Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/06/2021 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB63 | |
| HB137 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 63 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 137-MOTOR VEHICLE OFFICES
3:39:09 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 137, "An Act requiring the Department of
Administration to maintain and operate certain offices that
provide services related to motor vehicles; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 137(STA).]
3:39:42 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony.
3:40:04 PM
MIKE COONS expressed his opposition to HB 137. He opined that
the bill is not needed, as "finance" allocated full funding for
the DMV offices in question. He recalled that DOA made a
recommendation to the legislature, which was turned down;
therefore, this bill is not necessary. Instead, he requested
that the committee hear HB 140, sponsored by Representative
Vance, which would have more immediate impact to seniors
throughout the state, he said.
3:41:05 PM
NONA SAFRA stated her support for HB 137. As an advocate for
seniors, veterans, and those with disabilities, she expressed
concern about the continued possibility of DMV closures in rural
Alaska, which would leave many Alaskans with only privatized
DMVs that charge unregulated, arbitrary convenience fees. She
pointed out that DOA is under no obligation to keep local DMV
offices open and, as the former commissioner noted, has the
authority to close DMVs at will. She pointed out that those who
require medical care outside the state need a Real ID to travel,
which entails an in-person visit to the DMV. She added that if
a local DMV closes, that trip could require hundreds of miles of
travel through harsh weather and poor road conditions.
Additionally, she indicated that many residents cannot use
online services for lack of internet connection or broadband
issues. She remarked that HB 137 recognizes that state DMVs are
integral to rural communities and keeps rural Alaskans from
being treated differently than their urban counterparts. She
urged the passage of HB 137 to maintain access for all Alaskans.
3:44:32 PM
PETER MCKEE provided comments not on topic with the published
agenda.
3:48:34 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony on HB 137 and
invited questions from the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to clarify whether the state would
be excluded from [hiring] a short-term contract employee at a
state-operated [DMV] office.
3:49:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZACK FIELDS, Alaska State Legislature, shared his
understanding that the bill would not prohibit the state from
[hiring] a temporary employee to operate a state DMV.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether that response is based on
the bill sponsor's personal intent or an attorney's opinion.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said it's how the bill was written. He
surmised that agency operations had never been construed to
preclude use of temporary employees; further, he shared his
belief that temporary employees are used by many agencies.
3:50:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the committee would consider
several amendments. He noted that he would be offering
Amendment 1 on behalf of the bill sponsor, Representative
Fields.
3:51:10 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 32-
LS0650\B.1, Bullard, 4/5/21], which read:
Page 1, line 4, through page 2, line 4:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Section 1. AS 28.05 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 28.05.013. Maintenance and operation of
certain offices that provide motor vehicle services.
(a) The department, or the department in partnership
with a municipal, state, or federal agency, shall
maintain and operate at least one office that provides
the public with services related to motor vehicles in
each community of the state
(1) with a population of 850 persons or
more; and
(2) that had, on January 1, 2021, an office
providing services related to motor vehicles operated
by the department, or by a municipal, state, or
federal agency in partnership with the department.
(b) An office under (a) of this section shall
provide the public with all services related to motor
vehicles that the office offered in the community on
January 1, 2021.
(c) In this section, "community" means a place
in the unorganized borough, in a borough, or in a
unified municipality that is not incorporated as a
municipality and in which 850 or more individuals
reside as a social unit."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:51:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS explained that Amendment 1 clarifies that
the term "operate" indicates that the department shall operate a
DMV in one of these communities and that outsourcing to a
private sector entity that could raise prices or potentially
fail to offer core DMV services would not satisfy the
legislative intent, as the purpose is to continue offering core
public service, including some that cannot be provided by a
private firm.
3:52:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referenced line 13 of Amendment 1 and
remarked:
What happens when we have a technological development
and the state ceases to offer a service statewide, but
we have in statute that ... the DMV is going to have
to keep requiring that service at these particular
locations. Is that prudent?
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS stated that there are certain services
that can only be accomplished at the DMV versus a private
provider. He said the intent of Amendment 1 is to continue
offering those services, such as driver's license tests,
driver's license renewals for persons over age 69, commercial
driver's licenses, and driver's license reinstatement. He
opined that the intent is clear: to offer core services at the
DMV. Further, he speculated that if there were a power outage,
the courts would understand.
