Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/16/1993 01:30 PM L&C
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE February 16, 1993 1:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Tim Kelly, Chairman Senator Steve Rieger, Vice-Chairman Senator Drue Pearce Senator Georgianna Lincoln Senator Judy Salo MEMBERS ABSENT NONE COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE BILL NO. 97 "An Act relating to enhanced 911 emergency reporting systems; and providing for an effective date." SCHEDULED BUT HELD OVER UNTIL 2/23/93. SENATE BILL NO. 99 "An Act relating to the improvement of state finances through reduction of operating costs of certain state agencies and establishment of certain fees; and providing for an effective date." SENATE BILL NO. 106 "An Act authorizing power transmission interties between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula, between Healy and Fairbanks, and between the Swan Lake and Tyee Lake hydroelectric projects, and approving the design and construction costs of the interties; and providing for an effective date." PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION SB 97 - NONE SB 99 - NONE SB 106 - NONE WITNESS REGISTER Cheryl Frasca, Division Director Division of Budget Review, O.M.B. Office of the Governor P.O. Box 110020 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0020 POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed SB 99. Stephanie Cole Deputy Administrative Officer Judicial Branch 303 K Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2084 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 99. Brent McGee, Director Office of Public Advocacy Department of Administration 900 W. 5th, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 99 Arthur H. Snowden Administrative Director Judicial Branch 303 K Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2084 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 99. Mary Lou Madden, Asst. Director Postsecondary Education Commission Department of Education P.O. Box 110505 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0505 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 99. Jack Wray, Executive Director Alaska Police Standards Council Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 111200 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 99. Juanita Hensley, Chief Driver Service Division of Motor Vehicles P.O. Box 20020 Juneau, Alaska 99802-0020 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 99. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 93-11, SIDE A Number 001 CHAIRMAN TIM KELLY called the Labor and Commerce Committee meeting to order at 1:30 1:50 p.m. SENATOR KELLY announced the substantive work on SB 106 (AUTHORIZING POWER TRANSMISSION INTERTIES) would more appropriately be under-taken in the Finance Committee. SENATOR RIEGER moved to pass SENATE BILL NO. 106 on to the Finance Committee with individual recommendations. Without objections, so ordered. SENATOR KELLY introduced the Governor's bill, SB 99 (FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT) and invited CHERYL FRASCA, Office of Management and Budget, to lead the committee through the bill. MS. FRASCA explained the bill was drafted to improve state finances by reducing costs in the operation in certain state agencies, and to authorize state agencies to defray a greater portion of their costs through the imposition of fees. She said the title would allow for this consolidation in the bill. SENATOR KELLY directed MS. FRASCA to explain all sections of the bill. MS. FRASCA directed attention to the Governor's transmittal letter in the bill packet, which, she said, gave a section by section description of the bill. Attached to his letter is a fiscal sectional which associates any revenues to be generated by the bill, or costs associated with implementing the bill. - Sections 1 through 32 deal with the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and would make the issuance of liquor licenses a double fee biennial. It would lighten the renewal-related work and spread the load. - Sections 33 through 35 would delete certain duplicated functions in the Office of Public Advocacy and would enable OPA to charge fees for public guardians. Number 057 - Sections 36 to 38 relate to the state's student loan program and would allow the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education to assess a one percent guarantee fee for all student loans made under the Scholarship Loan Program - effective July 1, 1994. MS. FRASCA gave an example of how the assessment would work. - Sections 39 through 43 would authorize the same one percent loan guarantee fee to be assessed on loans under the Memorial Scholarship Loan Program, the Teacher Scholarship Loan Program, and the Family Education Loan Program. SENATOR KELLY asked if anyone from Postsecondary Education was there to testify, and MS. FRASCA said there was. - Section 44 would allow the Department of Labor to set fees, by regulation, for administering examinations, and to process applications for special boiler and pressure vessel inspectors. Currently, there is no charge for processing these