CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 95(STA) am "An Act relating to special request specialty organization registration plates; relating to special registration plates commemorating peace officers killed in the line of duty; and providing for an effective date." 4:41:48 PM SENATOR KELLY MERRICK, SPONSOR, she reviewed the bill with prepared remarks. She explained that SB 95 tasked the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) with issuing specialty plates and removed the requirement for legislation. The bill saved money by passing the cost of developing and issuing the plate onto the organization rather than the state. She stated that it was originally a license plate bill to end license plate bills. After a Senate amendment, the bill was the license plate bill to end license plate bills with the exception of one more license plate. She continued that after a House State Affairs amendment several more license plates were added. She believed that the bill created a state efficiency and asked the committee for its support of the legislation. 4:43:27 PM Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony. Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony. Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the fiscal note. 4:45:00 PM JEFFREY SCHMITZ, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), reviewed the new fiscal impact note for the Department of Administration allocated to Motor Vehicles dated May 6, 2024. He explained that the total development cost was $14,000 per different plate, which was described in the fiscal note analysis on page 2. The new organizations would pay the development costs. The assumptions used for the fiscal note was based on 16 new organizations per year, the development costs, and the anticipated revenues in addition to any additional fees the plate may generate above the $100 fee established in the legislation. The fee may be set higher than $100 as well. Representative Josephson relayed a personal experience. He asked if the plate would identify a specific police officer or whether it was for all peace officers. KERRY CROCKER, STAFF, SENATOR KELLY MERRICK, replied that the bill defined peace officers as follows: state trooper, municipal police officer, correctional officer, village public safety officer (VPSO), an officer assigned to a court, and any other public servant vested by law with a duty to maintain public order or to make arrests. He added that if someone wanted to honor a fallen officer, they could purchase the plate. The plate would not specify a particular officer. Co-Chair Foster moved to invited testimony. DOUG FIFER, RETIRED, ANCHORAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA (via teleconference), shared that he was a lifelong Alaskan born in Homer. He had retired in 2021 after 25 years of service. The idea of registration plates commemorating peace officers killed in the line of duty came to him as he traveled around the country noticing that most states had plates honoring fallen officers. In 2017, he had contacted state senators who overwhelmingly supported the idea. However, 8 years later there was still no law or license plate. He listed many other organizations that had specialty plates and asked that fallen officer plates be considered. The state had 50 officers killed in the line of duty in its history. He participated in a national memorial bicycle ride to honor fallen officers that culminated in Washington D.C. as a somber reminder of those officers killed in the line of duty. He asked the committee for support. 4:51:26 PM Co-Chair Foster inquired whether any committee members wanted to submit an amendment. Representative Cronk stated it had come to his attention that the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) could not issue a second same license plate unless it was specifically authorized in statute. He exemplified not allowing the purchase of a second personalized license plate. He asked if the sponsor would be willing to accept a friendly amendment to allow a second plate. Senator Merrick replied that a personalized plate was not the same as a specialty plate. She relayed that a specialty plate references a non- profit organization. She asked for clarification. Representative Cronk answered that they both fall under the same title AS 28.10.108(g). He asked the director of DMV to clarify. Mr. Schmitz responded that there was a difference between specialized and personalized plates. He agreed that current law passed two years ago authorized that only one plate was necessary. The state previously required that 2 licensed plates were displayed. Therefore, DMV only issued one plate based on AS 28.10 108(g). He reiterated that only one plate was issued as directed by statute. 4:54:48 PM Representative Cronk left it up to the senator and stressed that he offered the amendment as a friendly amendment. Senator Merrick did not oppose the idea. She thought the important thing was that the license plates were assigned a cost of $100. She thought it would be important to find out if a second plate would have the same additional cost. Representative Cronk deferred to DMV. Mr. Schmitz answered that the second plate would cost $30, which was the same as a personalized plate. Co-Chair Foster asked Representative Cronk how he wanted to proceed. Representative Cronk would be willing to offer a friendly amendment. Co-Chair Foster noted that they did not need to set an amendment deadline and the committee could come back later in the evening when the amendment could be offered. He suggested that Representative Cronk work with the division. Senator Merrick interjected that she felt comfortable with Representative Cronk offering a friendly amendment. Representative Stapp suggested recessing and coming back with the amendment after floor. Representative Hannan asked about the fiscal note. She cited the fiscal note analysis that estimated the development of $14,000 per plate and 19 new plate types per year. She thought the number seemed high. She also recalled that the state changed from two license plates from one two years prior to deliver a cost savings. She recalled the sponsor had advocated that the savings would make the costs less than $30 per plate. She wondered if all license plates typically cost $30 per second plate. Co-Chair Edgmon, and Co-Chair Johnson joined the meeting. 5:00:03 PM RECESSED 7:16:06 PM RECONVENED Co-Chair Foster returned to hearing SB 95. Representative Cronk stated that he would not offer the amendment. Representative Hannan voiced that many people believed that by requesting a specialty plate the revenue went to the organization. She stated that was not what happened. She wondered what happened to the revenue. Senator Merrick understood that the only current organization that did receive revenue from license plates was the State Council on the Arts. She deferred to her staff for further answer. Mr. Crocker answered that the amount was often so minuscule it was not included in the operating budget. Representative Hannan inquired whether the bill changed the method of accountability leaving it up to the division. She wondered whether the legislature would need to obtain the amount from the division and appropriate it. Mr. Crocker pointed to page 4, line 14 of the bill [? organization plate may charge a fee on first issuance and renewal of the plates?] and responded that the language allowed organizations to charge an additional fee to recoup the revenue. He offered that it would be up to DMV and the administration to ensure the revenue was received and the legislature to appropriate it. 7:20:15 PM Representative Stapp MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 95(STA)am out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. HCS CSSB 95(STA)am was REPORTED out of committee with eight "do pass" recommendations and one "no recommendation" recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from the Department of Administration. Senator Merrick thanked the committee.