Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
02/14/2024 08:30 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB81 | |
| HB148 | |
| HB193 | |
| HB155 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 148 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 193 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 81
"An Act relating to the transfer of a title on the
death of the owner; and providing for an effective
date."
8:37:29 AM
Co-Chair Foster noted that no amendments had been received
for the bill. The committee would review the one fiscal
note from the Department of Administration.
JEFFREY SCHMITZ, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
(DMV), DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference),
stated that he had just been informed that the fiscal note
submitted by the DMV had been changed by the committee. He
believed the note was now indeterminate or zero. He could
not speak to the reasons why the committee had changed the
note.
Co-Chair Foster replied that he did not believe the fiscal
note had been changed by the committee. He looked at fiscal
note with the OMB component number 2348 showing total
operating expenditures of $75,000 designated general funds
(DGF). He thought it was likely the original fiscal note.
8:39:16 AM
AT EASE
8:39:50 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster noted that Mr. Schmitz may be looking at an
earlier version of the fiscal note generated in the House
Transportation Committee, which was no longer relevant. He
clarified that the committee was addressing OMB component
number 2348.
Mr. Schmitz apologized for the confusion. He detailed that
the DMV fiscal note included $75,000 for programming needed
to change DMV's information system in accordance with the
bill. He elaborated that the cost had been provided by the
Office of Information Technology (OIT) [under the
Department of Administration]. He explained that there were
no other DMV costs.
Co-Chair Foster asked the bill sponsor to come to the table
to ensure the fiscal note was accurate.
RYAN MCKEE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER,
confirmed the fiscal note was correct. He explained that
the House Transportation Committee had changed the fiscal
note to indeterminate, but it had reverted back to the
prior fiscal note with cost of $75,000 when it reached the
House Finance Committee.
Co-Chair Johnson thought that the title transfer would
already take place when someone passed away. She wondered
why the funds were needed if the step was not additional.
Mr. Schmitz responded that it was not something that
happened automatically when an individual died. He
explained that the DMV or individuals involved did not
automatically know who [a vehicle title] should be
transferred to. He expounded that sometimes a vehicle could
be subject to probate. He explained there were a variety of
other features that could direct a path of ultimate
ownership in different directions. He was certain it was
the reason for the bill, in order to clarify what would
happen when an owner died. The programming involved would
be to change all of the fields needed to display the intent
of the owners upon death clearly on the title.
8:44:33 AM
Co-Chair Johnson observed that it would take 600
programming hours [based on the information in the fiscal
note]. She estimated that was about 15 weeks.
Mr. Schmitz responded affirmatively. He stated it was the
information provided by OIT. He explained it was a
complicated item, particularly pertaining to ownership
fields. He elaborated that it had to be tested and
regression tested. He stated that it could take an OIT team
awhile to work on it and he did not know the exact process
or the number of programmers involved.
Co-Chair Johnson thought it seemed to be a lot of
programming to do a title transfer.
Co-Chair Foster noted Leslie Isaacs, Administrative Service
Director, Department of Administration, was in the room for
questions as well.
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER, SPONSOR, stated it was hard
for him to understand why it would take the specified
length of time to make the change. He had seen other bills
with similar changes that had a zero fiscal note.
8:46:55 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon asked if the committee was disputing the
fiscal note.
Co-Chair Foster clarified they were asking questions.
Co-Chair Edgmon asked if they were information gathering on
the fiscal note. He was uncertain what the committee was
doing.
Co-Chair Foster remarked that it sounded like there were
some questions on the note. He stated that the department
felt it needed the money for the work. He reasoned that if
the funding was not provided the department may have to
request a supplemental appropriation later on. He was
comfortable going forward with the fiscal note.
Co-Chair Edgmon wanted to see the bill move and thought
they should move it forward. He surmised that the fiscal
note was likely not what the bill sponsor wanted to see,
but in the scheme of things the cost was fairly nominal. He
believed they should go for the greater good and move the
bill.
Co-Chair Johnson also wanted to see the bill move. She did
not want to get bogged down on the $75,000 fiscal note. She
thought she would need to spend some time looking into how
the numbers were determined on fiscal notes coming to the
committee.
Representative Hannan stated that she did not know anything
about computer programming. She deferred to the OIT
expertise. She was very supportive of the bill. She shared
that she had just gone through a complicated probate
process with her sister. She understood that things that
should be simple and straight forward were sometimes not.
She remarked that they were talking about vehicle and boat
titles, which could add a layer of complexity. She reminded
the committee that DMV was one of the few places in the
state budget that generated millions of dollars to the
general fund that lapsed annually. She stated her
understanding that the $75,000 in the fiscal note was the
maximum cost and the cost may not reach that amount. She
supported moving the bill.
Co-Chair Foster added that the funds were a one-time
amount.
8:50:43 AM
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to REPORT HB 81 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 81 was REPORTED out of committee with ten "do pass"
recommendations and one "no recommendation" recommendation
and with one new fiscal impact note from the Department of
Administration.
8:51:29 AM
AT EASE
8:52:37 AM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 193 Amendments 1-2 021324.pdf |
HFIN 2/14/2024 8:30:00 AM |
HB 193 |
| HB 155 Amendment 1 Hannan 021324.pdf |
HFIN 2/14/2024 8:30:00 AM |
HB 155 |
| HB 193 Amendment 1 Backup DEED BAG 021424.pdf |
HFIN 2/14/2024 8:30:00 AM |
HB 193 |
| HB 193 Amendment 1 Backup E-Rate_Recipient_Details_And_Commitments_20240125_E-Rate_FY2023_School_Internet.pdf |
HFIN 2/14/2024 8:30:00 AM |
HB 193 |