]." Something to that affect would probably work for us [DOT/PF]. Number 0560 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK suggested adding, page 1, line 5, between department and has, [add] "normally maintains but". "A person who undertakes to maintain a state highway that the department has normally maintains but has determined not to maintain during the winter...." She indicated the highways are what DOT/PF normally maintains but not during the winter. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON suggested adding, "shall obtain written approval from the department and" on page 1, line 10. Number 0670 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON offered his proposed amendment and asked Vice-Chair Masek was satisfied with that. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK indicated she did not object. Number 0697 CHAIR WILLIAMS asked if anyone objected. There being no objection the amendment was adopted. "A person who undertakes to maintain a highway that is not maintained by the department shall obtain written approval from the department and may not recover compensation from the state or the public for the costs...." REPRESENTATIVE ALBERT KOOKESH said if nobody is going to maintain it, and somebody was going to maintain it as a private individual, why would anybody complain. He said he read, "Some private individuals, who own property on a highway - I mean some maintenance is better than no maintenance is what I was thinking and I don't know where you're coming from. Why would we even do this... I understand we want to regulate and make sure people who get hurt or something. I'm just trying to figure out the status and why we're doing this bill." Number 0746 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY agreed with Representative Kookesh, if it is free, so what. If it is a long road people have to be able to have turnouts now and then to pass so there should be some standard that allows that versus the largest vehicle that has the right-of-way. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said he understood the concerns, but the standards are made to a point where even a private person says, "I'm not going to maintain that." REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said it is a safety issue as well. Number 0808 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said an unmaintained road is more of a safety issue than a maintained road that is being maintained by somebody for free. Number 0822 EDDIE GRASSER, Legislative Assistant to Representative Masek, testified before the committee. He referenced an incident where a private party was maintaining a long road, in a heavy snow area that was not normally maintained by DOT/PF. He indicated they maintained it as a single-lane road and there was no way for people to get to their property. If the mining company was using the road, because they would be coming down the road with a D8 Caterpillar, you would have to backup 20 miles to be able to get out of the way of the Caterpillar. The state had problems with this particular company because they were doing damage to the roadbed. There is nothing in current state statute that allows them to take care of that problem. Number 0880 EDDIE GRASSER said the purpose of HB 361 is to set standards so that the rest of the public could use it, and it is only in those instances where the road is not being maintained in the winter. Most of the people that were investigated, especially the people who owned property, they preferred not to have the road maintained because they were accessing their property by snowmachine. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked, "What's the object, you want them to not maintain the road." EDDIE GRASSER replied no, the intent is not to prevent them from maintaining the road. If they are going to maintain it they need to maintain it so the rest of the public can use it. Number 0971 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK offered a proposed amendment to page 1, line 5, insert "normally maintains but". "A person who undertakes to maintain a state highway that the department normally maintains but has determined not to maintain during the winter shall,... Number 1000 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK offered another proposed amendment to page 1, line 12, insert "or from the private party". "A person may not recover civil damages from the state or from the private party for personal injury, death, or property damage resulting..." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there was further discussion on the amendments. He indicated it would be called amendment number 1. Number 1024 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to adopt proposed Amendment 1. Number 1040 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON indicated the amendment to line 12 essentially says that whoever is maintaining the road has no liability. If they have a Caterpillar that sideswipes a parked car, while they are maintaining the road, that they are not liable for any damages during maintenance. EDDIE GRASSER mentioned he did not have a chance to go over this with Representative Masek since she got in late last night. He said her first amendment is important because the private people they talked to that do this are maintaining some side roads that the state does not normally maintain in the summertime. They would not have to maintain those particular roads like logging roads to these standards. EDDIE GRASSER noted the second proposed amendment [referred to as the first] was offered because of liability they would incur. He indicated that this was left up to the legislative body. Number 1142 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if the proposed amendments were moved as one amendment or two separate amendments. He stressed that he was bothered by the proposed amendment to line 12 and wanted to have that addressed. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied we will do that. Page 1, line 5 will be Amendment 1, page 1, line 12 is Amendment 2. Number 1173 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to move proposed Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "I think that this amendment somewhat alleviates the concerns that Representative Kookesh has brought forward because it would remove those roads that are typically not, or normally maintained by the state and so private roads would not fall, as I see it at any rate, that are not normally maintained, would be outside the adjunct of this law." Number 1215 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there was objection to the amendment. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 1217 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to move proposed Amendment 2 [page 1, line 12]. