Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
03/02/2022 09:00 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 | |
| HB166 | |
| HB177 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 166 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 282 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 166
"An Act relating to the issuance of vehicle
registration plates."
9:05:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCABE, BILL SPONSOR, explained that
the bill would take Alaska vehicles from a two-plate
requirement to a one-plate requirement. He described HB 166
as a budget bill meant to bring savings to the state. He
thought the legislature was past the point of making large
budget cuts and legislators were looking for places to make
"surgical efficiencies." His office had spoken extensively
with police departments and the Department of Public Safety
(DPS). He detailed the entities had reported five citations
in 2020 and one citation in 2019. He explained the
citations were fix-it tickets that generated no revenue for
the state. He believed the state should save some money in
the production and distribution of the plates. He detailed
that the bill did not impact any program, service, or jobs.
The plates were generated by a company contracted by the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). He viewed the bill as a
surgical change and pointed to the fiscal note showing a
cost savings of $332,000. He thought it would be helpful to
the state if the legislature could make numerous "small
surgical changes."
9:07:29 AM
Representative Wool asked if the customer paying for their
license plate would be charged less for one plate instead
of two.
Representative McCabe replied that Alaska was different
than most other states on the topic. He explained that in
most other states a vehicle owner paid a registration fee
and purchased the plates. He clarified that in Alaska,
individuals paid the registration fee, and the state bought
the plates. He elaborated that according to the Department
of Administration (DOA), the bill would mean the state
would only have to purchase one plate per vehicle, which
would result in savings to the state. He supposed the costs
could be passed to citizens, but the registration was not
that big, and it would be a wash.
Representative Wool clarified that he did not really want
to change any other fee structures and did not support
changing fee structures for vehicle registration. He asked
for verification that because the bill only required one
license plate per vehicle, it would be possible for a
person to legally put on a plate of their favorite sports
team.
Representative McCabe agreed.
Representative Thompson referenced specialty plates. He
asked for verification that vehicle owners would not be
disallowed from having a front plate as well. He surmised a
person could continue to purchase and pay for specialty
plates to install on the front and back of their vehicle.
Representative McCabe agreed.
Representative Thompson thought it sounded good.
Vice-Chair Ortiz thanked the sponsor for bringing the bill
forward and appreciated that making small savings in
various locations could add up. He asked if there had been
any element of added safety for law enforcement to identify
vehicles more easily with two plates.
Representative McCabe did not know the precise history
behind the use of two plates. He stated that traffic had
been slower in the past when plates had been put in. He
stated that especially with new cars, the front license
plate interfered with the radar sensors, cameras, and
proximity sensors placed on front bumpers. He explained
that most new cars, including hybrid and electric, were not
equipped with front plates and it was necessary to drill
holes in the bumper or get an after market license plate
holder. He believed the bill moved Alaska forward with the
technology. His office had checked with the various police
departments and DPS. He noted that individuals from the
organizations were available online.
Representative McCabe identified the Anchorage Police
Department (APD) as the only police department that had a
problem with the bill. He elaborated that APD had stated
the change would take a tool away from the department. He
informed the committee that DPS was neutral on the bill and
had communicated it would deal with whatever the
legislature decided. He added that one of the police
departments in the [Mat-Su] valley had communicated it
would not be enthusiastic about the change, but it was not
that big of a deal. Based on his own personal survey, he
observed that about one in ten vehicles did not have a
front plate or it was not visible at night due to snow or
mud. He wondered why the state should spend the money on
the plate if it was not ticketing for its absence.
9:12:57 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz thought it sounded reasonable. He asked if
current law required vehicles to have front and back
plates.
Representative McCabe answered vehicles were currently
statutorily required to have front and back plates, but it
was not enforced. He noted the penalty was a fix-it ticket.
He added he had supporting documents from individuals
stating they would rather get a fix-it ticket than drill
holes in their Jaguar or expensive truck bumpers.
Representative LeBon recognized there was a representative
present from DPS.
9:14:09 AM
KELLY HOWELL, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, stated that the department did
not have a position on the bill. The department would
enforce whatever laws the legislature deemed necessary and
prudent. She noted there was a captain with the Alaska
State Troopers on the line who could answer questions
regarding enforcement.
