HB 7 - MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION PLATES Number 1008 CHAIR MASEK introduced House Bill No. 7 to the committee for the first time, "An Act relating to motor vehicle registration plates." Number 1040 RANDY LORENZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Vic Kohring, Alaska State Legislature, read the following sponsor statement into the record: Problem: With the passage of biennial motor vehicle registration fee, many individuals have found themselves paying fees twice, and I have talked to individuals who have done so as much as three and four times, for the same service. This occurs when an individual's vehicle becomes disabled either by an accident or mechanical failure and the individual is required to obtain a replacement vehicle, or they sell or trade-in a vehicle. That individual must register the new vehicle. That individual not only must buy new tags, but is out the expense of the old unexpired tags as well. Solution: By the owner retaining position of the plates, he/she would only have to transfer the plates to the new vehicle and pay any difference in the tax. House Bill 7 allows for the plates to remain with the owner affording the owner the ability to transfer the plates to another vehicle by paying a small transfer fee and any difference in tax as a result of the increased value of the new vehicle. House Bill 7 also brings regular plates in line with the way vanity plates, disabled plates, and other special plates are presently handled. The owner of the specialty plates retains those plates, or at least has the opportunity to retain those plates if they desire. Added Value: Presently, an individual convicted of a DWI offense can purchase a vehicle that has recent tags, not register that vehicle, and still be able to drive on the streets until such time as they happen to be caught by law enforcement and found in violation. By the previous owner retaining those plates, the individual would be driving the vehicle with no plates, would stand out, and would easily be picked up by law enforcement. House Bill 7 would prevent the plates from being transferred with the vehicle. Number 1166 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked how HB 7 would affect cab companies and car rental companies. MR. LORENZ stated that most car rental companies have plates specifically designated and are already retaining them to use when they change out stock. Cab companies would have to pay a transfer fee and any increased difference in the cost of the vehicle. It was his opinion that this bill would increase the offense for not transferring vehicles in a timely manner and would actually afford better control. Number 1223 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY inquired as to how banks or lending institutions would be affected, in terms of identification of vehicles, when they have to repossess. MR. LORENZ replied that the lending company would have the vehicle identification number (VIN) available to them when the vehicle is sold. He added that most private parties usually sell a vehicle that is either broken or damaged, so they would already have plates that could be transferred when the loan papers are signed. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY added that, despite the best intentions, problems might arise after the papers are signed. Even though the VIN number can be seen through the windshield, he expressed concern that this would make it more difficult to repossess cars in default. MR. LORENZ acknowledged that this might be something to look into further. Number 1307 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON questioned the fiscal implications of HB 7. It was his impression, according to the fiscal note, that this would result in either a loss of revenue or an increased cost. MR. LORENZ replied that Representative Kohring had looked over the fiscal note, and that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) would have to be queried as to who would be paying for these changes. He added, "I really feel that the amount of money put on that fiscal note is something that they are already forced to spend, and they are trying to get the money out of it by using this bill." MR. LORENZ referred to the $3.6 million figure, and felt this bill only dealt with taking away the excess tax burden as a result of buying a new vehicle or losing a vehicle and having to get another vehicle. He further stated, "If the state is getting $3.6 million dollars by overtaxing Alaskan citizens, I strongly urge it; but I really think that if we look into it, we will find that there is a lot more thrown in there. It is probably dealing with vehicles that are leaving the state, vehicles that are breaking down, as well as the cost of a lot of vehicles already out there taken into account that would not come under this bill". MR. LORENZ felt that the fiscal note is severely subject: that the total operating cost should be "zeroed out," the loss of revenue drastically brought down, and the cost investigated. Number 1408 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON recognized that Southeast Alaska does not have a vehicle emissions program like the rest of the state, and questioned whether or not taking the tag when selling the vehicle would have any bearing on that program. MR. LORENZ responded that HB 7, in its present state, does give the DMV the authority to have the "final say-so" with regard to transferring plates. He added that the new owner could be required to show proof that the vehicle meets standards of emissions in the areas that have such controls. MR. LORENZ also referred to an amendment, 1-LS0054\A.2, Ford, 01/25/99, which read: Page 3, line 13, following "fees.": Insert: If the registration plate or plates issued under this subsection are transferred to a vehicle that will be operated in an area subject to an emission control program established under AS 46.14.400 or 46.14.510, the owner shall provide proof satisfactory to the department that the vehicle meets emission control requirements. Number 1503 MR. LORENZ added that over 30 states presently use tags affixed to each vehicle, separate from the plates, that show when the emission is due. It is his feeling that the State of Alaska should seriously consider using this system. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON related that he experienced this situation when trading his vehicle from Juneau at an Anchorage location, and expressed concern that care be taken with respect to this issue. Number 1541 MR. LORENZ advised that he had spoken with the Department of Law. He stated it was their feeling that, between this amendment and the way the bill was already structured, there would be absolutely no way a person could circumvent the emission control requirements of an area. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO declared a potential conflict, due to the fact that his company has over 1400 cars registered and titled in the State of Alaska in any given year. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON objected to this conflict for the record, and stated that the committee members would each have to vote. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked how it would come about that some citizens would have to register vehicles three to four times in one year. MR. LORENZ cited a case involving one of Representative Kohring's constituents. The woman had just renewed the tags for her vehicle in the amount of a little over $200. Less than one month after this, the vehicle developed transmission problems. The cost of replacing the transmission was more than what the vehicle was worth, so this individual purchased a second vehicle. The tags and tax for the second vehicle came to over $400. The woman's daughter was driving the car, got into an accident, and "totaled" the vehicle. The insurance company covered the cost of the vehicle by providing her with a new one, but she was then required to pay another $400. This individual paid over $1000 in tags and taxes within a six week period. MR. LORENZ felt that this is very much a tax burden on the people of Alaska. He added that, at least in the Mat-Su area and in a good portion of Alaska, many of the jobs are not high paying, and many citizens are single parents. It is his belief that HB 7 would alleviate situations such as the above example. Number 1711 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked whether it was really necessary to create wholesale changes to the way the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) plates vehicles in the State of Alaska. Instead, he mentioned the possibility of instituting a system of credit to accommodate such rare situations. MR. LORENZ disagreed. He stated, "We are developing another bureaucracy. We are going to have to develop somebody now to trace that. Many states have now gone to the plates belonging to the owner, and they have found it very cost effective. Presently, we are already doing that with, I would say, probably very close to 25% of our plates. We have an awful lot of vanity plates out there. I myself have veteran plates on my vehicle, which retain with me and do not transfer with the car. We are already in place doing it. It is just a matter of bringing the other plates in alignment". REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO argued that, according to the Administration, less than 5% of all vehicles registered in the state are vanity plates. He asked how Mr. Lorenz achieved his figure of 20-25% being vanity plates. MR. LORENZ replied that he was just estimating and did not have actual figures; however, the system is already in place and running. Therefore, it is his belief that this would not be that much of a change. Number 1798 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO informed the committee that the average cost of a new vehicle is about $21,000. He asked Mr. Lorenz if he was advocating "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." He wondered whether an individual who could spend $21,000 on a car would experience a financial hardship from $200 for registration. MR. LORENZ agreed that it would not be a financial hardship for "the rich," but asserted it be would for most of the constituents of Alaska who cannot afford a $21,000 car. He added that many of the people he was referring to are "lucky to be able to afford a $500 car." He stated that, as a result of their "economic strap," these cars usually does not last more than about a two-year period, and that would be an added tax burden on a low-income family. Number 1843 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO remarked that he had many concerns regarding this bill. For instance, he stated, "My company, in a given year, sells 600 cars. Some of those cars are put on a barge and sent to Seattle. The license plate is basically the car's birthmark. That is how we log it in. That is how we make sure that is where the car is going, and it is pretty much how we tie our inventory". REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO, in addition, expressed concern from a public safety standpoint. He explained that when a state trooper or local police officer pulls over a car, the officer uses the plate number, not the VIN, to identify the vehicle. If the car is stolen, the license plate reflects that. He related concern that allowing people to keep plates and put them on any other car, in view of the viability of getting individuals to actually go down and re-register, raises some serious safety issues. Number 1900 MR. LORENZ referred to the number of states that have already gone to this system and do not have a problem with it. He asserted, "We are not talking about that many vehicles. We are only talking about those people that are going to be --- we are referring to, basically, from private party to private party. Most private parties are buying other vehicles because theirs already broke down, and they already have plates in possession that they can put on that vehicle. So, that is not a real concern." MR. LORENZ added that it is also a current requirement under state law that a bill of sale be attached to those vehicles that do not have plates on the car. The bill of sale would show when the transfer took place; therefore, it is Mr. Lorenz' opinion that it would not be a problem. He further added that it is currently not a problem with new cars that do not yet have plates. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO responded that new cars do not have plates because they have temporary tags. These temporary tags are registered with the DMV, and when the plates come in, they are put on by the dealer. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked whether Mr. Lorenz was aware of federal funds that are tied to the municipality being able to manage their clean air quality, and reiterated the importance of the emission control program. He expressed concern that the $500 to $1000 category of cars mentioned would be much older, and these should be a main target of emission control programs to ensure they are up to standard in not polluting the air. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO specified that he felt the intent of this bill is very commendable; however, it is his belief that the end result would create a lot of hardship. He detailed some of these issues: public safety, DMV costs associated in reprogramming computers, federal funds for emission controls if programs slip, and motor vehicle taxes taken in the amount of $3.7 million. Number 2016 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH stated he was really uncomfortable with this bill, and that patterning an entire bill after a problem occurring with one individual was very unfair to the people of Alaska. He believes core issues should be addressed without creating more bureaucracy. He requested more specific information: for example, historical background on how this program is working in other states. He added, "We are looking at the wrong end of the horse." Number 2082 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY related his understanding that plates in Alaska can be purchased for more than one year at a time, and that some trailers that require plates could be purchased for up to five years. He referred to those individuals would could not afford registration or even insurance, and stated that often this is not discovered until after a tragedy occurs. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY gave his daughter as an example. She has a 4-wheel drive vehicle for winter use and a 2-wheel drive vehicle for use in the summer. He questioned whether she could just switch plates between the two vehicles. Number 2140 MR. LORENZ said no. He further explained that any vehicle retained, even if not driven, would have to have a plate. He mentioned another category of individuals: those who purchase a vehicle but do not bother to register them until the renewal time is up on the plates. In that case, the vehicle would be driven by the person who bought it, but not the registered owner of the vehicle. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY related seeing plates in rural Alaska dated 1984, and that was more than 10 years after that date. He acknowledged that enforcement of some of these issues was a problem. Number 2193 CHAIR MASEK invited Mr. Lorenz to return to the committee with specific information, such as the percentage of people in the state this bill would impact. Number 2229 JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration, came forward to testify on behalf of the DMV. She read the following into the record: House Bill 7 kind of gives DMV a lot of heartache and a lot of pain, because we feel that we've got a really good system right now, and this basically turns the apple cart totally upside down. Alaska has traditionally allowed plates to remain with the vehicle when it is sold. There are 16 states that currently use this method. In 30 states, the plates remain with the owner and may be transferred to a new vehicle. Not all of these states allow the unused portion of the registration, however, to be used on the new vehicle. The remaining four states use a combination of two methods. Both of these systems have advantages and disadvantages. The states we have talked to that currently have the system we have that have switched over to going to the person as opposed to the vehicle state that they would never switch again. I mean, it was one of those things that it was a nightmare for them to switch from the vehicle to the person, and they would not switch. They recommend that, if you currently have that system, to stay with the system of plate-to-vehicle as opposed to plate-to-person. Alaska has allowed certain plates, such as personalized plates, to be transferred from one vehicle to another, but the registration fees are not transferred with the plate. The registration fees are paid for a particular vehicle, and they remain with that vehicle. The number of vehicles with registration plates that can be transferred represent less than 5% of the total vehicles registered. So the personalized plates are less than 5% of the total registered vehicles in the state, not 25%. No one is actually paying twice. Instead, they are paying a registration fee for each vehicle that they are operating on the roadways. The argument could be made that a person paid for 24 months of registration but did not get to use the vehicle or was in an accident or mechanical failure. In response to this, the registration fees have always been for either a one or two year period, and the full fees have been due regardless of how much or how little the vehicle is being used. A person who uses a vehicle one day pays the same as a person who uses a vehicle 365 days. A person who drives 10 miles to work pays the same as a person who drives 100 miles a day to work. Although registration fees are not dedicated funds, it can be argued that public services that normally could be associated with these fees, such as our road system, emergency services, state troopers, Alaska Court System, DMV offices, etc., are available year round for these services and do not go away when one person does not use their vehicles. Secondly, if DMV were to allow plates and fees to be transferred from one vehicle to another, major