Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
01/30/2024 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL 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 | |
| HB279 | |
| HB182 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 279 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 182-REMOVAL OF ABANDONED VEHICLES
8:19:34 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 182, "An Act relating to abandoned vehicles."
8:19:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, presented HB 182. He shared the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 182 is an act which will help eliminate the
ever-growing problem the State of Alaska,
municipalities, Public Safety Departments, and the
Department of Transportation, deal with every day on
our state highways.
Each year, hundreds of cars litter the sides of our
highways for several reasons. Some are there because
they have had an accident, and the owner has not had
their vehicle removed yet. Others are there because
they are broken down and the car is not worth towing,
in the mind of the owner. Some are abandoned because
they were victims of a term called "joy riding", where
a stolen vehicle is taken for a ride, and the owner
has not come to get it.
After a week or two, or sometimes even a shorter
length of time goes by, the vehicle is then
vandalized. Parts start to become missing, like the
wheels and taillights or pieces of trim. Often, these
vehicles are set on fire.
The result is often after many months they are hauled
away at the government's expense. That expense is
usually larger than a simple tow bill. The owner must
be tracked down: DMV must search records, phone calls
are made to the last known owner, and multiple letters
are sent to the owner, etc. Some owners claim no
responsibility as it was stolen (not always reported
as such until they are contacted by the State
Troopers).
HB 182 puts a quicker end to the unsightliness and
requires the last owner to pay for the costs to the
state or municipality after the vehicle has been
removed from the roadside.
HB 182 would not add any additional cost to the State
of Alaska as the same process to contact the owner is
used. This legislation instead requires reimbursement
funding to the state, something that isn't presently
required and often never paid.
I am pleased to offer this legislation and believe it
a necessity in keeping our great state a clean place
to live.
8:23:20 AM
RYAN MCKEE, Staff, Representative George Rauscher, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime
sponsor, presented the sectional analysis for HB 182 [included
in the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 1: AS 28.11.010(d)
This section states that the owner of the vehicle as
shown by records of the department is considered
responsible for the abandonment of the vehicle and is
liable for the removal cost unless
1. The vehicle was abandoned by a person without
permission from the owner, OR
2. The identity of the person abandoning the vehicle
is established and the abandonment was without the
consent of the owner
Section 2: AS 28.11.030(a)
Amends section (a) by stating a peace officer or
employee authorized by the state or municipality,
shall remove an abandoned vehicle within 7 days after
the date the vehicle is abandoned under AS
28.11.020(a) or may remove or have removed to a place
for storage of an abandoned vehicle
Section 3:
Adds a new section stating that the amended sections 1
and 2 of this Act, apply to vehicles abandoned on or
after the effective date of this Act.
8:24:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER shared a personal anecdote about
abandoned vehicles in Cooper Landing.
CHAIR MCCORMICK sought questions from committee members.
8:27:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked why the fiscal note was so big and
why, for example, four technicians were being added.
8:28:09 AM
MAURICE HUGHES, Colonel, Director, Division of Alaska State
Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), stated that the
funds to remove abandoned vehicles are pulled from three
different departments. Should the bill pass as drafted, he said
the job would fall solely on DPS.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether there were contracts in
place to enable towing companies to move abandoned vehicles off
the road first.
COLONEL HUGHES explained that it was handled differently
throughout the state. Some towing companies refuse to remove
abandoned vehicles due to the associated costs. Other times
abandoned vehicles are removed from the scene and DPS or
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) incur
the costs of towing, HAZMAT [hazardous materials], and the
salvage. In response to a follow up question, he confirmed that
there was contention between the state and local boroughs in
terms of who bore the responsibility for abandoned vehicles.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE suggested that for rural roads,
transferring the responsibility to boroughs could lower the DPS
fiscal note.
8:33:19 AM
RPERESENTATIVE MEARS sought to clarify whether the bill only
applied to state roads.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS surmised that the bill would compel Alaska
State Troopers (AST) to tow vehicles that were left on state
roads, such as Muldoon Road, for several weeks while awaiting
heavy snow to melt or while the owner was on vacation.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he was in favor of amendments that
would lengthen the time period for major highways or speed up
the process.
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS sought clarification on the language in
Section 2, paragraph (2) providing for the removal of a vehicle
abandoned on private property.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he did not know. He offered to
follow up with the requested information. He further noted that
the language in question was "may" as opposed to "shall."
8:38:08 AM
REPRESENATIVE BAKER shared an example of vehicles being towed
and abandoned at commercial shops, which were private property,
leaving the shop owners liable.
8:39:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked how much time it takes to conduct
research and whether existing staff time was being dedicated to
this particular problem.
COLONEL HUGHES said currently, there was no staff dedicated to
conducting background checks and maintaining a list, which was
previously done in collaboration with DOT&PF. He described the
duties that would be prescribed to the new positions.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked why it was taking weeks and
months to deal with each vehicle.
COLONEL HUGHES acknowledged that part of the problem was the
lack of dedicated staff, in addition to the lack of funding for
this specific duty. In response to a follow up question, he
indicated that law enforcement's response to abandoned vehicles
varied across the state, but the goal was the same.
8:43:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked how many vehicles were removed on
an annual basis.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he did not know the answer.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE, citing the fiscal note, highlighted
the 669 vehicles towed by DPS towed annually at an average cost
of $425. He asked Colonel Hughes to speak to that number.
COLONEL HUGHES said he did not know the answer, suggesting that
it was a conglomeration of all removed vehicles.
8:45:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed an interest in finding out how
many abandoned vehicles were removed by area. He shared his
belief that this issue was not the trooper's "bailiwick," adding
that the state should not absorbing this cost.
8:47:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE questioned the enforcement tools at law
enforcement's disposal to ensure that abandoned vehicle fees
were paid.
COLONEL HUGHES said the law for abandoning vehicles was a
misdemeanor; however, he explained that it was often difficult
to find the owner.
8:49:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY questioned what would happen if a car was
stolen and abandoned.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER responded if the vehicle was reported as
stolen and found by a trooper, the owner would be contacted, and
charges of theft could then be filed.
8:52:12 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK thanked the bill sponsor for addressing this
issue and attested to its relevance in Bethel. He suggested
that an amendment could be drafted to offer more leniency for
communities that lacked sufficient resources to deal with
abandoned vehicles.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he was willing to entertain all
amendments.
8:56:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE suggested that the bill would benefit from
an understanding of how [Anchorage, Fairbanks], and Juneau
handle abandoned vehicles to inform the committee's decisions
moving forward.
8:57:34 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK announced that HB 182 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 279 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HCRA 1/30/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 279 |
| HB 279 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HCRA 1/30/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 279 |
| HB 182 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HCRA 1/30/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 182 |
| HB 182 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HCRA 1/30/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 182 |
| HB 182 Zero Fiscal Note DOA-DMV.pdf |
HCRA 1/30/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 182 |
| HB 182 Fiscal Note DPS.pdf |
HCRA 1/30/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 182 |
| HB 279 Fiscal Note DCCED DCRA.pdf |
HCRA 1/30/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 279 |