applications. Number 090 - Sections 45 and 46, related to the Department of Labor, would make the issuance of plumber and electrician certificates more efficient, stabilize program receipts, and set the time frame by regulation. MS. FRASCA said there would be no fiscal impact, but just evens out the workload. - Section 46 would also allow the Department of Labor, by regulation, to charge a fee for duplicate certificates of fitness, in line with the actual costs incurred in issuing the certificates. SENATOR RIEGER and SENATOR SALO asked MS. FRASCA to slow down. SENATOR KELLY said after the overview the departments would be providing more details. - Section 47 related to the Department of Public Safety and would permit the Alaska Police Standards Council to adopt regulations to collect fees for processing applications for state certification of police, correctional officers, and instructors employed by non-state agencies. SENATOR KELLY asked MS. FRASCA if she charged just to make an application to go to work, and MS. FRASCA said it was for processing applications for state certification. It was agreed there would be additional explanation later. SENATOR KELLY outlined a procedure for reviewing each section after her overview. Number 120 - Section 48 would raise the required fees for filing an application for an employment agency permit under AS 23.15.390 from $10 to $100, to reflect the costs of the review done by the Department of Labor for these permits. - Section 49 again relates to the Office of Public Advocacy and deletes a requirement that has allowed the Office of Public Advocacy to provide guardians ad litem in child custody proceedings. She explained the courts currently do a similar investigation, and it would save OPA investigating costs of about $100 thousand. - Section 50 would clarify the Department of Public Safety's ability to recover the costs involved in generating computerized registration lists. SENATOR KELLY made sure someone was present from the Department of Public Safety. - Section 51 would allow the Department of Public Safety to issue special request license plates, which she described. MS. FRASCA said there was a potential for generating #300 thousand in revenue. Number 144 - Section 52 changes the eligibility for free vehicle registration and license plates for disabled persons by adopting the definition of limited or impaired ability to walk, which appears in federal regulations. MS. FRASCA described the contrast to the present program. - In Section 53 the Department of Public Safety clarifies that car dealers must use both dealer plates on each vehicle. MS. FRASCA explained it was the result of a court case. - Sections 54 and 58, and the repeal of AS 28.10.011 in Section 70, clarify that mobile homes are not considered vehicles for purposes of administering motor vehicle laws, and motor homes would no longer be subject to registration by the Division of Motor Vehicles. - Section 55 explains senior citizens are entitled to free vehicle registration for only one vehicle once each calendar year. - Section 56 would create an incentive for people to do mail-in registration for vehicles by charging an additional fee of $10.00 for those who do not participate by mail. MS. FRASCA estimated it would generate an extra $2 million in revenue as a result of the $10.00 fee. - In Section 57, the Department of Public Safety would clarify that companies and businesses, registering vehicles in their company or business name, must pay commercial registration fees. - Section 58 was covered in the explanation for Section 54, relating to mobile homes. - Section 59 would amend the definition of program receipts to exclude money the state receives for administering group insurance health programs. MS. FRASCA explained how the money reimbursed by AETNA is viewed as "program receipts," and deposited in the general fund. She said this change would reclassify that money to "system benefits receipts." Number 184 - Sections 60 and 61 would require payments from insurance claims settlements to be deposited directly into the Catastrophe Reserve Account. MS. FRASCA explained the Division of Risk Management credits the general fund, and the insurance claim settlement is appropriated to the state agency to which the payment is related. The United States government demands that a portion of such insurance recoveries be refunded to the appropriate federal program. - Section 62 would give the Department of Natural Resources authority to accept cash or other donations to support the system of state parks and recreational facilities. Number 213 - Section 63 would expand the authority of the Department of Natural Resources to collect reasonable fees for services provided in state parks. MS. FRASCA said, in the fourth year of a phased implementation schedule, these new fees are expected to raise around $400,000. - Section 64 is related to the other Office of Public Advocacy changes. -Sections 65 and 66 would amend and add a new subsection to AS 44.46.025 to provide the Department of Environmental Conservation with increased authority to charge fees to offset the direct costs of various programs designed to avoid and