3:53:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that the amendment does not
specify "core services" or "services that only the DMV can
provide," it says "all services." For that reason, he opined
that Amendment 1 is poorly worded, as all accessible services at
DMV locations must continue to be accessible at those locations.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said, "these are the services that DMV
offers at its locations." He reiterated that the purpose of the
bill is to continue providing DMV services consistently in rural
communities and not discriminate against communities based on
size.
3:54:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN insisted that because of the political
process, the [DMV] offices were not closed. He remarked:
The people that represent those districts said, "Nope,
can't do it," and the vote went accordingly in the
budgeting process. What that gives is the
flexibility. You don't start to get into the weeds of
having something codified that locks you into a
certain thing.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN characterized the bill as "a solution
looking for a problem." He said the issue was already voted
down with a great deal of unanimity.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS acknowledged that the legislation mirrors
prior debates. He explained that sometimes, an administration
follows budget recommendations and other times, they may push
back. Because of the leadership transition at DOA, he believed
moving forward with the bill is a prudent way to ensure that DMV
facilities remain open. He added that the budget language was a
positive step but not as strong as a bill.
3:56:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referenced line 6 of Amendment 1 and
asked what circumstances would require the department to be in
partnership with a federal agency to accomplish one or more of
the services.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS recalled that when the then Barrow [now
Utqiagvik] DMV closed, the community considered a wide range of
options to continue providing its services. He explained that
the purpose in broadly referencing public agencies is to ensure
there would be an opportunity to offer core services more
efficiently. He pointed out that there is a long-standing
relationship between federal statutes and state provision of
services, including the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of
1999 and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. He
said because of the long-standing state/federal relationship, it
made sense to reference federal agencies, as the potential
permutations of public agencies offering DMV services vary by
community.
3:58:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which a
community had a state DMV office that offered 10 services and a
federal agency that offered one service that related to motor
vehicles. Should Amendment 1 be adopted, he offered his
understanding that the DMV office could close if the federal
office remained open and continued to provide that one service.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS characterized Representative Eastman's
understanding of Amendment 1 as "absurd." He added that
offering one service would not satisfy the intent of the bill.
3:59:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN withdrew his objection to the adoption of
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. He characterized Amendment 1
as "poorly written." Furthermore, he opined that the "intent
[is] different than what's actually on the page."
3:59:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed her support for Amendment 1 based
on discussions surrounding the Pioneer Homes last year. She
recalled that legislators clearly expressed their intent
regarding the Pioneer Homes; nonetheless, "the department"
continued to act with different intent. She relayed that it
took legislation [House Bill 96] to change that.
4:00:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that with all amendments,
Legislative Legal Services drafts the sponsor's intent
consistent with legislative drafting standards and requirements.
He opined that the current language in Amendment 1 appropriately
conveys the sponsor's intent. He expressed his support for the
amendment and stated his belief that the language is not
ambiguous.
4:01:48 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr, Story,
Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of the adoption of
Amendment 1. Representatives Kaufman and Eastman voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 4-2.
4:02:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, [labeled 32-
LS0650\B.2, Bullard/Dunmire, 4/6/21], which read:
Page 1, lines 1 - 2:
Delete "; and providing for an effective date"
Page 2, line 5:
Delete all material.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN indicated that Amendment 2 would forego
the immediate effective date, which is currently in HB 137, and
implement the "normal" practice of providing for an effective
date 90 days after the bill is passed into law.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the bill sponsor,
Representative Fields, is supportive of Amendment 2.
4:03:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS answered no. He explained that the
immediate effective date conveys the legislature's intent to
keep the DMV offices open.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN maintained his objection to the adoption
of Amendment 2.
4:04:34 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and Kaufman
voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 2. Representatives
Tarr, Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 2-4.
4:05:10 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited final questions from the committee.
4:06:50 PM
LESLIE ISAACS, Administrative Services Director, Department of
Administration, in response to a question from Representative
Kaufman regarding two fiscal notes from DOA, shared his
understanding that one fiscal note had costs in the outlying
years and the other had those costs removed. He asked if that
is correct.