changes would have to be made to the vehicle registration computer system. Currently, the law says that the registration period remains the same, regardless of the ownership changes. Under this proposed concept, the registration plates would be identified with the owner, rather than the vehicle. Changes would have to be made to properly account for the fees and to transfer them to the new vehicles and expire the registration period for the previous vehicles. Since the DMV registration system also serves as an accounting system that links particular fees to a particular vehicle, this would mean major changes. That is why you see the $968,000 operational cost for computer programming changes. Lastly, the bill would make it difficult to enforce programs, such as the emission inspection program, that are enforced through the registration process. This would have a detrimental effect on air quality and may jeopardize federal funds for failing to meet the federal air quality standards. Out of the concept of the bill that is proposed, and I am not talking about the bill that is in front of you, it would be possible to transfer a plate from a currently registered vehicle to one that does not meet the emissions standards. By doing this repeatedly, the vehicle would evade inspections for several years. I believe that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is here as well and will be addressing those clean air problems. To kind of, also, say something about Representative Cowdery saying that he was in rural Alaska and saw several vehicles that had 1984 registration plates on them --- vehicles that are in rural Alaska, extreme rural villages, that have fewer than 499 average daily traffic going up and down the road are exempt registration. So, they don't have to register the vehicles. If you are out in McGrath, you don't have to register a car out in McGrath; they are exempt from that. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if these rural areas were exempt from insurance as well. MS. HENSLEY said yes. She added that Charles Hosack, Deputy Director for the DMV, was standing on-line from Anchorage and could answer a lot of the fiscal questions. She also volunteered to answer as many questions as possible, and to refer those she could not answer to Mr. Hosack. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH requested a copy of the verbal testimony just given after it was "cleaned up." CHAIR MASEK echoed his request for a copy for each committee member, and Ms. Hensley agreed. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked when the state went to a two-year licensing and registration program. MS. HENSLEY replied that this program went into effect in 1997. TAPE 99-2, SIDE A Number 0037 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY inquired as to the difference in cost of registering a $22,000 vehicle versus a $2,000 vehicle. MS. HENSLEY explained that the cost is $68 per two-year period for a passenger car and $78 per two-year period for a pick-up truck. She added that this registration fee applies regardless of the cost of the vehicle; however, this does not include local municipal taxes. The DMV collects those taxes and remits them to the municipalities. "Mat-Su borough, Kenai borough, Ketchikan, Bethel all charge different tax tables than what Anchorage or some of the other communities charge", she indicated. Number 0132 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO reopened the issue of older vehicles. He questioned whether, in most municipalities, local taxes were lower the older the vehicle. MS. HENSLEY specified that a brand new passenger vehicle in Anchorage would have property taxes of $121 per year, and a vehicle eight years old or older would have taxes of $16 per year. The exception to the rule, however, is Mat-Su borough. In that municipality, the opposite applies; the newer vehicle carries a less expensive tax. She explained that the removal of abandoned vehicles in that borough is much more expensive; consequently, they have placed a higher tax table on older vehicles. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO pointed out that this was a local tax issue, and not a statewide DMV issue. MS. HENSLEY agreed, and added that the only thing the DMV does is enforce collection of taxes for the municipalities. Number 0258 CHAIR MASEK questioned whether or not a bill was passed "a couple of years ago" that gave boroughs and municipalities control to raise or lower those taxes. MS. HENSLEY confirmed this, and explained that the municipalities are given the option to use the tax table as set in statute or set their own tax base. They are required to notify the DMV one year in advance so they can collect those taxes for them. Some examples of this include Mat-Su, Kenai and Ketchikan. She emphasized, however, that this would have nothing to do with the actual cost of registration, and is strictly a municipal tax program. The DMV does not get involved when a vehicle has been destroyed and a person requests a refund of their taxes; that would be between the individual and the municipalities. CHAIR MASEK addressed the issue of an individual selling a vehicle and the buyer not changing the registration right away. If the DMV is notified by the seller that they no longer own that car, she questioned, would it not show up on record that the seller no longer owns the vehicle? MS. HENSLEY affirmed that the record would show the vehicle was sold if the seller mailed the assignment of interest, on the bottom part of the title, to the DMV. It is a state law, she added, that the new owner register under their name; however, the DMV cannot enforce this. She wondered how the new owner could legally drive the car if, under HB 7, the tags were removed from the car and kept with the seller. They would not legally be able to drive to the DMV to purchase their new plates. Number 0510 RON G. KING, Section Chief, Air Quality Improvement, Division of Air & Water Quality, Department of Environmental Conservation, came forward to testify on behalf of the Department of Environmental Conservation. He