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. He indicated he would be interested in hearing from the department [DOT/PF]. He said, "I'm not sure that the state is immune from liability if they sideswiped my car right now. I would object to offering a private party something that the state is not protected from." Number 1253 MR. POSHARD stated, "The answer is no, we're not immune from liability. Our maintenance crews are subject to normal civil liability, if something such as that incident you described occurs we would certainly be liable for that." REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH referenced the zero fiscal note. He said, "I noticed in the requirement of the bill we say that we would have the department [DOT/PF] have some statutory authority to regulate private contracts as well. How could that be a zero fiscal note if we're going to put the department into some kind of regulatory position with these people?" CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if they could take care of this after the amendment has been addressed. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH replied yes, but asked that Mr. Poshard keep that in mind for follow up response. Number 1311 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "If we require and provide written approval, are we then under this provision here, we're giving written approval to a person to perform this service that we are not going to perform. And now we're saying that that person is relieved of civil damages and other liabilities, I'm assuming at any rate, resulting from the private maintenance of the highway and that could be either in direct contact with say the snow plow that the guys got on the front of his truck or could be because he plowed too far to the shoulder and literally exposed that car to driving off and hitting a ditch and perhaps causing some injury or damage. I'm wondering whether or not we can do that, whether or not we can relieve the state or that private party by a virtue of this law from that kind of liability. I think that's why somebody said we need to have an attorney or somebody to tell us about that." Number 1370 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked what the next referral was for HB 361. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied just Transportation [Committee]. Number 1390 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON pointed out one of the things can happen is this private contractor can take out three highway signs and the public would be stuck with the bill. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said, in hearing the objection, she withdrew Amendment 2. Number 1438 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move CSHB 361(TRA) with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH mentioned he asked about the zero fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON withdrew his motion for further discussion. Number 1472 MR. POSHARD said, "I guess I'm not reading in this bill where it requires us to establish standards for a private contractor." REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH replied the bill requires you to have regulatory authority over these people. MR. POSHARD replied right. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH stated even just writing a letter in your department [DOT/PF] I know costs us some money. [Laughter]. MR. POSHARD said, "I think that the department - the only thing that we intend to do is take the written request for approval and process it. I think that we intend to periodically inspect the maintenance that is occurring, I don't think that we intend to take maintenance crews off of other projects to go and review these on a regular basis of any kind. We're not looking at it as a burden. We're looking at it more as an opportunity." Number 1531 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said this is something that the state can do, is willing to do. He asked if there was more discussion. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said any cost would be an incidental expense that the department normally has. MR. POSHARD replied yes, that is how the department is looking at it. Number 1552 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON reintroduced his motion to move CSHB 361 (TRA) with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. Number 1560 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there was objection. There being no objection, CSHB 361(TRA) moved from the House Transportation Standing Committee. HB 358 - MOTOR VEHICLE IMPOUNDMENT AND FORFEITURE Number 1577 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the next order of business is HB 358, "An Act relating to impoundment or forfeiture of a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft; and providing for an effective date," sponsored by Representative Kelly. Number 1596 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY came forward to explain the legislation. He said HB 358 is a bill that will provide immediate consequences to individuals who drink and drive. Currently there is a law in the Municipality of Anchorage that provides for forfeiture of your vehicle if you should be caught drinking and driving. To implement that on a statewide basis is problematic and maybe even impossible without vast sums of resources committed to it. He said, "So we came up with the idea of impounding for certain periods of time. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said the courts may impound vehicles for two to five days, depending on how many times the individual has been caught drinking and driving. The current draft does not have provisions on how those vehicles will be impounded. He indicated he would like to offer a future amendment that will provide for putting a boot on the vehicle, or other means to immobilizing it. This would make it simpler for municipalities around the state and noted it mimics the success of the Municipality of Anchorage, but in a fashion that it can be done on a statewide basis. Number 1672 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated the Municipality of Anchorage impounds the vehicle immediately, what was our reason for not doing the same. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied one of the problems, not in impounding, but in forfeiture law, we currently have forfeiture law in statute in this section. The problem with forfeiture is that many of the communities throughout the state do not have the means to deal with a forfeited automobile. They may not have a lot where they can keep it, they may not have heated facilities in case there is not enough antifreeze in it, the block may freeze and crack and then the state would be liable for that automobile. There is not easy access to court systems for forfeiture and there are not always tow trucks that can deal with this. This would probably work well in some municipalities and it would not have a disastrous impact on the smaller communities that do not have infrastructures to deal with it. They can deal with it on a much more informal basis through impounding through putting a boot on a vehicle or something like that. Number 1735 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referenced line 1. She asked how would a police officer impound a vehicle, or aircraft if no impoundment facility is available. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded that is one of the reasons they want to have the bill amended to include the means for impounding. He asked Chairman Williams if it would be appropriate to address Amendment 1. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a motion to adopt Version K as the working draft. Number 1767 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made the motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute HB 358, Version 0-LS1241\K dated 2/18/98. There being no objection, CSHB 358 was adopted as the working draft. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said Amendment 2 addresses logistical problems of communities that do not have an impound lot. A boot is not expensive, if it is only going to be on for a few days, they could probably deal with that. He said, "If it was a forfeiture, you're talking about an extended period of time where you're going to have that vehicle in your possession, through the court case, and then if it were to be sold later on, or aircraft, the logistics of that are very difficult. We thought that with this amendment they could at least render the vehicle immobile for a period of time and force the consequences on the offender without getting into the problems that would come from a long-term forfeiture." Number 1847 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he believes most of the cost would be borne by the municipality that chooses to implement this program. He asked if the state incurred any cost because it now gives the option of a state trooper, for example to impound a car that the state would then have to tow. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY deferred the question to the Department of Public Safety. Representative Kelly indicated he is scheduled in another committee meeting and excused himself. Number 1893 TED BACHMAN, Captain, Commander of Operations, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Director's Office, Department of Public Safety testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said, "When we get out into the rural areas, which the state troopers serve primarily, disabling a vehicle, that's a little bit of a problem for us in that we don't have any place to secure and store a vehicle that is immobilized. Once we take custody of that vehicle, once we impound it, we become responsible for it and we become responsible for whatever happens to that vehicle. And in a lot of places where we have perhaps one trooper that one trooper obviously can not be available to make sure no vandalism or anything occurs to that vehicle, nothing is stolen from that vehicle while it is immobilized. So we would realize probably some exposure to those kinds of liability issues if we were to immobilize the vehicle." MR. BACHMAN indicated there was discussion about changing a motor vehicle or aircraft impounded under this subsection "shall" be held for two days, Section 1, the second sentence, Version K. The suggestion offered is to change it to "may" be held would give the state troopers concern. That would cause the police officer to make that determination as to whether or not it would be held or not. He said, "We don't feel that it would be appropriate for a police officer to make that decision on a case by case basis." Number 2001 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he understands that there may be liability problems with protecting an impounded vehicle. He indicated he also expects there may be costs that the state may incur, for example towing costs or the cost of putting a boot on the vehicle. He asked if there are costs, as well as liability that you incur. MR. BACHMAN replied the costs under a regulation in Title 13 of the Alaska Administrative Code would continue to be borne by the owner or operator of the vehicle unless that was somehow changed. He believes HB 358 is designed to not cause the impounded cost to be incurred by the state but to be borne by the owner or operator. Number 2054 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he assumed in many of these cases recovering costs from somebody can be difficult, you would not incur costs trying to recover costs. He asked Mr. Bachman what the definition of a "motor vehicle" is. Is a motor vehicle also a snowmachine, or a four-wheeler or a boat? MR. BACHMAN said he believes it does cover any motorized conveyance that is not an aircraft and is not on rails, it covers most of what is driven in the state. Number 2093 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked, "How do you deal with a faulty driver and somebody else's vehicle? If someone has even authority to take the vehicle and drive it to town, or something of this nature, and gets drunked-up and gets into trouble, is the car the guilty party or is the person the guilty party. How do you deal with that, could you hold somebody else's vehicle for two or five days?" MR. BACHMAN repled, "Presently, again under the regulation under the Administrative Code, we don't have to impound the vehicle, in fact, we have to give the operator of the vehicle an opportunity to have another licensed, and in that case a sober driver the opportunity to come and get the vehicle as long as the time period is reasonable. So we don't have to impound the vehicle, but when we do impound the vehicle it again is an expense incurred either by the operator or the owner." He said it is not held for any time period, the owner of the vehicle could come immediately and retrieve from the wrecker agency so that there would be a minimal towing cost involved. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON indicated the boot, where the vehicle is immobilized, a private operator has a contract to come and remove the boot for approximately fifty dollars. But there is no period of time that the vehicle would have to be held. He indicated that was the big difference in HB 358. Number 2165 MR. BACHMAN said Version K does not speak specifically to the immobilization issue. He indicated he was not sure if the government agency would provide the boot for the purpose of the immobilization or by the private contractor or individuals. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he did not believe it was in the bill. The question came up from some folks as to whether or not this could be applied uniformly throughout Alaska and there was some concern that it could not because many communities are so small and do not have the capability to essentially pin up the car. So the boot might be an alternative. Number 2213 BRUCE CAMPBELL, Legislative Assistant, testified on behalf of Representative Kelly. He said, "When we were discussing this with Del Smith, the Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety, he suggested it could be as simple as removing a distributor wire for the vehicle so that it was not actually an added expense and added to that. We've all seen the TV commercials about the 'club' you could put on. Those are fairly inexpensive. There maybe someone locally in the community who might be able to do that. In earlier discussions there was even some suggestion that in places where there isn't a storage yard you might immobilize it at the owner's property, in its front yard... Those are different concepts and we were not carrying that level of detail into these options nor restricting those options." Number 2258 CLIFF GROH, Assistant Attorney, Municipality of Anchorage, testified via teleconference. He indicated he had been working for the municipality since June of 1994 and had prior involvement with issues of impoundment and forfeiture of motor vehicles when he worked for the Anchorage District Attorney's Office, Department of Law, as Assistant District Attorney. He said, "I drafted the municipal ordinance which my understanding is the Municipality