4:07:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN answered yes.
MR. ISAACS explained that DOA was trying to decide the impact
this legislation would have on future years. He believed that
an amended fiscal note would be submitted by DOA that would
reinsert the FY 23 - FY 26 costs as ongoing expenses. He
expounded that should the bill be approved, this budget
decrement would not be able to be offered in the future as a
cost-saving measure; therefore, those costs needed to be
reflected in outlying years as well. He asked if that makes
sense.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked which fiscal note is "official."
MR. ISAACS indicated that the fiscal note with the figure "582"
in the outlying years is accurate. He noted that another
adjustment should be made with respect to the revenue, as there
would be no change in the revenue associated with this
legislation because the activity associated with the existing
DMV services will continue. He stated that the fiscal note was
attempting to convey that these savings could not be offered in
the future. He remarked:
It doesn't work well with the format of the fiscal
note ... to show a loss in savings. So, we would have
to remove the revenue aspect of that fiscal note and
include outlying expenditures for what would be the
official version of the fiscal note.
4:10:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed confusion, as only one fiscal
note was included in the committee packet.
4:10:42 PM
TRISTAN WALSH, Staff, Representative Zack Fields, Alaska State
Legislature, concurred [that there is only one fiscal note].
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed that he had only seen one fiscal
note, which showed 582.5 in FY 22, nothing in the prior years,
and zero in the revenue line. He suggested that Representative
Kaufman was referring to a "phantom" fiscal note.
4:11:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS, in response to Mr. Isaacs, opined that
claiming that the bill would cost money because DOA wouldn't be
able to close a DMV office in the future is a novel way of
presenting a fiscal note. He added that typically, a fiscal
note indicates whether the bill would increase or decrease
costs. He stated that the bill does not increase the number of
services offered by the DMV; therefore, there is no additional
net cost. He proceeded to list the positive profit turned by
the following DMV offices: Delta Junction, $108,000; Eagle
River, $1.1 million; Haines, $33,000; Homer $457,000; Tok,
$162,000; Valdez, $68,000. He said if DOA were to provide an
accurate fiscal note, it would show a loss in DGF revenue,
adding that it is inaccurate to claim that the bill would cost
$0.5 million more. He deferred to Ms. Javier to explain the
cost per facility.
4:13:07 PM
SABRINA JAVIER, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance Division,
Alaska State Legislature, confirmed that there is only one
fiscal note, which she identified by the control code "ShScA".
She cooccurred with Representative Fields that the fiscal note
makes it look like DOA is adding 582.5 in additional DGF funds
for General Fund program receipt authority. She noted that the
numbers listed by the bill sponsor came from an ad hoc report on
FY 20 revenues.
4:15:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN shared his belief that the unpopularity
of the proposed DMV closures resulted in expeditious action by
the [House] Finance subcommittee. He recalled that there was no
support for the proposal. He expressed his hesitation to
"locking" the legislature into something that may make sense in
the future both politically and fiscally. He added that he
would hate to "needlessly dance on the grave of [the
subcommittee's] prior decision."
4:16:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN characterized the legislation as "a
singularly terrible piece of legislation for [his] district."
He reflected on the growth of [District 10], noting that having
[a DMV office] in his district would be a benefit for residents.
He suggested that should the bill pass, that opportunity may be
eliminated because the state may not want to be "handcuffed" to
adding a DMV office near existing offices. He opined that the
bill is a backdoor method of attempting to "handcuff" future
legislators into appropriations. He emphasized his opposition
to HB 137.
4:19:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report CSHB 137, Version 32-
LS0650\B, Bullard/Dunmire, 3/29/21, as amended, out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
4:19:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. He subsequently withdrew his
objection.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS hearing no further objection, announced
that CSHB 137(STA) was moved from the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 63 Emails of Support - Volume 3.pdf |
HSTA 4/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 63 |
| HB 137 Letter of Support - Zuyus 4.5.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 Letters of Support - 3.29.21 - 4.5.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 Fiscal Note - DOA 3.26.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 63 Legal Memo - 4.6.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 63 |
| HB 137 Amendments B.1 and B.2 - 4.6.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |