Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/27/2001 01:10 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 39-VEHICLE REGISTRATION/DWI/FORFEITURE
CHAIR KOHRING announced the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 39, "An Act relating to registration of motor
vehicles, to operating a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft
while intoxicated, and to driving with a cancelled, suspended,
or revoked driver's license; relating to duties of the division
of alcoholism and drug abuse regarding driving-while-intoxicated
offenses; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee, adopted at the previous hearing, was
Version F, (22-LS0201\F,Ford,2/2/01).]
Number 1761
ROGER WORTMAN, Staff to Representative Pete Kott, Alaska State
Legislature, came forward on behalf of the sponsor. He
explained that due to peculiar insurance issues as they relate
to the registration of vehicles within the Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV), the sponsor requests that HB 39 pass through the
House Transportation Standing Committee and be referred to the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
CHAIR KOHRING asked if the version before the committee is the
same one presented to the House Transportation Standing
Committee a few weeks ago. He referred to it as the [watered
down] version. He also asked what the bottom-line cost of the
bill is.
MR. WORTMAN stated that the House Transportation Standing
Committee aide prepared a summary (dated 2/14/01) on the fiscal
notes for the committee substitute. He asked if this was in the
committee members' packets. He said that since he is the
"caretaker" of the bill, who sees that the bill is passed
through the various committees, he has not studied the fiscal
notes specifically. Therefore, today he could not speak
"intelligently" on the fiscal notes.
Number 1897
CHAIR KOHRING remarked that it looks like the bottom-line cost
of this bill is about "half a million, about 1,000 [in] FY 02,
down to 531 five years out." He said that he was not in the
position to explain this either. He mentioned that it would
have been helpful if the sponsor [Representative Kott] were
here.
MR. WORTMAN commented that the fiscal note is not the issue
here. He reiterated that there are peculiar insurance issues
that need to be referred to the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee. He mentioned that after this was resolved,
the bill could be re-referred back to the House Transportation
Standing Committee. At this time, this is the sponsor's intent.
He reiterated that he was not prepared to discuss the breakdown
of the fiscal note.
CHAIR KOHRING remarked that it gives him "a source of great
discomfort" to have a fiscal note that cannot be explained. He
suggested that the department representatives who prepared the
fiscal notes and are impacted by this could address the notes.
However, this might take time, and "we are already seven minutes
before the conclusion of this meeting."
Number 1972
CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Corrections, explained that the Department of
Corrections submitted a fiscal note [on Version F] for a total
of $286.2 [thousand] a year. This amount is for supplementing
current contracts for institutional substance-abuse treatment
programs. The department's current contracts, for funding of
treatment programs, have not been supplemented since 1993.
Therefore, [the department] has lost some valuable assets,
because the contracts cannot be maintained at the current level.
MS. BROWER stated that actually, this increment was in the
governor's budget. She said that if the fiscal note were
submitted now, it would have probably been a zero fiscal note.
However, "we" have been instructed to show our costs even though
it was in the governor's budget. Due to the provision in
Version F that allows people to "receive treatment while
incarcerated at their discretion," the department wanted to be
able to maintain the current level of treatment. The $286.l2
[thousand] amount would provide that.
CHAIR KOHRING pointed out that the other fiscal note is from the
DMV.
Number 2077
MARY MARSHBURN, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration, said that the current system
within the State of Alaska is self-certification of insurance,
which means, "Before you register a vehicle, you need to
certify." This [Version F] proposes changing that system so
that individuals would have to provide physical proof of
insurance, by showing a policy or insurance card. This would
affect the ways DMV registers vehicles. Currently, vehicles can
be registered through partners, over the Internet, by telephone,
by mail, and in [person at the] office. The costs envisioned in
the fiscal note include the fact that the Internet and telephone
transactions would most likely have to be discontinued, and in
return, these transactions would come into "our "office.
MS. MARSHBURN explained that an additional level of staffing is
required for these 30,000 transactions. Time for in-office
transactions would increase because people will need to bring in
proof [of insurance]. Dealers and I/M [emission inspection]
vendors would be required to view the proof of insurance before
they complete a sale or before one could get an I/M [emission]
inspection done in Anchorage or Fairbanks, where the bulk of
transactions are. She went on to say:
If dealers chose to discontinue their partnership with
"us" because it presents them with delay or inability
to complete transactions, then these transactions
again revert to DMV. I think the guts of this issue,
for DMV, is that offering proof of insurance really
does nothing, ... in our view, ... to decrease the
uninsured drivers.
MS. MARSHBURN referred to testimony that she gave last week
regarding her car insurance. She reiterated that she has
insurance through USAA. Her insurance card, which she keeps in
the glove compartment of her car, states that she is covered
through 12/31/01. However, she said her premium is only paid
through the end of March. So, even though the intent of the
provision is admirable, it adds additional work and "takes us
back in venues, at a significant cost."
Number 2205
CHAIR KOHRING asked if the committee cared to give him any
direction, and if the consensus was to hold the bill over. He
said that based on Ms. Marshburn's testimony, it appears that
there are substantial costs [with this bill]. He added, "We may
not be achieving our goal here. It's not really going to have
the impact that it intended, and that could be a wrong analysis
.... "
Number 2269
MR. WORTMAN reiterated the sponsor's request to move this bill
to the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee because that
committee deals with other insurance issues. The sponsor's
intent within the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee,
of which he is a member, is to discuss the possibility of
dealing with insurance companies to "brunt a portion of this
cost" down from the DMV.
CHAIR KOHRING replied that he would "hate to act in haste
especially when we're dealing with over a half-million dollars."
He recognized Representative Kott's intent and said, "It would
be a good enhancement to what Representative Rokeberg did."
However, he still has concerns about the expenditure. He said,
"I don't want to look like a committee that's spending money
like a bunch of drunken sailors. We just got through passing a
bill that has a price tag of 8 million bucks on it."
MR. WORTMAN reiterated that the sponsor's intent was to "grapple
this thing" in the committee [House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee] and lower the fiscal note. He believes that once
this bill is "grappled" with and the insurance companies come
"online," the fiscal note will be lowered, if "they would empty
it and, indeed, absorb some costs of this tracking that Ms.
Marshburn is talking about."
CHAIR KOHRING asked what the will of the committee was.
Number 2298
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that he does not have a problem with
passing this bill out with personal recommendations. At this
point, he can't support either of the bills [HB 4 and HB 39].
However, the focus of the House Transportation Standing
Committee is transportation issues. He said that with the
"other bill," the fiscal note should probably be addressed in
other committees. As long as our recommendations show that, his
comfort level is satisfied with an [individual] recommendation
of "do not pass."
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said, "I don't think we can do anything
more on this bill; I'd like to move it out."
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated that this bill has been scheduled a
few times, and that it should go to the next committee.
Number 2344
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to move CSHB 39 [Version 22-
LS0201\F, Ford, 2/2/01], from the committee with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being no
objections, CSHB 39(TRA) moved from the House Transportation
Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|