DAVID WILSON, CAPTAIN, ALASKA STATE TROOPERS, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference), shared that he had been
a state trooper for 20 years and had been assigned to a
variety of things including petrol, investigations, and the
director's office. He noted that DPS did not have a
position on the bill and would do whatever was necessary to
modify its current work in order to accommodate any
changes. There were a couple of things the department did
where front plates were helpful. For example, when a
collision occurred and there was a criminal charge, the
offender was typically hitting someone with their car
instead of getting hit by someone. He explained that front
plates often fell off at hit-and-run sites, which helped
the department. He noted it did not mean the department
would not be able to find the offender in another way, but
it was something that effected investigations.
Mr. Wilson identified a second example relating to criminal
activities involving a suspect absconding from a scene. He
explained that as officers approached a scene, vehicles
traveling away from the incident were headed towards the
officers and the front plate was visible. He explained that
without the front plate, there were vehicle descriptions
and perhaps other things, but it was a bit more difficult
to locate absconders. He stated the issues were not
insurmountable, but they impacted the department's ability
to investigate sometimes. He noted the department could get
around the issue in other ways. He explained that resources
were often the issue: the more officers the department had
to respond to a scene increased the likelihood of pulling
over a vehicle matching the description where the front
plate would not be as necessary. He confirmed that the
department did not ticket the violation very often.
9:17:15 AM
Representative Wool asked if the lack of a front plate was
used as a reason to pull someone over to look into further
infractions or violations of law.
Mr. Wilson confirmed it was the case. He elaborated it was
referred to as "probable cause for a traffic stop." He
noted that when used for probable cause it often turned
into other enforcement action. He elaborated if there were
more serious things found during the traffic stop, the
other issues would likely get more attention than the front
plate as far as ticketing and eventually criminal charges
if they occurred.
Co-Chair Merrick asked for an explanation of "PC."
Mr. Wilson replied that PC stood for probable cause. He
explained that DPS was required to have a burden of proof
that a violation had occurred in order to seize a vehicle.
The department could not merely pull people over without a
reason. The front plate provided PC for a traffic stop
because it was a violation.
Representative Wool asked if DPS kept statistics on the
number of times it used the lack of a front license plate
as PC but did not issue a ticket as a result of the traffic
stop.
Mr. Wilson would follow up with an answer. He did not
believe DPS had a database storing information for PC for
stops that were not ticketed. The department did have
records on the actual tickets.
Representative Josephson thought a stop required reasonable
suspicion not probable cause.
Mr. Wilson answered that DPS needed reasonable suspicion
during a traffic stop to do things like a dog search on a
vehicle for the presence of narcotics. He explained that
probable cause was required for the initial traffic stop.
He elaborated that the topic often arose during criminal
investigations involving DUI [driving under the influence]
and other crimes, where the probable cause was often
challenged by the defense. He explained that without good
probable cause, the entire DUI could be dismissed.
9:20:34 AM
Representative Josephson thought that previous questions in
the committee seemed to contain an undercurrent of troopers
using the absence of a front plate as pretext to find other
nefarious misconduct. He asked if Mr. Wilson supported that
notion.
Mr. Wilson answered that state troopers were very busy and
generally the absence of a front plate did not get
significant attention from DPS to initiate a traffic stop
unless there was something else going on. He expounded that
if a vehicle matched a description of a vehicle seen as a
dangerous driver along the roadway or speeding through a
neighborhood and the troopers did not have a good
description of the vehicle, the lack of a front plate would
be a pretext for reckless driving or an assault
investigation. He stated the department did not really have
much time for troopers to pull someone over just because a
plate was missing; it usually involved in a more serious
offence.
Representative Edgmon thanked the bill sponsor for bringing
the bill forward. He thought of a bill offered earlier in
the current session by Representative James Kaufman about
digital publications. He reasoned that often times the
benefits and the costs lay in the margin. He considered a
scenario where HB 166 passed and became law. He remarked
that there would continue to be vehicles with front license
plates including motor vehicles like ATVs and snow
machines. He asked if the bill sponsor had thought out the
implementation and how the situation would work.
9:23:34 AM
Representative McCabe asked for clarification.
Representative Edgmon clarified he was asking about a
scenario where the bill went into effect.
Representative McCabe had not thought out the mechanics. He
highlighted that he had a conversation the previous evening
with a staffer who had shared her back license plate had
been destroyed. The individual had communicated that if the
bill passed, she would put the front plate on the back of
her car and add license decals so she did not have to buy a
new plate. He was not clear on Representative Edgmon's
question.