rectify pollution, to ensure healthy and safe public facilities, and to assist businesses in complying with local, state, and federal environmental standards. MS. FRASCA outlined the problems presently facing DEC. - Section 67 would amend AS 47.07.020(b) to add a new category of persons to the state's option list of those eligible for federal Medicaid coverage and would allow for reimbursement by the federal government. - Section 68 would add to the list of groups eligible, under the optional Medicaid program, those persons under the age of 21, who are eligible for adoption assistance due to special medical or rehabilitative needs. MS. FRASCA explained how this program would allow reimbursement from the federal government, also. - Both Sections 69 and 70 refer to the Office of Public Advocacy, and Section 70 would repeal several statutes, some of which are related to earlier amendments. An exception is AS 28.22.181(k), in which the Department of Public Safety which would no longer register vehicles, only occasionally used on a highway, but would require them to charge the same fees as full use vehicles. - Section 71 would allow for a temporary fee schedule to allow state parks to begin charging fees, while they get their regular fee schedule through the regulatory promulgation process. - Section 72 provides a transition schedule for the Alcohol Beverage Control Board to change liquor licenses on a bi-annual schedule. Number 256 SENATOR KELLY opened the meeting to questions for MS. FRASCA by the committee members. SENATOR RIEGER asked about any consideration of fees for agency services in the preparation of the bill as to who initiates the fee. MS. FRASCA said some of the fees had been discussed last year by both the legislature and the agencies, but there was no philosophical discussion. SENATOR RIEGER reviewed why an imposition of fees by the agencies concerned him. MS. FRASCA mentioned restaurants and fees, and SENATOR RIEGER gave an example of his discomfort. She didn't think the fees were in that type of category, but she said they would look at them in a discretionary nature of generating revenue. SENATOR RIEGER wanted to know who was in control of the process. Number 291 SENATOR SALO questioned the reason user fees were put together in this kind of a package. MS. FRASCA explained there was a similar bill generated by the legislature last year, and it was to focus on the whole package this year. She discussed the role of the legislative liaison office in the number of bills that could be introduced, and why it was packaged as an OMB bill. SENATOR SALO, in following SENATOR RIEGER'S concerns, asked about the air quality permits and the regulation of fees in Section 66. She described the annoyance from her constituents on inspections and fees. MS. FRASCA said they were federally mandated to make the inspections and cover the costs. She elaborated on federal requirements for direct and indirect costs. SENATOR SALO asked MS. FRASCA if it was better to have the fees established in regulation v. setting in statute. MS. FRASCA said it was the direction being followed by the state the last couple of years, where previously the fees were set by law, specifying the dollar amount. She discussed the difficulty in having the fees revisited by the legislative process, so the trend has been to have them changed by regulation. Number 333 SENATOR KELLY referred to a letter from DAVID DIERDORFF, Revisor of Statutes, questioning the single title, and he asked his aide, JOSH FINK for clarification. MR. FINK quoted MR. DIERDORFF'S suggestion for four separate bills and an opinion from TAM COOK, Director of Legislative Legal Counsel. SENATOR KELLY surmised the present SB 99 wouldn't survive as presently written and was liable to broken up into separate bills. SENATOR LINCOLN, in reviewing the memo from MR. DIERDORFF, noted his comments about the title of the bill, and she expressed pleasure the committee may either separate it into a number of bills or rework the title. SENATOR PEARCE questioned the funding of APUC for one year, and how it would be continued. MS. FRASCA said she didn't realize it had just a one year funding, it wasn't in the bill, but she would check. SENATOR KELLY moved to the teleconference network to hear STEPHANIE COLE, a Deputy Administrative Officer for the Court System. MS. COLE expressed concerns about three particular sections of SB 99 by the Office of Public Advocacy. First she noted Sections 33 through 35 dealing with the charging of fees for the cost of providing public guardians - which she did not oppose. MS. COLE said the court was opposed to Sections 49, 64, and 69, because these sections would shift the burden of providing representation, in certain types of court cases, from the Office of Public Advocacy to the Court System. She had provided a fiscal note and a narrative explaining the court's objections to the sections mentioned. If the legislation was passed, the court would be forced to contract for these types of services at a higher cost to the state. MS. COLE said the sections deleting certain types of cases from the responsibility of Office of Public Advocacy would erode