Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/18/1995 01:42 PM Senate TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE TRANSPORTATION
April 18, 1995
1:42 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Steve Rieger, Chairman
Senator Robin Taylor, Vice Chair
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Al Adams
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 28
"An Act repealing an additional fee for motor vehicle registration
not conducted by mail and limiting motor vehicle emissions
inspection to once every two years."
PREVIOUS SENATE ACTION
SB 28 - See Senate Transportation minutes dated 3/28/95.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Donley
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of SB 28.
Ron King
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested amendments regarding their concerns.
Juanita Hensley, Chief
Driver Services, Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
PO Box 20020
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0020
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the concerns of the DMV.
Jay Delaney, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
5700 E Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the $10 fee.
Ladd McBride, Secretary/Treasurer
Alaska Watch Incorporated
PO Box 83567
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed SB 28 as a step in the right
direction.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-9, SIDE A
SB 28 MOTOR VEHICLE REG FEE/EMISS'N INSPECTIONS
Number 002
CHAIRMAN RIEGER called the Senate Transportation meeting to order
at 1:42 p.m. and introduced SB 28 as the only order of business
before the committee. He noted that there is a proposed CS for
SB 28.
SENATOR DONLEY, prime sponsor, requested that all the departmental
people join him at the table since they had been working together
on this legislation. He stated that the goal of SB 28 is to go to
a biannual testing of I/M. Currently, those areas of the state
which are required to test do so annually. Many other states
utilize biannual testing, even California who is very conscious of
auto emissions. He seemed to think that biannual testing would
save much money and trouble without endangering the highway funds.
He noted that there is an amendment to the proposed CS which is
being worked on.
CHAIRMAN GREEN moved that the CS dated 4/18/95 version G be adopted
in lieu of the original bill. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
Number 067
RON KING, Department of Environmental Conservation, expressed the
need to place similar language in AS 28 as that specified under
subsection (j) in Section 8 and subsection (f) in Section 9. Such
language would allow the State Troopers and the Department of
Public Safety to issue the violation at the same time they issue
any other moving citation. He suggested deleting lines 11 and 12
of Section 1 and inserting "(e) A motor vehicle owner subject to
(d) shall obtain a new and valid emissions inspection and
maintenance certificate for the vehicle if the existing emissions
inspection and maintenance certificate is non existent or more than
12 months old." The purpose of that language is to maintain
consistency in the workload of the DMV at the counter in order to
minimize the impact. This program has a substantial impact on DMV.
He explained that by requiring a certificate, the DMV can review
the certificate and determine if it is acceptable and if not, the
citizen would be sent to get an inspection. That would be the key
to satisfying the Environmental Protection Agency.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER asked if there was a grandfather clause in which a
vehicle of a certain age would not be required to be tested, even
if the automobile is in an I/M area . RON KING said yes. Section
1 addresses that by not forcing a vehicle to be inspected if the
vehicle is of a certain age or powered by diesel or an alternative
fuel. Mr. King noted that was set in regulation and would not
change.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER pointed out that Mr. King was discussing the
amendment that had just been passed out to the committee. RON KING
clarified that the language to which Chairman Rieger was referring
was the new paragraph (3) and subsection (e).
SENATOR DONLEY supported Mr. King's provision. He explained that
these changes would simplify the decisions at the counter which
would reduce administrative costs and time.
Number 133
SENATOR TAYLOR moved Amendment 1.
Amendment 1
Page 1, delete lines 11 & 12
Insert:
"(3) motor vehicle would be subject to the
emissions inspection and maintenance
program; and
(e) A motor vehicle owner subject to (d) shall
obtain a new and valid emissions inspection and
maintenance certificate for the vehicle if the
existing emissions inspection and maintenance
certificate is nonexistent or more than 12
months old."
CHAIRMAN RIEGER asked if the Department of Public Safety was
opposed to this amendment.
JUANITA HENSLEY, Division of Motor Vehicles with the Department of
Public Safety, said that she had not had a chance to review that
amendment very closely. She informed the committee that she did
have some concerns with Section 1. The first concern could be
alleviated by deleting the following language on page 1, lines 5-7:
"A motor vehicle owner shall, before transferring or assigning the
owner's title or interest in the vehicle, provide the transferee
with a current and valid emissions inspection and maintenance
certificate for the vehicle" and insert the following language, "An
inspection certificate is required at the change of ownership".
