HB 137-MOTOR VEHICLE OFFICES  3:39:09 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 137, "An Act requiring the Department of Administration to maintain and operate certain offices that provide services related to motor vehicles; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 137(STA).] 3:39:42 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony. 3:40:04 PM MIKE COONS expressed his opposition to HB 137. He opined that the bill is not needed, as "finance" allocated full funding for the DMV offices in question. He recalled that DOA made a recommendation to the legislature, which was turned down; therefore, this bill is not necessary. Instead, he requested that the committee hear HB 140, sponsored by Representative Vance, which would have more immediate impact to seniors throughout the state, he said. 3:41:05 PM NONA SAFRA stated her support for HB 137. As an advocate for seniors, veterans, and those with disabilities, she expressed concern about the continued possibility of DMV closures in rural Alaska, which would leave many Alaskans with only privatized DMVs that charge unregulated, arbitrary convenience fees. She pointed out that DOA is under no obligation to keep local DMV offices open and, as the former commissioner noted, has the authority to close DMVs at will. She pointed out that those who require medical care outside the state need a Real ID to travel, which entails an in-person visit to the DMV. She added that if a local DMV closes, that trip could require hundreds of miles of travel through harsh weather and poor road conditions. Additionally, she indicated that many residents cannot use online services for lack of internet connection or broadband issues. She remarked that HB 137 recognizes that state DMVs are integral to rural communities and keeps rural Alaskans from being treated differently than their urban counterparts. She urged the passage of HB 137 to maintain access for all Alaskans. 3:44:32 PM PETER MCKEE provided comments not on topic with the published agenda. 3:48:34 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony on HB 137 and invited questions from the committee. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to clarify whether the state would be excluded from [hiring] a short-term contract employee at a state-operated [DMV] office. 3:49:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE ZACK FIELDS, Alaska State Legislature, shared his understanding that the bill would not prohibit the state from [hiring] a temporary employee to operate a state DMV. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether that response is based on the bill sponsor's personal intent or an attorney's opinion. REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said it's how the bill was written. He surmised that agency operations had never been construed to preclude use of temporary employees; further, he shared his belief that temporary employees are used by many agencies. 3:50:50 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the committee would consider several amendments. He noted that he would be offering Amendment 1 on behalf of the bill sponsor, Representative Fields. 3:51:10 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 32- LS0650\B.1, Bullard, 4/5/21], which read: Page 1, line 4, through page 2, line 4: Delete all material and insert:  "* Section 1. AS 28.05 is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec. 28.05.013. Maintenance and operation of  certain offices that provide motor vehicle services.  (a) The department, or the department in partnership with a municipal, state, or federal agency, shall maintain and operate at least one office that provides the public with services related to motor vehicles in each community of the state (1) with a population of 850 persons or more; and (2) that had, on January 1, 2021, an office providing services related to motor vehicles operated by the department, or by a municipal, state, or federal agency in partnership with the department. (b) An office under (a) of this section shall provide the public with all services related to motor vehicles that the office offered in the community on January 1, 2021. (c) In this section, "community" means a place in the unorganized borough, in a borough, or in a unified municipality that is not incorporated as a municipality and in which 850 or more individuals reside as a social unit." Renumber the following bill section accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected for the purpose of discussion. 3:51:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS explained that Amendment 1 clarifies that the term "operate" indicates that the department shall operate a DMV in one of these communities and that outsourcing to a private sector entity that could raise prices or potentially fail to offer core DMV services would not satisfy the legislative intent, as the purpose is to continue offering core public service, including some that cannot be provided by a private firm. 3:52:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referenced line 13 of Amendment 1 and remarked: What happens when we have a technological development and the state ceases to offer a service statewide, but we have in statute that ... the DMV is going to have to keep requiring that service at these particular locations. Is that prudent? REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS stated that there are certain services that can only be accomplished at the DMV versus a private provider. He said the intent of Amendment 1 is to continue offering those services, such as driver's license tests, driver's license renewals for persons over age 69, commercial driver's licenses, and driver's license reinstatement. He opined that the intent is clear: to offer core services at the DMV. Further, he speculated that if there were a power outage, the courts would understand. 3:53:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that the amendment does not specify "core services" or "services that only the DMV can provide," it says "all services." For that reason, he opined that Amendment 1 is poorly worded, as all accessible services at DMV locations must continue to be accessible at those locations. REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said, "these are the services that DMV offers at its locations." He reiterated that the purpose of the bill is to continue providing DMV services consistently in rural communities and not discriminate against communities based on size. 3:54:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN insisted that because of the political process, the [DMV] offices were not closed. He remarked: The people that represent those districts said, "Nope, can't do it," and the vote went accordingly in the budgeting process. What that gives is the flexibility. You don't start to get into the weeds of having something codified that locks you into a certain thing. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN characterized the bill as "a solution looking for a problem." He said the issue was already voted down with a great deal of unanimity. REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS acknowledged that the legislation mirrors prior debates. He explained that sometimes, an administration follows budget recommendations and other times, they may push back. Because of the leadership transition at DOA, he believed moving forward with the bill is a prudent way to ensure that DMV facilities remain open. He added that the budget language was a positive step but not as strong as a bill. 3:56:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referenced line 6 of Amendment 1 and asked what circumstances would require the department to be in partnership with a federal agency to accomplish one or more of the services. REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS recalled that when the then Barrow [now Utqiagvik] DMV closed, the community considered a wide range of options to continue providing its services. He explained that the purpose in broadly referencing public agencies is to ensure there would be an opportunity to offer core services more efficiently. He pointed out that there is a long-standing relationship between federal statutes and state provision of services, including the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. He said because of the long-standing state/federal relationship, it made sense to reference federal agencies, as the potential permutations of public agencies offering DMV services vary by community. 