the statutory scheme adopted in 1984, which created the Office of Public Advocacy as a more efficient, conflict- free system for providing state-funded representation. MS. COLE, in reference to Section 49, explained it would affect representation of child-in-custody support in visitation disputes, and would delete OPA'S responsibility to provide a guardian ad litem or attorney for the child. She quoted from the transmittal letter and argued that Section 49 was misleading. MS. COLE admitted the court had custody investigators, but she explained there were only a few investigative personnel and only in Anchorage and Fairbanks. She said part time personnel would be added to Ketchikan and Juneau. MS COLE added these investigators have such a heavy case load, they hardly ever operate outside of their metropolitan area. Currently, out of 15 superior courts, with hideous kinds of cases, only two locations have custody investigators. Number 396 MS. COLE explained the investigators were neither attorneys nor advocates, and do not fulfill the same function as a guardian ad litem appointed by the Office of Public Advocacy. She continued to explain why the process was not duplicated in reference to Section 29. MS. COLE said Section 64 would delete certain responsibilities from the Office of Public Advocacy such as representing indigent parents, guardians of children in cases where the children are being committed for mental illness, legal and guardian services in adoptions, and legal services for emancipation cases. MS. COLE explained Section 69 also referred to the mental commitment of children for mental disease. She said the court would have to find the representation provided by OPA elsewhere, and could not do it as cost effectively as the Office of Public Advocacy could do with staff and contract resources. She explained the problem of having an employee of the court appearing in front of the court, which would be against court rules. MS. COLE said the court would have to rely entirely on contract awards, which would be more expensive. Before OPA was available, the court relied on conscription, where private attorneys were told to come into court to represent the type of cases as described. They were paid at an extremely low rate, which did not cover their overhead. She explained this type of conscription was no longer available because of the DeLisio case. Number 438 In her final point, MS. COLE said the court system is devoid of advocacy functions, and necessary to the separation of powers. This was the reason for the creation of the Office of Public Advocacy, and she warned of the blurring in the separation of powers. SENATOR KELLY opened the meeting to questions from the committee members. SENATOR KELLY next called on BRENT MCGEE, Director for the Office of Public Advocacy, to testify. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if MS. COLE was going to stay on line, but the teleconference was not set up to do that. SENATOR KELLY addressed ARTHUR SNOWDEN, Administrative Director for the Judicial Branch, and suggested he felt strongly about the subject. MR. SNOWDEN agreed and quoted several studies saying the Office of Public Advocacy was doing marvelously under the Executive Branch, and for many reasons should not be transferred. SENATOR KELLY wondered what OPA would have left if certain duties were deleted, and MR. SNOWDEN said some were constitutional and some were the same as offered in other states. They discussed the role of the public defender in the court system. Number 465 MR. MCGEE told SENATOR KELLY he was not able to respond to the testimony from MS. COLE, because the teleconference system was not set up to do so. He was asked for his opinion of SB 99. MR. MCGEE clarified that HB 65 before him was the same bill as SB 99. He began with Sections 32 through 35 which would allow the Office of Public Advocacy and the Department of Administration to adopt regulations under which persons could be charged for the provision of public guardian services. He outlined a process in such a way that would be fair to the individuals and efficient for OPA. MR. MCGEE noted the controversial Sections of 49, 64, and 69, and suggested the court system misunderstood what was trying to be accomplished. He said it was a choice between what was nice and what was necessary. He had reviewed the court system fiscal notes, the Office of Public Advocacy statute to see which representation is constitutionally required, and where the form of representation is crucial to a fair adjudication of the case. MR. MCGEE did not think it was essential to provide guardian ad litem services for some people, and he gave some examples from Section 49 to explain why he thought they were duplicated services. He thought it would be important for the committee and the legislature to examine the appointment of OPA in cases where the custody investigator was already performing the service. SENATOR SALO questioned the child custody investigator serving the same purpose as the person appointed from OPA to the case, and she wanted to know who served the role of being an advocate for the child in a custody case. Number 520 MR. MCGEE answered her questions in terms of what was in the best interest of the child and the functions of the guardian ad litem and the investigator. SENATOR SALO asked for an explanation of the distinctions. MR. MCGEE explained the role of both the custody investigator and the guardian ad litem, and he didn't think it was cost effective to offer duplicated services. SENATOR SALO quoted MR. MCGEE as saying the guardian ad litem was used infrequently, and asked him what was the problem. MR. MCGEE said infrequently still meant thousands of cases and hundreds of cases paid by his office. He described custody cases as being complex and time consuming, and he describe the majority of their services as being to child-in-need-of-aide cases. TAPE 93-11, SIDE B Number 001 MR. MCGEE told SENATOR SALO he didn't think there should be duplicate services unless there were some exceptional circumstances shown in a particular case. He suggested the committee mandate that guardians ad litem would not be appointed in cases where custody investigators provide services, and he gave some examples. SENATOR KELLY asked MS. FRASCA if there was some kind of position transfer from OPA to the court system if the changes are made. MS. FRASCA asked MR. MCGEE to answer his question. MR. MCGEE proceeded to Section 64, the modification of the existing statutory mandate of the agency, and he described the statute as having a number of changes, each of which affects a relatively small number of cases. He picked a couple of examples, one which would take OPA out of the representation of adults, when their child is the subject of delinquency proceedings. He also described the removal of OPA from emancipation cases. MR. MCGEE explained the provisions in SB 69 were in regards to parents of minors involved in commitment proceedings, and he used the same arguments as in Section 68. Number 056 SENATOR LINCOLN, in reference to the emancipation issue, asked if a 17 year old could go before a judge, fill out a form, and ask for emancipation. MR. MCGEE explained there was other criteria that must be met, and a lawyer could be appointed to assist that child. SENATOR LINCOLN said it was not a simple task to become emancipated. SENATOR LINCOLN asked how the changes, as described by MR. MCGEE, affect persons not in an urban area. MR. MCGEE said they could testify by teleconference, and he gave an example of a delinquent child proceedings. He didn't find rural parents any less involved in the lives of their children than urban parents, and would be welcome to participate in those proceedings. SENATOR LINCOLN returned to Section 33 for clarification on a quote from the Commissioner of Administration, where the fee schedule may be based upon ability to pay, whereas, the Office of Public Advocacy shall charge and collect fees established. Who makes the determination the fee schedule? Number 110 MR. MCGEE explained the Commissioner of Administration would be authorized to establish regulations for the collection of fees related to public guardian services. He suggested the word "may" was to allow for greater flexibility in developing these regulations, and gave an example. He also explained how the fees could be computed. SENATOR KELLY thought there might be a consensus from the committee to pull Sections 49, 64, and 69, and let someone put them in a separate bill. He moved to delete the sections. Without objections, so ordered. MR. SNOWDEN said he would be glad to answer any specific questions, if another bill was written. He asked the committee to read the OMB report, which explained where the Office of Public Advocacy should be and why. Number 160 SENATOR LINCOLN asked MR. SNOWDEN about the deleted sections, and he said the court system's fiscal note would disappear. SENATOR KELLY returned to Section 1 and the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and asked for questions. SENATOR RIEGER said he had no questions of the first 32 sections. SENATOR KELLY asked for testimony on any of these sections. SENATOR SALO questioned MS. FRASCA about switching from an annual fee to a biannual, and whether there was any consideration in reducing the license fee. MS. FRASCA explained the license fees exceed the cost of administering the ABC Board, so the excess revenue goes into the general fund. SENATOR KELLY asked for questions on Sections 33 through 35, and SENATOR RIEGER expressed some uneasiness at the extent of the discretion granted in the sections. SENATOR KELLY asked if there was any support for maintaining sections 33 through 35. SENATOR LINCOLN expressed reservations at making decisions when she hadn't read all of the material. SENATOR KELLY assured her there would be two more meetings on the bill. SENATOR KELLY invited MARY LOU MADDEN, Assistant Director to the Postsecondary Education Commission, to testify on Sections 36 through 38. MS. MADDEN explained how the student loan fund was funded by bond receipts and repayment of past loans, and no longer receive a general fund appropriation. She said about $1 million in loans was written off each year from death, total disability, or bankruptcy. She explained the commission was seeking to conserve