explained that one of the programs he is responsible for is the vehicle inspection program, and added that this program is operated in Anchorage and Fairbanks by local communities. The program's principal means of enforcement right now is vehicle registration. Under federal law, the program is to be equal to, in stringency, the vehicle registration process. He reported that some states do use "vehicle stickers" placed on the windows; however, in most cases it is a vehicle sticker in addition to vehicle registration. MR. KING informed the committee that his department will provide their fiscal note on HB 7 in the near future. He added that changing from a registration-based to a plate-based program for the DMV would have significant impacts on vehicle inspection programs, including decreased compliance rates. For example, he cited Willow and Houston, and explained that their registration grew approximately 400% at the start of the inspection and maintenance program (I/M). In moving the plate from one vehicle to another, the DEC would have no way of tracking the vehicle to take enforcement actions; therefore, they are opposed to HB 7 as it stands at this time. Number 0674 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO acknowledged the effort that has been made in trying to meet clean air standards. He questioned whether or not HB 7 would negatively affect "quality of life". MR. KING said yes. He agreed that vehicle inspection programs and the citizens of Anchorage, Fairbanks and the Mat-Su Valley have made tremendous efforts. Specifically, he explained, air quality violations have gone from as many as 130 a year in Fairbanks in the first part of 1980 to four or five today. Anchorage had only one violation in the month of January, and last year "made two years". MR. KING reiterated that, under HB 7, compliance will suffer, and this will mean more cars operating on the road with higher emissions. This will result in potentially continued violation of the standards. CHAIR MASEK again requested the fiscal note from the DEC, and thanked Mr. King for testifying. Number 0827 LURA MORGAN, Division Manager, Environmental Services, Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services, provided the following testimony via teleconference on behalf of their department: As you may know, the EPA recently reclassified Anchorage as a serious non-attainment area for carbon monoxide air pollution. There are currently only 7 cities, including Anchorage and Fairbanks, in the United States that are designated as serious non-attainment areas for CO. Over 80% of the carbon monoxide pollution in Anchorage is produced by cars and trucks. The vehicle inspection and maintenance program is a key element of our carbon monoxide pollution control program. As was already stated, we have made great strides toward reaching compliance with federal air pollution standards, and the Anchorage I/M program has been a big part of these air quality improvements. Over the last 15 years, carbon monoxide pollution levels have been cut in half in Anchorage, and we are very close, as was mentioned earlier, to achieving our goal of meeting federal air quality standards. We are concerned that HB 7 will have a negative impact on our I/M program and on our air quality. The vast majority of citizens in Anchorage comply with the requirements to have air pollution emissions from their cars and trucks tested every two years. There is, however, a minority of vehicle owners that evade the law. Some vehicle owners who fail an I/M test may choose to not re-register their vehicle and take their chances. From an air quality standpoint, it is particularly important that we identify these I/M evaders, because vehicles that fail the I/M test can emit up to 100 times more carbon monoxide than vehicles that meet I/M emission standards. For this reason, a significant part of the I/M program is identifying these I/M evaders and bringing them into compliance with emission standards. Identifying I/M evaders is already difficult. HB 7 could make this task even more so. Two of our best tools for identifying evaders are on-street enforcement by the Anchorage Police Department and the DMV registration file. If HB 7 becomes law, license plate information will no longer be coupled with the vehicle. It will become much more difficult to determine whether the I/M test is current or not or whether the registration for the vehicle was moved outside the I/M area. If HB 7 becomes law, license plate switching from vehicle to vehicle will be the practice. Although HB 7 requires the vehicle owners to get the approval of DMV before switching plates, there will almost certainly be an increase in illegal or inadvertent switching that will take place without DMV approval. If a vehicle fails an I/M test, for example, the owner could use plates from another registered vehicle and avoid the I/M testing requirement until the registration on that vehicle expires. This would allow the vehicle owner to illegally drive a potentially heavy polluting vehicle for many months with little possibility of detection. In short, we are concerned about the impact that HB 7 could have on the effectiveness of the I/M program and on air quality in Anchorage. We ask that you consider these impacts when considering the bill. Thank you for listening to these concerns. Number 1030 DAVID HUDSON, First Sergeant, Division of Alaska State Troopers, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He expressed concern that HB 7 would allow the potential for driving a motor vehicle on the highway without any license plate at all for 30 days. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON concurred that this was a concern of his as well. He acknowledged that much of the state trooper's work is tied to being able to trace a license plate to an accident or crime. He asked for clarification that this was also a concern for the Division of Alaska State Troopers. SERGEANT HUDSON confirmed that this was their concern; it would be much more difficult identifying a vehicle without a license plate. Number 1137 TIM ROGERS, Legislative Program Coordinator, Municipality of Anchorage, provided testimony via teleconference. "Our number one concern is the air quality issue," he explained. "We believe that needs to be resolved before this bill moves forward." He outlined two more concerns: the public safety issue enumerated by Sergeant Hudson, and a potential loss of between $200,000 and $400,000 per year in tax revenue for the municipality of Anchorage. He requested that all three of these issues be resolved before this bill moves out of committee. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked whether the $200,000 to $400,000 deficit in tax revenue would be passed on to the property owners in Anchorage by way of increased property taxes. MR. ROGERS said yes. CHAIR MASEK requested a copy of Mr. Rogers written testimony if available. Number 1256 MARSHA CAREY, Controller, Anchorage Chrysler Dodge, provided testimony in support of HB 7. In December of 1997, she related, she was part of a 6-member reengineering team consisting of DMV employees and others. After 3 days of debating this issue, the team covered every item previously mentioned. She provided the following written testimony: I am writing you in favor of HB 7. Allowing the public to take possession of their vehicle plates will be beneficial to the consumer and to the DMV in the long run. I do realize the cost we are currently facing to implement this legislation, but please caution yourselves against any costs that are currently implied regardless of any changes to the current procedures. For example, DMV is currently in need of a new computer system; therefore, any cost associated with programming or purchasing new equipment should not be an issue. Are you aware DMV cannot cross-reference searching a person to registered owner on "ALVIN" (current computer)? This type of hardware or software is obviously limited and outdated. I have also been informed the current system is not Y2K compatible. Please consider the following information as support for this bill. License plate belongs to person, not vehicle: Cost of transferring plate to new or used vehicle: * Title fee $5 * Lien fee $5 * Plate transfer fee $5 New owner required to switch title in a timely manner to obtain new plate or validate their prepaid plate. Benefits: * No plate on vehicle is motivation to transfer title. * Insurance binder required at time of transfer to insure coverage. Currently, insurance validation is very weak. We need to become more stringent on proof of insurance. (No proof....no registration). * Fraudulent plate use made to be more serious offense. Ten day title transfer requirement currently carries no meaningful penalty. * Enforce meaningful fine for non-compliance. Currently, non-transfer of title occurs frequently because people try to avoid responsibility of ownership due to risk associated with driving without insurance, parking fines and law enforcement evasion. * Assignment of interest becomes valid temporary for 5 days. Another issue at hand is collection of Motor Vehicle Registration Tax (MVRT). Return the collection of these taxes to the cities and boroughs. Perhaps attach this tax to the personal property tax or to the Permanent Fund program. (Note PFD records have the most current addresses of Alaskans). This will help DMV clean up their name file. Emissions programs are currently trying to change the certificate system to window sticker identification. Place the responsibility of emissions enforcement back to the city that requires the standard. A DMV Reengineering Team I served on, along with DMV employees and other outside sources, presented these suggestions. We spent 3 days in December of 1997 reviewing and discussing several different issues. The information that is provided in this letter reflects the ideas that were generated by this group. Number 1632 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO reiterated that one of the driving forces behind this bill is the hardship it causes when people buy a $1000 to $2000 vehicle and it causes them a disproportionate amount to re-register. He asked Ms. Carey how many cars on the Anchorage Chrysler lot were valued at $2000 or less. MS. CAREY stated that, unfortunately, there were none at this time. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO addressed the issue of law enforcement checking a license plate for background as opposed to getting out of the car and checking the VIN. He added, "More importantly, my concern is, I take delivery of cars from Fairbanks to Petersburg, and if I'm responsible for the plates, that means that the next year I have to ship the same amount of cars into each individual location to use those plates. I think it creates a tremendous hardship, not only for myself, but....." MS. CAREY questioned why that would be the case. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO explained that when cars are sold, whether they are wholesale, retail or program cars, he would have extra plates leftover. MS. CAREY disagreed, stating that a plate transfer could occur for a $5.00 fee. Number 1779 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON requested that the sponsor of HB 7 specifically address what the potential savings would be to the people at large. He wondered how many transfers or sales would accrue a cumulative economic benefit to people versus the cost to the DMV and loss of revenue. He added that the loss of revenue issue is important, and that $3.5 million dollars lost in the income stream would have to be made up somewhere, either by increased cost of registration overall or something of that nature. These two figures need to be presented to the committee, he stressed, before a policy decision can be made. Number 1886 MR. LORENZ assured the committee that these issues would be researched and the committee informed of the findings. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO encouraged delving deeper than the Administration's fiscal note by addressing loss to municipalities throughout the state, shifting the tax burden, and possible loss of federal clean air funds. CHAIR MASEK indicated the bill would be held over.