3:58:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which a community had a state DMV office that offered 10 services and a federal agency that offered one service that related to motor vehicles. Should Amendment 1 be adopted, he offered his understanding that the DMV office could close if the federal office remained open and continued to provide that one service. REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS characterized Representative Eastman's understanding of Amendment 1 as "absurd." He added that offering one service would not satisfy the intent of the bill. 3:59:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN withdrew his objection to the adoption of Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. He characterized Amendment 1 as "poorly written." Furthermore, he opined that the "intent [is] different than what's actually on the page." 3:59:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed her support for Amendment 1 based on discussions surrounding the Pioneer Homes last year. She recalled that legislators clearly expressed their intent regarding the Pioneer Homes; nonetheless, "the department" continued to act with different intent. She relayed that it took legislation [House Bill 96] to change that. 4:00:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that with all amendments, Legislative Legal Services drafts the sponsor's intent consistent with legislative drafting standards and requirements. He opined that the current language in Amendment 1 appropriately conveys the sponsor's intent. He expressed his support for the amendment and stated his belief that the language is not ambiguous. 4:01:48 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr, Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 1. Representatives Kaufman and Eastman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 4-2. 4:02:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, [labeled 32- LS0650\B.2, Bullard/Dunmire, 4/6/21], which read: Page 1, lines 1 - 2: Delete "; and providing for an effective date" Page 2, line 5: Delete all material. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN indicated that Amendment 2 would forego the immediate effective date, which is currently in HB 137, and implement the "normal" practice of providing for an effective date 90 days after the bill is passed into law. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the bill sponsor, Representative Fields, is supportive of Amendment 2. 4:03:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS answered no. He explained that the immediate effective date conveys the legislature's intent to keep the DMV offices open. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN maintained his objection to the adoption of Amendment 2. 4:04:34 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and Kaufman voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 2. Representatives Tarr, Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 2-4. 4:05:10 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited final questions from the committee. 4:06:50 PM LESLIE ISAACS, Administrative Services Director, Department of Administration, in response to a question from Representative Kaufman regarding two fiscal notes from DOA, shared his understanding that one fiscal note had costs in the outlying years and the other had those costs removed. He asked if that is correct. 4:07:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN answered yes. MR. ISAACS explained that DOA was trying to decide the impact this legislation would have on future years. He believed that an amended fiscal note would be submitted by DOA that would reinsert the FY 23 - FY 26 costs as ongoing expenses. He expounded that should the bill be approved, this budget decrement would not be able to be offered in the future as a cost-saving measure; therefore, those costs needed to be reflected in outlying years as well. He asked if that makes sense. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked which fiscal note is "official." MR. ISAACS indicated that the fiscal note with the figure "582" in the outlying years is accurate. He noted that another adjustment should be made with respect to the revenue, as there would be no change in the revenue associated with this legislation because the activity associated with the existing DMV services will continue. He stated that the fiscal note was attempting to convey that these savings could not be offered in the future. He remarked: It doesn't work well with the format of the fiscal note ... to show a loss in savings. So, we would have to remove the revenue aspect of that fiscal note and include outlying expenditures for what would be the official version of the fiscal note. 4:10:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed confusion, as only one fiscal note was included in the committee packet. 4:10:42 PM TRISTAN WALSH, Staff, Representative Zack Fields, Alaska State Legislature, concurred [that there is only one fiscal note]. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed that he had only seen one fiscal note, which showed 582.5 in FY 22, nothing in the prior years, and zero in the revenue line. He suggested that Representative Kaufman was referring to a "phantom" fiscal note. 4:11:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS, in response to Mr. Isaacs, opined that claiming that the bill would cost money because DOA wouldn't be able to close a DMV office in the future is a novel way of presenting a fiscal note. He added that typically, a fiscal note indicates whether the bill would increase or decrease costs. He stated that the bill does not increase the number of services offered by the DMV; therefore, there is no additional net cost. He proceeded to list the positive profit turned by the following DMV offices: Delta Junction, $108,000; Eagle River, $1.1 million; Haines, $33,000; Homer $457,000; Tok, $162,000; Valdez, $68,000. He said if DOA were to provide an accurate fiscal note, it would show a loss in DGF revenue, adding that it is inaccurate to claim that the bill would cost $0.5 million more. He deferred to Ms. Javier to explain the cost per facility. 4:13:07 PM SABRINA JAVIER, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance Division, Alaska State Legislature, confirmed that there is only one fiscal note, which she identified by the control code "ShScA". She cooccurred with Representative Fields that the fiscal note makes it look like DOA is adding 582.5 in additional DGF funds for General Fund program receipt authority. She noted that the numbers listed by the bill sponsor came from an ad hoc report on FY 20 revenues. 4:15:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN shared his belief that the unpopularity of the proposed DMV closures resulted in expeditious action by the [House] Finance subcommittee. He recalled that there was no support for the proposal. He expressed his hesitation to "locking" the legislature into something that may make sense in the future both politically and fiscally. He added that he would hate to "needlessly dance on the grave of [the subcommittee's] prior decision." 4:16:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN characterized the legislation as "a singularly terrible piece of legislation for [his] district." He reflected on the growth of [District 10], noting that having [a DMV office] in his district would be a benefit for residents. He suggested that should the bill pass, that opportunity may be eliminated because the state may not want to be "handcuffed" to adding a DMV office near existing offices. He opined that the bill is a backdoor method of attempting to "handcuff" future legislators into appropriations. He emphasized his opposition to HB 137. 4:19:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report CSHB 137, Version 32- LS0650\B, Bullard/Dunmire, 3/29/21, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. 4:19:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. He subsequently withdrew his objection. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS hearing no further objection, announced that CSHB 137(STA) was moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.