its capital for the long term by using a guarantee fee, or insurance fee, to help off set the fund loss. They had estimated a 1% fee on their funds would generate about $500 thousand, to recover about a half of what they lose each year. In answer to a question from SENATOR KELLY, MS. MADDEN answered discussed bankruptcy, and said they had only written off $94 thousand. He asked her if the student loan fund was asking for a general fund appropriation, and she said they weren't. SENATOR KELLY clarified the loan fund could manage well with the assistance of Sections 36 through 38. Number 228 SENATOR RIEGER asked for some clarification on the interest rate for the loan fund, bond purchase, and portfolios at 5%. MS MADDEN answered his questions and expanded on the handling of their loan funds. SENATOR KELLY led a discussion with MS. MADDEN on all facets of the student loan fund with questions from SENATORS SALO, RIEGER, and LINCOLN. They discussed the forgiveness benefits, 5% loans, percent of defaults, default personalities, aggressive collections, and the use of private collection agencies. Number 291 SENATOR KELLY asked if the Department of Labor was ready to discuss Section 44, but since no one was there, he said it would be heard again on Thursday, 2/18/93. SENATOR RIEGER expressed concern over both an increase in inspection fees and in spending from some of the departments. MS. FRASCA said she was not aware he wanted testimony from all of the departments. SENATOR KELLY proceeded to Sections 45, 46, and 47. SENATOR RIEGER expressed the same concerns on Section 45 as he did on Section 44. SENATOR KELLY had some questions on Section 47, and JACK WRAY, Executive Director of the Alaska Police Standards Council, was there to testify. MR. WRAY explained the council had asked him to request this section submitted in order for them to have the authority to collect professional fees for certification. He said the intent of the council that all officers should pay this fee for certification. SENATOR KELLY asked for the procedure involved in processing applications for certifications, and MR. WRAY described the process in detail. There followed an extensive question and answer period between SENATOR KELLY and MR. WRAY on certification, professional fees, personnel checks, and new hires. Number 362 SENATOR LINCOLN asked whether the Village Public Safety Officers came under the provisions, and MR. WRAY said currently the VPSO'S were not under the Police Standards Council, which are set by the Department of Public Safety. SENATOR KELLY asked for a reasonable figure to put into the bill rather than using "reasonable fee," and MR. WRAY said he had used the figure of $50 per certificate in the fiscal note he wrote for HB 65. SENATOR KELLY clarified it would be directed to all officers, and MR. WRAY estimated the number for each year, generating about $10,000 per year. Number 420 SENATOR KELLY asked MS. FRASCA about Section 48, and she said it dealt with employment agency permits, to increase the fee from $10 to $100. SENATOR KELLY suggested it was a 1000% increase, and MS. FRASCA said it was the recommendation from the Department of Labor. SENATOR LINCOLN quoted Legislative Legal Counsel as stating Section 48 was not within the present title of the bill, and asked for a response. MS. FRASCA said the Administration had asked the Department of Law to respond to the statement from Legal Counsel about the title, and she was still waiting for an answer. Number 403 SENATOR KELLY introduced Section 50 and noted that JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief of Driver Services for the Division of Motor Vehicles, was there to testify. SENATOR RIEGER asked her about "special request license plates," and MS. HENSLEY described the current statute which would allow a gold and blue flag instead of "The Last Frontier." She had been approached by people wishing special plates designed separate from their personalized plates or vanity plates. MS. HENSLEY said it would give the department the opportunity to design a plate for a fee, similar to the personalized plate. SENATOR SALO asked for clarification on colors for plates, and MS. HENSLEY explained it would only be for special plates such as the previous plate with the Alaskan bear. She said there were people who had requested that plate again, but this would only be for special designed plates - with an extra charge. SENATOR LINCOLN said she had a problem with Section 51. In reference to designing a special plate for the Centennial Highway commemoration, she described the extensive committee hearings to get it accomplished. SENATOR LINCOLN stressed strongly the committee was getting away from fees and into a new service. She opposed Section 51 on the grounds of cost. SENATOR KELLY asked MS. HENSLEY why there wasn't a provision in the bill to charge more money for the special request plates, and she said it was in the fee bill last year, which was not passed. SENATOR KELLY asked MS. FRASCA if it would fit in this bill, and she explained it would cost $30 extra to get special request plates. SENATOR LINCOLN suggested there would need to be a design department, and