of Anchorage's ordinance has been made available to committee members and the materials have been circulated by the sponsor. As you can see in reviewing that that's more extensive, there are a number of areas that are covered in that. I would just generally say that impoundment and forfeiture of motor vehicles seems to be helpful. It eliminates the possibility of the drunk driver getting that vehicle back that night." A study was done by Reed College, [Portland, Oregon], in particular has shown there is a deterrent effective from the impoundment. Scott Brandt-Ericksen also worked on the drafting of the original (indisc.), he is currently with the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. We wanted to urge legislators to look at the question of whether due process concerns have been satisfied by simply holding a vehicle for two and up to five days. The committee could consider the possibility of creating a procedure for either bonding the vehicle out or having a procedure for a hearing during that interim period. He said, "There are some cases about that that would strongly suggest that's required as a matter of constitutional due process requirements. And the Municipality of Anchorage certainly includes those provisions in its law." Number 2360 MR. GROH stated, as a former prosecutor for the state, he prosecuted in Western Alaska, the Aleutians and the Pribilof Islands. There are obviously different conditions in rural areas compared with the Municipality of Anchorage in terms of how the vehicles would be dealt with. The state of Washington is considering similar legislation, it just passed the state Senate and is going to the state House, it was indicated this would be a local option. He said Anchorage does have some special concerns, given there are some extremely rural places in Alaska which do not have as many facilities as other places. He summarized impoundment forfeiture works, there are some due process considerations that have to be honored. Finally, the committee can think of ways to deal with the rural/urban differences that also exist here. Number 2419 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked does the impoundment portion of the Anchorage law, has the municipality incurred extraordinary costs. MR. GROH replied no. He said, "What I often say when places like the City of Fairbanks - City of Barrow call me -- the revenues are pretty clear here, the costs are not exactly -- are a little bit difficult to completely pin down with certainty to the penny. But I would say this is basically about a break even proposition. I would say, however, there is some paperwork to be tracked here, and there is some paperwork that's going to fly around." To deal with those costs to generate revenues, we have administrative fee in the law of $220.00 which covers the initial cost of the police and clerical cost for processing. In addition, many of the vehicles are recovered, particularly if they are owned by.... [End of tape]. TAPE 98-5, SIDE B Number 0001 MR. GROH continued... are resolved by settlement. He said the Municipality of Anchorage would make a settlement with an owner or a lien holder in which they would pay the fees and make an agreement not to let this happen again, not let the drunk driver drive the car again while either intoxicated or without a valid license. He indicated the municipality collects fees through administrative fees and court costs. He said, "That's not a provision that's addressed here, the committee might want to consider." Number 0037 MR. CAMPBELL pointed out the issue of due process is addressed in Amendment K. The court can (indisc.) order the continuation of impoundment but you could request a court hearing and the court could order a vehicle released. He said, "So we've tried to address due process in that fashion." Page 1, line 12, following "court" Insert "orders the vehicle released or" Number 0063 MR. GROH said, "Another way to do it, that is mostly followed here, is through a bonding procedure. Where the person who is the owner or a lien holder puts up a sum of money to bond out the vehicle until there is a hearing, usually there's not a hearing. I will say that, for example since last June, we have had a hearing. There might be two or three that might come up in the next few months but hearings are not that common right now but bonding is. At the end of the bonding period, Mr. Chairman, or at some point either the vehicle is returned (indisc.) order of the court or the bond is forfeited." He indicated that is one way to protect the Municipality of Anchorage's interests when it is trying to either impound or forfeit a vehicle. MR. GROH stressed the municipality seeks 30 days of impoundment on a first offenses, all vehicles are towed in DWI cases. If there has been a second, or subsequent, offense within the past ten years the municipality seeks forfeiture of the vehicle subject to making a settlement with the innocent owner, co-owner, or lien holder. Number 0125 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law, testified before the committee. She said, "Some of the comments that you've heard already today indicate some of the problems. This is a great idea, it's very satisfying to take a person who is driving drunk and take their car and not let them have it. But the problems that were discussed by the sponsor in terms of forfeiture are also attendant on impoundment, because our supreme court has held that we have a right of property interest in an automobile that is protected by due process requirement of law so that we have a right to go back and say, Your honor, this is my car, I didn't give this guy permission to drive it and I need it back.' They're both practical problems that Captain Bachman already discussed. There are places that there's just nobody to do it, even if you boot it, who's responsible if it gets damaged - if you boot it at the side of the road, even in a legal parking spot, who's responsible if something happens to the car. There are practical problems and then there are legal problems. If you have these (indisc.) set times, two and five day periods how are they connected to -- if your point is to make sure that a drunk person doesn't come back and drive home after he's bailed out of jail or after he's been arrested for DWI. Two and five days aren't necessary for that, we can hold people who are intoxicated and a danger to themselves for 12 hours, maybe a shorter period of time might answer, in addition to some of the suggestions that Mr. Groh made, might answer some of the (indisc. - paper) considerations." Number 0199 MS. CARPENETI stated, "The Department of Law really thinks the idea of the municipalities doing it, and the provisions in Sections 2 through 4, we support them. Anchorage knows what sort of property it has to store things, it knows what sort of towing services it has to take them. It works well there and communities can make it work in their own municipalities, but it's probably a better approach to let the municipalities do it. The state, as Captain Bachman said, still has the authority to tow vehicles when the driver is arrested for drunk driving, so it has the authority to do so now." She indicated they wholeheartedly support the municipal power to impound vehicles under these circumstances. Number 0245 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he