Representative Edgmon provided a scenario where a person
registered their vehicle in 2022. He asked for verification
that the car would have a front plate with a 2024 decal.
Representative McCabe answered that front plates did not
have decals.
9:25:13 AM
Representative Wool asked how many other states had a one
plate or two plate law.
Representative McCabe answered that 20 states currently had
a one plate law. He noted that Idaho was currently going
through the process. He shared that Ohio was the most
recent state to go through the process; his office had
spoken with a trooper in Ohio who had reported the rollout
there had been seamless and the change had not hindered the
ability to make stops for traffic offences.
Representative Edgmon believed the bill was a good idea and
saving $330,000 was a substantial amount of money.
Representative Johnson asked if there were any safety
considerations associated with having four holes drilled in
the front bumper with no license plate.
Representative McCabe believed it depended on the car. He
shared that his father-in-law was an old car buff and some
of the older front bumpers were small. He imagined a large
plate holder on the front of some older cars could impact
the structural integrity. He highlighted that newer
electric cars did not have a font bumper. He believed it
would likely impact the structural integrity of the
plastic.
Representative Thompson had not heard any resistance to the
bill. He requested to report it from committee during the
current meeting.
9:27:52 AM
AT EASE
9:28:51 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter asked what liability Alaska
drivers picked up if they moved to another state or drove
their vehicle to another state. He surmised the move would
require a new license plate in a new state. He asked if
drivers would pick up a liability if they drove to another
state requiring two license plates.
Representative McCabe answered that his office had talked
to the Ohio state trooper about the issue. He explained
that in the past, a neighboring state had a one-plate law
and Ohio troopers would notice vehicles driving through
with one plate. One of the reasons Ohio changed its law to
one plate was to align with the neighboring state. He
explained that typically the law for a vehicle's
registration followed the car. For example, an Alaska car
driving to Washington would only need one plate [if the
bill became law]. He reasoned that a driver could perhaps
be stopped, but they would be legal because their
registration was in Alaska and they were complying with
Alaska law.
9:30:47 AM
JULIE MORRIS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCABE (via
teleconference), reviewed the sectional analysis (copy on
file):
Section 1: Amends AS 28.10.108(g) to make all
references to "plates" and "registration" singular.
Section 2: Amends AS 28.10.108(h) to make all
references to "plates" singular.
Section 3: Amends AS 28.10.155(a) to make all
references to "plates" singular.
Section 4: Grammatically amends AS 28.10.161(a) to
conform with the singular intent of the bill.
Section 5: Amends AS 28.10.161(b) adds conforming
language for a singular plate.
Section 6: Adds a subsection to AS 28.10.161 that
provides an individual or organization the option to
return a plate should they be issued two plates.
Section 7: Grammatically amends AS 28.10.181(b) to
conform with the singular intent of the bill.
Section 8: Amends AS 28.10.181(j) to make all
references to "plates" singular.
Section 9: Amends AS 28.10.121(d)(9) to make all
references to "plates" singular.
Section 10: Amends AS 28.10.441 to make all references
to "plates" singular.
9:31:44 AM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Merrick asked the department to review the fiscal
note.
JEFFREY SCHMITZ, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), stated
the fiscal note reflected a simple analysis of the
division's annual cost for purchasing two plates versus one
plate. The division estimated a savings of $332,000 per
year.
9:33:31 AM
AT EASE
9:33:42 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick set an amendment deadline for noon on
March 5. She thanked the bill sponsor for bringing the bill
forward.
HB 166 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
9:34:11 AM
AT EASE
9:34:59 AM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB166.OpposingLetters.51421.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 166 |
| HB166.SectionalAnalysis.VerA.5.14.21.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 166 |
| HB166.SponsorStmt.VerA.5.14.21.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 166 |
| HB166.SupportingLetters.51421.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 166 |
| HB166.SupportingLetters.2.28.22.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 166 |
| HB 177 Explanation of Changes Version B 02.24.2022.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 177 |
| HB 177 Research RPL History Summary.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 177 |
| HB 177 Research Legal Opinion 04.30.2020.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 177 |
| HB 177 Sectional Analysis Version B 02.24.2022.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 177 |
| HB 177 Sponsor Statement Version B 02.24.2022.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 177 |