asked for comments from the Department of Public Safety. She also asked MS. HENSLEY how the city police feel about having different types of license plates out on the streets. MS. HENSLEY said COMMISSIONER BURTON was in favor of changing the license plates as long as it meets the regulations for clearly marked licenses. SENATOR LINCOLN thought COMMISSIONER BURTON meant one new plate, but she knew from previous testimony twelve newly designed plates were to be established. MS. HENSLEY said they would have to pay extra for the designed plates, and she explained plates had to be purchased in lots of 900 and over in order to get a price break. SENATOR KELLY suggested it was a revenue measure, and MS. HENSLEY agreed. SENATOR LINCOLN and MS. HENSLEY discussed the ordering of the plates. TAPE 93-12, SIDE A Number 001 SENATOR SALO returned to Section 50 to question the fee for generating computerized vehicle registration lists, and wanted to know who would request such a list. MS. HENSLEY referred to a freedom of information bill, which made such lists public information, and in order to recoup the cost, they charge $35 per thousand. She discussed the sale of the entire motor vehicle tape to two companies and the services these companies provide. She said motor vehicle records have become useful information, and she described the sale of Public Safety records. Number 042 SENATOR KELLY asked if he could request the name of a person if he had the license number, and MS. HENSLEY said he could - for a fee. She also described a cheaper way to do it at a public terminal in the motor vehicle office on Dowling Road. She said the exception was driver's license records. SENATOR SALO clarified the fees would just recover costs, and MS. HENSLEY agreed. In answer to questions by SENATOR LINCOLN on the same subject, there was a general review of the information. SENATOR KELLY decided to finish the driver license sections for this committee meeting, and continuing with Sections 52 and 53. Number 107 MS. HENSLEY explained, presently, a handicapped license plate can be secured at the designation of a doctor or from agencies such as the Veteran's Administration. She said the bill would use the federal language, which states the handicapped person must not be able to walk a certain distance and affects their mobility, to allow motor vehicles to issue handicapped license plates. SENATOR SALO asked if there was some problem with the bill title and Section 52, and MS. FRASCA provided the logic behind the change. SENATOR KELLY clarified the change in law would only apply to new applicants, but MS. HENSLEY said it would apply to everyone. There was a lengthily discussion between SENATOR KELLY and MS. HENSLEY, and both SENATOR KELLY and SENATOR SALO decided quite a few people presently having free handicap licensees were going to be unhappy. MS. HENSLEY presented the flip side of those who objected to seemingly handicapped people walking through parking lots and malls. Number 178 SENATOR LINCOLN referred to the memo from Legislative Legal Counsel to suggest the change might increase administrative expenses to the state. MS. FRASCA argued the bill was not adding anything new and shouldn't increase the costs. SENATOR KELLY questioned whether a person could get a handicapped license for a spouse, but does the driving for the handicapped spouse. MS. HENSLEY said they would need proper documentation. SENATOR KELLY asked for comments on Section 53, and MS. HENSLEY described the license requirements as a clean-up measure for automobile dealers. It would generate revenue. SENATOR KELLY asked about Section 54, and MS. HENSLEY said titles would no longer be issued for mobile homes, since the use of titles was lax. She explained the hassle of keeping track of previous owners of mobile homes. SENATOR KELLY asked for a definition of mobile home, and MS. HENSLEY referred to Section 58 for a definition. MS. FRASCA referred SENATOR SALO to page 18, line 3 of the bill, which removes mobile homes. MS. HENSLEY said Section 55 clarified, by statute, that only once each calendar year, a senior citizen would be eligible for a free vehicle registration and one set of license plates. Number 250 SENATOR SALO and MS. HENSLEY discussed the registration of snow machines, and she asked if Section 54 was an appropriate place to register snowmobiles. MS. HENSLEY said the Department of Public Safety would oppose registration of snowmobiles, since they do not want them on the highways. SENATOR SALO was thinking of the growing problem in Alaska with theft of snowmobiles with no way to trace them. She asked some related questions about personal property tax in relation to snow machines. SENATOR KELLY asked MS. FRASCA how she was going to stop the floor amendments on the bill, and he asked if it was the same as the fee bill last year. MS. HENSLEY answered it did go to the floor, and had lots of amendments. Number 305 SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the bill was going to be broken up into four other bills, and MS. FRASCA said she was willing to work to see some of the parts proceed. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m.