believed a lot her concerns are mitigated by the permissive language that may be impounded which would tend to give a trooper in a remote area the option of making a decision based on common sense rather than what the structure of the law might be. MS. CARPENETI replied that helps. The Department of Law suggests the "shall" on line 9 be changed to "may" because a person is going to have a right to a hearing, and it should be permissive as to the length of time and to whether or not the decision is made to. She noted those would be improvements. She stated, "The problem is you're going to give them a right to a hearing and whether it's going to be an administrative hearing with the Department of Public Safety, it would have to be within two days to mean anything to the person and that's going to be a huge undertaking, I would think. The Department of Public Safety can speak for themselves, but if it's the court that's going to do it, that's going to be another proceeding for the court to do and for lawyers for the state to appear at." Number 0299 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if she was referring to the [zero] fiscal note. MS. CARPENETI said she was talking about whether it is not best left to local communities to deal with these issues rather than provide for mandatory two and five day impoundments when they are not necessarily connected to the safety of the car after it is impounded. She said, "I'm still not sure what the basic thrust of the problem is, if the problem is that people who are arrested for driving while intoxicated go get their car and drive off again drunk, then another procedure would probably suffice which would not raise nearly the issues that this particular approach does, maybe a shorter hold for a particular period of time, or something." It sounds like a good idea to take somebody's car but with ownership interests and the values of cars, what do you do if they are just left there. Sometimes they are not valuable enough to be worthy of selling, then they have to be trashed. MS. CARPENETI concluded that Mr. Groh could address the ways that Anchorage has dealt with these problems. She indicated she wanted to raise some of the practical problems, as the sponsor said there are legal issues that have to be addressed for this to be upheld by a court. Number 0357 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "You indicated you could certainly support two through four which essentially is the expansion of this concept to the municipalities, and we could do that obviously without Section 1 because that would provide all the necessary powers. I think that the element in Section 1 primarily establishes the two and four, two and five day concepts, I wonder if there is a linkage there. Would the municipality have any leeway to deviate from those two and five days to even make it more or less, or something in between if we left this in there?" MS. CARPENETI said, "Yes, actually there's a provision in the law that allows municipalities to adopt a statutory scheme and it specifically says it does not have to... Present law provides that an ordinance adopted under this section is not required to be consistent with this title or regulations adopted under it [she read from the statute]. So the municipality would be free to adopt regulations that are reasonable, that suit them and are fair." Number 0415 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON indicated this is the area that he has had problems with. He said, "As to the question of whether or not we're walking into difficult legal grounds if somebody else owns the vehicle for example. If this is mandatory, do you read this as being mandatory if the municipality adopts the impoundment -- does this chapter require that they pursue the two days, or five days, if they have previously been...." MS. CARPENETI replied no, it allows the municipalities to adopt their own ordinance. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked the staff of the prime sponsor if this was more of a policy statement. Number 0448 MR. CAMPBELL replied, "The bill has two parts to it, Section 1 is statewide and it means it applies to state troopers, that is why Captain Bachman was testifying here earlier that we have a statewide process where we're saying the state has an overriding policy interest in having safe highways, and encouraging people not to drive drunk, and that we heard from Cliff Groh that there is in fact a deterrent effect from the impoundment and that it makes a difference in people's lives. The question of due process, we believe (indisc. - coughing) at least partly in Amendment 1, and it does give people the option to go to court." Number 0480 MR. CAMPBELL continued, "In discussions with the Department of Law, the issue of time was brought to us by Dean Guaneli, and he thought if the time was fairly short, such as two or five days, unlike Anchorage's 30-day impoundment, first time. If it was fairly short then we're not abridging that due process, we have a larger link to the time of sobriety. Yes we could have gone to 12 hours, but 12 hours does not have the lesson involved in the temporary inconvenience of not having your car the next day that is a part of the learning process we're trying to achieve with the bill. We're trying to achieve a consequence with a group of people who are particularly resistant to consequences, they drive cars, they steal cars, drive drunk and kill people. And we're trying to find a way to help encourage them to learn more correct driving behavior. We feel that's an overriding state interest to temporary issues of the immediacy of two or five-day inconvenience or property that we have not actually ceased, or taken from them but we're temporarily removing from their use on our public highways." Number 0533 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, "Are we restricting due process for the person who is arrested." MS. CARPENETI said, "I think that you have to make some provision for a hearing. The way it's written now, without the amendment that has already been offered which allows the court to have a hearing and perhaps terminate the impoundment, I think the court would hold this to be a violation of due process of law. That's why we suggest some revision that would make it either make it either shorter so that it would be unlikely that somebody -- maybe 12 hours is enough to get the point home. I'm not sure, but if you hold it for any period much longer than 12 or 24 hours you're going to have to offer a hearing for the wife, or the owner, or the employer that owns the car to come and get it out. And they may be able to get it out but it will require a procedure either administrative or court procedure to do so." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if Amendment 1 would do that. MS. CARPENETI replied, "Allowing the court to order the release before the two days would certainly help, yes." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Ms. Carpeneti to address both amendments. Number 0612 MS. CARPENETI said she did not have a problem with the suggestion of allowing the police to boot a car, or by some other way of disabling it, but there is still the liability issue of what happens to a car that is left on the highway booted. Does that mean that the state has assumed possession of it and is responsible for any damage that results in it? She said, "These are some of the practical problems because, where the troopers are going to be doing this, it's not going to be in Anchorage where there's a nice little yard that's locked up to take it to. It's going to be in a more remote place." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated Captain Bachman said he was concerned about the first sentence, "A motor vehicle or aircraft may be impounded." In Version K it is written "may", he believed Captain Bachman was saying "shall". MR. CAMPBELL said Captain Bachman may still be on the line. He said his question was he wanted "may" in line 5 and he wanted "shall" in lines nine and ten. The argument presented from the Department of Public Safety is that once they had made a decision to impound [a vehicle], they did not want a police officer adjudicating the length or detail of punishment, discretion. Number 0692 MR. BACHMAN responded that is correct. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked, "With these amendments, as we're going to be taking them up here in a few minutes, does that satisfy your concerns." MS. CARPENETI said, "It certainly goes a ways to satisfying them. I would suggest, if you're going to add the amendment allowing the court to decide to return it under the circumstances, it would be best to use the 'may' rather than the 'shall' on lines nine and ten. I don't think that that is in contradiction to the advice Captain Bachman is telling you as long as it's going to be the court that's going to decide if it's going to be returned not the police officer." Number 0729 MR. CAMPBELL said, "Our attorney's advice was that, as I understood it, was that this is dealing with a court hearing, it would allow an individual to go to a court if they chose within two days to get the vehicle back. That means they would have to request it, move very fast, probably have [has] good connections with the court and get a hearing done in two days and get the car. In five days it might be more likely to achieve it, we wanted to leave that as an opening for them. So from a practical perspective, the court is stepping in after the police officers making the impoundment and after police officer has decided that this is in fact a first arrest or second arrest. And the police officer is deciding on two days or five days. The court then can step in, and it shall be for five days unless a court orders something else, but the peace officer makes that decision and drives it up to this (indisc.) before and unless." Number 0775 MS. CARPENETI said, "I would suggest that it would be best -- the police officer is making the discretionary decision whether or not to impound [the vehicle ] in the first place. I would be glad to work with the sponsor on language that would be acceptable, the mandatory two and five days causes me some concern if we don't provide some sort of hearing mechanism." REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "That's my biggest concern with Section 1, and where we're developing a mandatory impoundment or immobilization, is the application to rural Alaska. In municipalities I can see where they can, they've got all the resources but I see the troopers involved in the smaller communities where they don't have a lot of these facilities. It looks to me like it's going to be a disproportionate impoundment in areas to where they do not have a municipal government, and it will be more in the rural parts of Alaska. I guess that's a concern that I have, a mandatory impoundment." Number 0833 MS. CARPENETI stated this is not a mandatory impoundment. It allows the police officer to make the decision of whether or not to impound. As it is presently drafted, it sounds like once the police officer has made the decision it is a mandatory term of impoundment. She said she could understand why the police officers do not want to be responsible for making any discretionary decision as to the time, it should be set. She believed it would be best to make it permissive there also and provide for a court hearing to get it back. Number 0864 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "If we were to change on line 9 and 10, 'shall' to 'may' - we already have that the peace officer may impound, and then down there, it 'may' be held for two days if it's a previous, 'may' be held for five days. I guess that would be up to the prime sponsor then to see how that fits within your intent." MR. CAMPBELL said, "We were getting input from both the Department of Public Safety and from the Department of Law. The Department of Public Safety seemed quite adamant, they wanted a fixed term 'shall'. And we had dialogue(s) with the Department of Law suggesting there are reasons why it might be 'may, but (a) I couldn't understand them, and (b) the Department of Public Safety was so much more adamant about 'shall' we went with the Department of Public Safety in this draft." Number 0907 MS. CARPENETI said the Department of Public Safety is very concerned that their individual officers are not going to be the ones that say, "Oh well, you know I know your brother-in-law, I'll make this for one day." They should not be in that position and the Department of Law agrees thoroughly that they should not be in the position of setting any particular time, they've made the decision to make the tow, and the period of the tow should not be an individual decision by the police officer. She said, "I agree with them, I don't think we're in disagreement between our departments. I think what we need to do is talk about the best way to do that, considering the due process rights of individuals in our state to have their property and not taken without a court hearing or an administrative hearing. And I think there's an answer to this, I know Del Smith and Ted Bachman and I do not disagree on this at all. We just need to make it clear that the police officers do not have to make a discretionary decision as to whether or not this is a one, or a two, or three, or four, or five day hold." Number 0961 MR. CAMPBELL said, "We have had several meetings with the Department of Law and the Department of Public Safety on this in our office and we were under the impression the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Law were working on a written statement for this that would have been ready today, we thought, but I know Del Smith is now lost in the O-Zone, flying into the fog here, and is now in his capital position in Anchorage [he laughed], but - so we don't have that letter completed and to us but we're not sure if it was going to include language on this 'may', 'shall' topic or not." MS. CARPENETI pointed out that letter is prepared but it only addresses the former version which has been replaced now so it is not useful to the committee. She indicated a letter, setting out suggestions would be submitted by the next hearing. Number 1000 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS indicated HB 358 will be held to allow for a committee substitute. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON state the Anchorage Municipality has made this revenue neutral by charging administrative fees and doing some other things. He believed the committee needs to discuss money because there is no provision for administrative fees or anything else (indisc. paper noise ) if it is passed without those kind of provisions. MR. CAMPBELL noted constituents were on line from Fairbanks to testify. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if the committee could come up with proposed amendments to be included on the committee substitute. MR. CAMPBELL asked, "Would you like us to draft a new committee substitute with working advantage, including incorporating these." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied yes. Number 1098 PATRICIA MACK, Volunteer, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, testified via teleconference. She indicated drunk driving was the issue and hoped more than two or five days would be added to the bill. SALLY ECKLUND, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, testified via teleconference. She stated her son was killed by a drunk driver and stressed the state needs more of a deterrent. Number 1674 DAVID HUFFAKER stated his wife was hit head on by a drunk driver. He encouraged the committee to adopt the Anchorage ordinance to save lives by enacting the vehicle forfeiture on a statewide basis. He said Fairbanks is going to adopt an ordinance similar to Anchorage's but it will not affect an offender outside the city limits. The only way an offender will have the threat of losing his car is to go statewide. He indicated 32 states have this provision and it is slowly spreading. Number 1990 AL NEAR said stiffer jail sentences and license suspensions have not reduced drunk driving sufficiently. He said, "Since 1994 Anchorage has been impounding vehicles for first offenders for 30 days, repeat offenders lose their cars for good, fatalities connected with drunk driving have been cut in half." HB 358 does not go far enough, Alaska needs a minimum of 30 day impoundments for first offenders, forfeiture for second offense and forfeiture for driving while a license is suspended or revoked for DWI. Number 2026 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS closed the testimony of HB 358. He indicated the next hearing will be held on Monday, February 23. HB 290 - LICENSE PLATES: RANCHES, FARMS, AND DAIRY Number 2062 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated the next order of business is HB 290, "An Act relating to motor vehicle license plates for ranchers, farmers, and dairymen," sponsored by Representative Green. Number 2075 JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Green, came before the committee. He said, HB 290 is a simple amendment to right an unintended consequence. In 1993, the Administration sponsored legislation that allowed state agencies more latitude in the area of user fees in HB 65. Section 57 of that Act requires vehicles registered under company or business names to pay commercial registration fees. MR. LOGAN pointed out HB 290 is sponsored by request. He indicated the requestor is a produce farmer in Representative Green's district. The constituent had previously registered his vehicles under AS 28.10.181 (h). That subsection provides for agricultural registration. Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) was requiring him to register under the much more expensive commercial registration. Mr. Logan referenced a letter which is included in the committee members packets. Division of Motor Vehicles told him that if he registered as a corporation he had to pay commercial fees. However, if he registered under his own name he would qualify for the lower registration fees, the agricultural fees. Number 2212 MR. LOGAN said, "The sponsor believes that it is unfair for a state agency to demand of an Alaska businessman that he change form of ownership of his company that he had over the benefits of incorporation in order to get what he has already been getting for years. This is by way of saying Mr. Chairman, my intent here is not to criticize the department because we work with the department on a number of legislative issues, but rather to state that this was not Representative Green's intent when he voted on HB 65. So he has offered HB 290." MR. LOGAN pointed out the critical language is found on page 1, line 13. It defines a person as having the meaning given in Section 01.10.060 [Definitions]. He indicated he highlighted number 8 which is, "person includes a corporation, company, partnership, firm, association, organization, business trust, or society as well as a natural person." Under this language a person could mean a corporation, the constituent in question could maintain his corporate veil, register as a corporation and still receive the benefits that Representative Green intended him to have before the law was changed. Number 2387 MIKE MOSESIAN, Mosesian Farms, testified in support of HB 290 via teleconference. He indicated he has been a farmer in Alaska for more than 25 years and his market is exclusively Anchorage. He said, "The intent of the old law [HB 265], farmers used their vehicles for... [END OF TAPE]. TAPE 98-6, SIDE A Number 0001 MR. MOSESIAN continued, which are used to haul my tomatoes which are available from the first of May through October, and the rest of the year they are parked. And I think what the lawmakers in the past wanted to do was to fairly handle the situation so that farmers were not paying these high fees and parking their vehicles... A person could survive a long time without oil, but how long can he survive without food. They wanted to encourage agriculture in this state. One of the benefits was it was fair by providing him with lower fees. Without this bill it would penalize modern farmers from incorporating and taking advantage the protection under the law..." Mr. Mosesian mentioned farmers offset pollution by vehicles because plants consume carbon dioxide and put oxygen back into the atmosphere. He said he is very proud to see the license plate that says "Farmed". Number 0195 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if the people in the dairy business and the other industry do they enjoy the same. MR. MOSESIAN replied yes there are other farms that have farm plates. He mentioned plates are in the four thousand and five thousand series. And pointed out farm plates are common in other parts of America. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he would bring the dog farm issue up with the Division of Motor Vehicles. MR. MOSESIAN concluded he derives 100 percent of his income from farming, he lives on the farm and only uses the vehicles to haul farm produce. He also has a family farm, he asked if there was concern with another large corporation that are also in the agriculture business. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY replied no, he noted that he is only concerned with the small farmer and Mr. Mosesian is. Number 0345 JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Administration, testified before the committee. Current statute reads an individual, owning a small farm, dairy or rancher is eligible for a farm plate and the fee is $68 for every two years. She said the corporation is required to pay the commercial vehicle registration rate which is anywhere from $100 to $440 biannually. Ms. Hensley indicated the DMV did not have a problem with including those individuals that are raising produce, plants and landscaping. MS. HENSLEY continued, "We have no idea, the number of vehicles that would fall into this category. We are looking at a reduction of state revenues. If all nurseries, and everyone is included in this, we have no problem with this bill, we just want to point out to the committee that there would be a loss of state revenues. We at this time have no idea how to calculate that loss because we have no idea how many vehicles that this farm has, how many vehicles that any of the other nurseries throughout the state would choose to register and use the farm plates. So we would have no idea of what the revenue reduction would be." Number 0504 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked does the price of these registrations relate to the cost of administering that program. Is there a net surplus to the general fund? Number 0532 MS. HENSLEY replied the DMV is one of the revenue generators for the state in the fact that the registration fees and license fees bring in more than $42 million to the state revenues every year, the division operates with a budget $8.9 million. She indicated the cost for operating this program does not cost the state $68 biannual per vehicle. Nor does it cost the $100 per vehicle. HB 361 would reduce the general fund take overall. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON presumed, if you lose revenue in one place, we would have to make it up through the general fund, or you would have to make it up by increased registration fees for all other types of vehicles. MS. HENSLEY responded, "If you wanted to hold the state revenue general, neutral, yes then you would have to increase the fees in other areas to hold it harmless. There is a fixed cost, and I have those but I don't have them with me right now, transactional cost to register a vehicle and what it costs to do that." She indicated she could provide that. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied that was not necessary, she conceptually answered the question he had. He asked, "Is there any other type of occupational use that we favor to this extent, for example timber harvesting or transporting fish from a setnet sight where the vehicle is principally used to say move fish from the setnet sight to the marketplace or the processor or wherever they ultimately move those commodities. Do we offer any other kind of reduced, favorite type of fair reduction for those people, or are they charged the commercial rate?" Number 0712 MS. HENSLEY replied right now those types are not licensed under the farm exemption. If it is registered as a company name or business name, they do pay the commercial fees. It depends on what definition you use whether you use the agriculture definition from the Department of Natural Resources or you use just the farm exemption that is defined in Alaska statutes dealing with motor vehicle laws. She indicated it has a far reaching, more effective, reducing state revenues. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, in the case that is in front of them, he has no problem with making an exemption. He believed HB 290 goes further than that because it removes the restriction that that person resides all time. This means a gentleman farmer living in Spenard could also use the exemption because there is no longer a requirement that this person live on the farm. Representative Elton said, "It seems to me that, instead of opening the door a crack, were taking out a restriction that can fling the door wide open and that restriction being the restriction right now that requires the person live on the farm." Number 0819 MS. HENSLEY stated the current statue does require that the person reside on the farm. This would take that out of statute so you are not having the person that lives in Matanuska-Susitna Valley, who is raising those potatoes, living on that farm and taking his produce to and from Anchorage. You have the nurseries in Anchorage or in Juneau who are living elsewhere in the community, but running their business say in south Anchorage. They would be eligible for the farm plates because of the type of produce that they are growing. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, until hearing the discussion, he did not believe a nursery would qualify. He believed agricultural business is more of a tradition type of thing, as food producing. He asked if there are other business other than nurseries that might be considered extraordinary when it comes to farm, or ranch, or dairy that are also covered. MS. HENSLEY responded, "Actually, if you look at adopting the definition of agricultural operations, under the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), that would mean any agriculture and farming activity such as the cultivation (indisc.) soil, dairy, operation of greenhouses, the production cultivation growing and harvesting of agriculture, (indisc.) cultural horticultural commodities, raising of livestock (indisc.), furbearing animals and poultry, forestry or timber harvesting operations and any practice conducted in agricultural operation." Number 0933 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "We aren't doing that are we. Does this adopt the DNR definition?" MS. HENSLEY replied it does not, however, someone could argue the point to adopt the DNR. Number 0952 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if HB 290 would allow rental properties. MS. HENSLEY read AS 28.10.181(h). Vehicles owned by ranches, farmers, and dairymen. A vehicle not exceeding an unladen total gross weight of 16,000 pounds, owned by a person deriving the person's primary source of livelihood from the operation of a ranch, farm, or dairy where the person resides full-time, [did not read: or at the principal place of business,] and which a vehicle is used exclusively to transport the person's own ranch, farm, or dairy products to and from the market or to transport supplies, commodities, or equipment to be used on the person's ranch, farm, or dairy, may be registered under this subsection and may be issued registration plates of a distinctive design or system of numbering REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said if you were in this business in south Anchorage and decided you wanted to put a greenhouse in another location that would be the same company, doing the same thing. MS. HENSLEY pointed out HB 290 deletes where the person resides full-time. It also deletes the word livelihood and primary source of income. Number 1103 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said if they wanted a plate, impact to the state general fund would be minimal, including the departments income. If it was fishermen, he would be a little concerned because there are more fishermen in the state than there are (indisc.) ranchers, dairymen or farmers. MS. HENSLEY said DMV does not oppose this concept at all. She reiterated there are a lot of nurseries or companies now that register their vehicles as commercial vehicles and they pay anywhere from $100 to $440 in registration fees. This bill has the potential only of having them pay $68, that is the difference in revenue. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS indicated HB 290 would be held until Monday. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS adjourned the House Transportation Standing Committee at 2:55 p.m.

Document Name	Date/Time	Subjects

Open document in new windowX