Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/16/1994 01:05 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 328
"An Act relating to motor vehicle registration and
registration fees; to fees for drivers' licenses and
permits; and providing for an effective date."
Representative Martin provided members with a proposed
committee substitute, work draft 8-LS1316\D, 4/15/94 (copy
on file). He noted that the proposed committee substitute
incorporates the following changes:
* Sets biennial vehicle registration fees at twice
the current annual rate; and
* Allows the Department of Public Safety to suspend
or revoke the registration if the owner fails to
obtain an emission inspection certificate.
Co-Chair Larson noted that the ability to collect municipal
personal property tax on automobiles upon registration has
aided municipalities.
Representative Martin noted that the provision for state
collection will be optional. He stressed that the municipal
2
tax could be collected in conjunction with the property tax.
Co-Chair Larson noted that the owner of an automobile
purchased on January 2 would not pay their municipal tax
until the following year.
JUANITA HENSLEY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY explained that section 17 of the
proposed committee substitute contains the municipal tax
schedule. Section 17 also provides for an agreement between
the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety and
municipalities to collect the municipal tax upon
registration. She clarified that municipalities are
currently given the option of state collection. The
proposed committee substitute would add an option for the
state to collect the tax. She noted that the state collects
municipal tax for ten municipalities.
Ms. Hensley noted that the proposed committee substitute
removes authorizing language from title 28.10.431. Language
allowing the tax to be collected by the Department of Public
Safety would be placed under title 29. The Commissioner of
the Department of Public Safety would be given the
discretion to collect or not collect the municipal tax.
Representative Hanley expressed concern that the
Commissioner could chose not to collect the tax on behalf of
municipalities. He emphasized that the state receives 8
percent of the money collected for administrative costs.
Representative Martin noted that the state has the
administrative burden and expense of collection. The state
receives 8 percent of the money collected as compensation
for the administrative costs.
Ms. Hensley noted that the Division of Motor Vehicles
collected $29.0 million dollars in FY 94. She added that
$5.9 million was returned to municipalities. She observed
that 8 percent of the collected tax is returned to the
General Fund. Eight percent equals approximately $440.0
thousand dollars. She emphasized that the 8 percent
marginally covers all of the costs associated with the
collection.
Representative Hanley discussed funding for the Division of
Motor Vehicles. He reiterated his concern with the
provision to allow the Commissioner of the Department of
Public Safety to not collect the tax on behalf of
municipalities.
Members discussed amending the proposed committee substitute
3
to delete the provision allowing discretion. Ms. Hensley
suggested that section 17 be deleted.
Representative Martin clarified that the tax collection is
based on annual registration. Ms. Hensley explained that
the tax is still based on the annual registration fee.
Representative Hanley express concern that municipalities
would receive the same amount of revenue for each year. Ms.
Hensley clarified that the fee would be collected every two
years with a reflection of one year collected tax base.
Municipal revenues would be cut in half if the tax base is
not doubled for a biannual collection. Title 28.15.431
would have to be amended to double the tax base structure.
Ms. Hensley noted that the legislation also allows payment
by credit card.
JEANNIE LARSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN observed that
the tax structure could be taken out of statute to allow
municipalities to set fees. Ms. Hensley noted that the
Department of Public Safety would oppose the suggestion to
allow municipalities to set fees. She emphasized that the
Department wishes a standard fee structure.
RON KING, PROJECT MANAGER, MOBIL SOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION referred to the department's
fiscal note. He noted that the department has provided
three fiscal notes based on different options. The
department supports option one. Option one would provide
that if an individual fails to renew the emmissions permit,
the Department of Environmental Conservation would inform
the Department of Public Safety.
Mr. King explained that failure to renew could result in a
violation of $100 hundred dollars issued by the municipal
police department or a civil action through the small claims
court.
Mr. King discussed the Department of Environmental
Conservation's fiscal notes. He noted that a $2 to $3
dollar per vehicle fee would be collected. He noted that
section 21 amends AS 28.10.431 which addresses only
Anchorage and Fairbanks. Ms. Hensley noted that section 14
of the proposed committee substitute addresses the program
fees collected by the Division of Motor Vehicles. Program
authority would be under section 19.
Representative Martin noted that sections 10 and 15 allow
registration to be paid by credit card. He noted that there
are difficulties with implementation of biannual
registration.
4
Ms. Larson recommended that sections 2, 7, 10, 14, 15 and 19
be retained to allow the Department of Environmental
Conservation greater enforcement authority.
CRYSTAL SMITH, ALASKA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE stressed that state
collection of the municipal motor vehicle registration tax
is the most efficient. She felt fee values should be
increased. She spoke in support of a change to a two year
collection of the tax. She discussed the municipal fiscal
note. She noted that enforcement would be a local police
function. She stressed that monitoring of the program would
cost the municipality of Anchorage $181.6 thousand dollars.
Co-Chair Larson noted that the word "biannual" would need to
be deleted if the Committee does not change the collection
period from an annual fee. Mr. King stressed that if the
registration is kept on an annual basis the Department of
Environmental Conservation would not have to exercise any
fee requirements under section 19. He added that the
Department would have improved enforcement abilities. He
suggested that section 19 would allow the Department of
Environmental Conservation to establish a fee to fund the
Mobil Source Program by program receipts. He estimated the
proposed change would result in a general fund savings of
$287.0 thousand dollars. He noted that municipalities could
increase revenues through the issuance of citations.
Representative Martin spoke against increased fees. He
spoke in favor of deleting all sections except sections 10
and 15. Representative Therriault agreed that only
retention of sections 10 and 15 should be retained.
Representative Brown suggested that fees should be
considered in light of the state's declining revenues. She
suggested that the enforcement authority be retained if the
fee sections are deleted. Mr. King reiterated that sections
2, 7, 10, 14, 15 and 19 would result in a zero fiscal note
and that no fees would be executed by the Department of
Environmental Conservation unless regulations are exercised.
(Tape Change, HFC 94-127, Side 2)
Representative Martin MOVED to delete all material except
sections 10 and 15; and amend the title to reflect the
change.
Representative Brown MOVED to AMEND the motion to include
the retention of sections 2 and 19. Representative Martin
OBJECTED. Representative Brown argued that the amendment to
5
the amendment would strengthen the enforcement.
Representative Martin spoke in opposition to the motion to
amend. A roll call vote was taken on the amendment to the
amendment.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Larson
OPPOSED: Hanley, Foster, Martin, Parnell, Therriault
Representatives Grussendorf, Hoffman, Navarre, and MacLean
were not present for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-5).
Ms. Hensley noted that the Division needs legislative
authority to pay the credit card collection fee. She
estimated that the Division would need a $225.0 thousand
dollar fiscal note to reflect the credit card collection
cost.
Representative Martin reiterated the motion to delete all
material except sections 10 and 15; and amend the title to
reflect the change.
In response to a question by Representative Brown, Ms.
Hensley clarified that the department needs authorization to
seek appropriation to pay credit card costs. She estimated
that credit card fees would equal approximately $225.0
thousand dollars a year. Ms. Hensley discussed costs
associated with credit card collection and defaulted checks.
Co-Chair Larson suggested that credit card collection will
result in increased efficiency.
There being NO OBJECTION, all material except sections 10
and 15 was deleted; and the title amended to reflect the
change.
Representative Brown expressed concern with the cost of
credit card collection.
Co-Chair Larson MOVED to report CSHB 328 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying amended fiscal note from the Department of
Public Safety for $225.0 thousand dollars. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 328 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with a fiscal impact note by the
Department of Public Safety.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|