This language would eliminate the onerous being placed on a vehicle
owner who is selling a vehicle outside of the emissions program
area.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER asked if "change of ownership" was good statutory
language. SENATOR TAYLOR said that language was adequate.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER asked if there was any objection to the amendment
to Amendment 1. Hearing no objection, the amended motion was
before the committee. Hearing no objection, Amendment 1 as amended
was adopted.
SENATOR TAYLOR discussed a situation in Petersburg in which a
contractor was assisting people with their registrations; could
this bill be a vehicle to clarify that situation?
Number 201
JAY DELANEY, Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles, recalled
that the circumstance to which Senator Taylor was referring
involved the $10 fee for failure to use the mail system. He was
not sure of the Petersburg experience. This should not be related
to ...
SENATOR TAYLOR explained that in Petersburg, those people who
utilized the contractor were penalized because they did not use the
mail system.
JAY DELANEY clarified that this bill would not be related to that
because the $10 fee only applies to those who can use the mail
system, but fail to do so. The mail cannot be used with title
changes, so there is no $10 fee with a title transfer.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if that $10 fee was the same as that
referenced in the language deleted on page 2, line 3 of the CS.
JAY DELANEY explained that the proposal before the committee is to
increase all the registration fees by $10 and then reduce the fee
by $10 if the mail is utilized. The difference is that even though
a person is required to be present at the DMV, the person would pay
the additional $10.
SENATOR TAYLOR did not understand why people who do not come in and
use the DMV personnel for doing transfer are penalized.
JAY DELANEY emphasized that the public had been encouraged to use
the mail because this procedure could be handled more efficiently
while alleviating the lines. Furthermore, this mail registration
has been very successful. The use of mail registration has more
than doubled. Mr. Delaney pointed out that prior to the $10 fee
even the smaller communities complained that the DMV did not have
enough employees to handle the customers. After the implementation
of the $10 fee, those same people complained that they did not have
lines and therefore this was not a problem. Mr. Delaney stated
that the $10 fee has helped statewide, especially in regards to the
decreasing revenue. The DMV cannot continue to handle the
increased amount of business; the population has increased every
year as well as the number of driver's licenses and registration.
SENATOR TAYLOR commented that now this would worsen the situation
regarding the contractor in Petersburg. Before this legislation,
the contractor was at least receiving the business from those
persons who would have to go to the DMV in person. With this
legislation, several people do not have to go to the DMV in person
any more.
JUANITA HENSLEY explained that all fees would be increased by $10,
but a $10 break would be given to those who use the mail which is
basically the same way the $10 fee currently works. She explained
that Section 5 regarding the fees for special request plates, those
fees are one time fees charged for license plates. That would be
an additional $10 revenue generating portion of this bill. She did
not know if the sponsor knew that was not an annual ongoing fee.
Those people with special request plates are still subject to their
annual registration fees as specified on pages 2 and 3 of the bill.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER believed that all the special request plates should
not be increased. The special request plates would be additional
revenue generators as opposed to being neutral. JUANITA HENSLEY
replied that Chairman Rieger was correct, and said that it was the
body's call whether or not to raise the fees for those plates.
SENATOR DONLEY noted that the original bill did not include this
provision, this was recommended by the committee. CHAIRMAN RIEGER
said that he had requested that, but the drafter seemed to have
misunderstood this point. The intention was to refer to those
places where a $10 fee was already charged to invert it.
JUANITA HENSLEY expressed another concern with regard to the
effective date of July 1, 1995; the department cannot meet that
date. She suggested changing the effective date to July 1, 1996.
Ms. Hensley indicated that DEC could not implement their portions
by that date either.
RON KING explained that the biggest impact would be with DMV and
the changes required to the system and registration; DMV would have
to set up an algorithm in order to alter the vehicles to be tested
biannually as well as modifying the computer software. He said
that DEC would need at minimum, six months to get the regulations
through. JUANITA HENSLEY pointed out that getting regulations
through in six months would be very aggressive.
SENATOR DONLEY was excited about biannual testing. If the year
effective date is reasonable, then this would be a great step
forward to decrease the inconvenience to citizens.
Number 310
SENATOR TAYLOR moved the conceptual amendment to charge the
additional $10 fee to those areas that already face that fee.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER clarified that all the fees for special request
plates which were one time fees and not subject to the $10 fee,
those fees would be replaced with the original or former fee.
Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
SENATOR GREEN moved that the effective date be changed to July 1,
1996. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
SENATOR LINCOLN directed the committee to page 2, line 3 regarding
the additional $10 fee for the mail in fee. She asserted that this
fee does not make sense for communities like Cordova which do not
have the problem of lines and such. The processing of the mail ins
could be alleviated by allowing the local DMV to process the
registration. The idea of this bill is to help the citizens of the
state, perhaps, there is a way in which to amend that to
accommodate those citizens who do not face lines at their DMV.
JUANITA HENSLEY pointed out that with the new language in the CS,
everyone pays the $10 fee unless they use the mail in which case
the fee would be reduced by $10.
SENATOR LINCOLN reiterated that if Cordova citizens can go to their
DMV and not place the burden of the paperwork on others, then there
would not be a problem with receiving registration at that point.
Why penalize the citizen an additional $10 for coming into the DMV?
JUANITA HENSLEY explained that perhaps, in the off season Cordova
would not have any problems, but in the summer the volume of driver
licenses and vehicles coming in increases. For the size of office
and the town, the volume of work in the summer is quite heavy. Ms.
Hensley emphasized that the goal of the mail in program was to
allow the local DMVs more time to deal with those persons who have
to come to the DMV for identification, drivers licenses and title
changes.
SENATOR LINCOLN predicted that soon the Cordova office would be
closed since they do not have any business and the personnel would
be moved to the processing areas. Cordova has expressed many
complaints about the mail in registration fee. She did not think
there was a problem in Cordova, but now there is.
Number 375
JAY DELANEY pointed out that there may be difficulty in creating a
system that does not have uniform fees; there would be inequity in
setting up such a system. Cordova utilizes a shared position in
which the employee does DMV work as well as Fish and Wildlife and
State Trooper work; the business does not justify a full time
position. He reiterated Ms. Hensley's point regarding the increase
in business in the summer even in the small communities. When they
get behind, there are lots of complaints.
SENATOR TAYLOR clarified that the situation in Petersburg to which
he had referred was regarding a private contractor who handles the
issuing of licenses. This contractor does business by having the
customer come into his office and he issues the customer tags.
This contractor is on contract with Alaska. This contractor sends
it through the mail. He emphasized that this contractor merely
batches the registration for which the contractor is penalized $10.
He pointed out that the deleted language in brackets on page 2,
lines 5-8 in the CS was present in order to avoid this problem.
Senator Taylor said that he could not get the department to
establish and adopt the criteria for the regulations. This is
still important even if there are only a few contractors such as
the one in Petersburg. He recommended amending line 6 on page 2
after the word "mail" insert "or through a contract registrar who
conducts business with the department via mail". He believed that
it would be appropriate to decrease the fee by $10 for the
contractor since he also uses the mail system.
SENATOR GREEN asked if the contract agent was the same as the state
employee in the DMV. SENATOR TAYLOR replied no and explained that
the contractor is being paid by the person who requests the service
not through the budget.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER inquired as to who pays the contractor; would I
give the contracted person $5 more to perform this service. JAY
DELANEY explained that contract agents are allowed 15 percent of
the registration receipts which comes out of the DMV's budget, it's
a part of the state budget process. Mr. Delaney did not have a
problem with Senator Taylor's scenario, however a person should be
treated equally whether they come into a state office or a contract
office. Making an exception for the contract agents is of no real
significance to the division.
In response to Chairman Rieger, JAY DELANEY explained that with the
total contracts there are 13 commission agents which would be
approximately $200,000.
SENATOR TAYLOR pointed out that money would be saved because the
amount paid out is 15 percent of $80 for a taxi cab, however, with
the proposed amendment the savings would be 15 percent of the $70
for the same taxi cab. By adopting the amendment the contract
agent would receive less. Senator Taylor withdrew his amendment.
JAY DELANEY reiterated that the division had received a lot of
complaints because the agents felt that they would receive less.
Many of the commission agents serve dual roles. With the exception
of the contractor in Petersburg, the commission agents are local
governments. He informed the committee that with the other
increases, most of the payments have been more than before the $10
fee. Petersburg has fluctuated. He said that Petersburg has
enough business to justify a state employee, but there is no one to
put in that position.
Number 462
LADD MCBRIDE, representing Alaska Watch Incorporated, informed the
committee that he was the Secretary/Treasury for this group. He
said that the bill was a step in the right direction with regard to
the biannual testing. Alaska Watch Incorporated has done a
national survey which found Alaska to be the highest, most
expensive, most stringent I/M program in the country. He felt that
if other states could satisfy EPA with biannual testing so could
the DEC in Alaska.
SENATOR DONLEY noted that DEC had requested another amendment on
page 5, subsection (j) under Section 8. DEC wanted that subsection
to also apply under Title 28.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER asked Ms. Hensley if the troopers could not enforce
a fine under Title 46 if this language is not specified under Title
28. JUANITA HENSLEY said that the troopers enforce Title 12, 11,
and 4. She did not believe the troopers could enforce Title 46
either. CHAIRMAN RIEGER clarified that the amendment would not be
necessary.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER asked DMV if a year was needed to prepare for the
different fee structure or could the $10 inversion occur earlier
and allow the I/M inspections a year of preparation time.
JAY DELANEY predicted that the fee increases could be done in six
months. DMV runs on a three month lead time with regard to the
registration print. The July 1, 1995 effective date would only
leave three months to do the systems work; that would prove
difficult to achieve. He concluded that it would be possible, but
that it would be tight.
In response to Chairman Rieger, Mr. Delaney said that the DMV could
not be prepared by October. Mr. Delaney explained that the October
mail outs are generated in July. Mr. Delaney predicted that the
DMV could achieve the fee increase and the $10 credit portions by
January.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER clarified that would affect Sections 2-6.
SENATOR TAYLOR commented that the intent of the legislation
indicates that the fees generated through the program would be
applied to those services necessary for I/M. He said that he has
attempted to find DMV additional funding because they generate a
lot of revenue, but they continue to face budget cuts. He wanted
to have more people go into the DMV and have those employees take
care of them rather than attempt to create ways to keep people from
the DMV. He indicated that it is the wrong approach to direct DMV
generated funds to DEC; some of these revenues should be returned
to the DMV.
Number 537
CHAIRMAN RIEGER agreed. He explained that some of the Senate
Finance members do not distinguish between program receipts general
funds and other general funds. Program receipt development should
be viewed as an add on. He noted that DMV had received a request
for proposal (RFP) through Legislative Budget & Audit (LB&A) which
got five more positions. JAY DELANEY informed the committee that
half of those positions were lost when the division attempted to
establish the positions permanently.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if there was any language that could be added
to direct DMV revenues back to DMV. CHAIRMAN RIEGER pointed out
that in Section 7, the change to the $2 fee made the revenue
neutral. Chairman Rieger said that he had only been able to treat
new program receipts separately for the Department of Public
Safety.
JAY DELANEY explained that with the CS there would be new revenue
generated. With this system, everyone is required to pay the $10
whether they are required to go to the DMV or not unless they use
the mail; the person required to be in the office would pay the
increased fee.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER asked Mr. Delaney if he wanted the "or for good
cause" language. Chairman Rieger said that it would just go out as
is.
SENATOR TAYLOR recommended using the same language as that under
subsection (j) on page 5 which states, "It is the intent of the
legislature that money collected under this subsection be
appropriated to promote". Senator Taylor clarified that the
language could state, "It is the intent of the legislature that the
increased revenue generated shall be"...
CHAIRMAN RIEGER continued by suggesting the following language to
follow that of Senator Taylor's, "in Section 2-6, be appropriated
to increased field service operations in Public Safety." He asked
if that was an amendment. SENATOR TAYLOR said yes and moved the
amendment. Hearing no objection, that intent was adopted.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved that the CS SB 28(TRA) be moved out of
committee with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection,
it was so ordered.
There being no further business before the committee, the meeting
adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|