HB 39-VEHICLE REGISTRATION/DWI/FORFEITURE CHAIR KOHRING announced the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 39, "An Act relating to registration of motor vehicles, to operating a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while intoxicated, and to driving with a cancelled, suspended, or revoked driver's license; relating to duties of the division of alcoholism and drug abuse regarding driving-while-intoxicated offenses; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee, adopted at the previous hearing, was Version F, (22-LS0201\F,Ford,2/2/01).] Number 1761 ROGER WORTMAN, Staff to Representative Pete Kott, Alaska State Legislature, came forward on behalf of the sponsor. He explained that due to peculiar insurance issues as they relate to the registration of vehicles within the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the sponsor requests that HB 39 pass through the House Transportation Standing Committee and be referred to the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. CHAIR KOHRING asked if the version before the committee is the same one presented to the House Transportation Standing Committee a few weeks ago. He referred to it as the [watered down] version. He also asked what the bottom-line cost of the bill is. MR. WORTMAN stated that the House Transportation Standing Committee aide prepared a summary (dated 2/14/01) on the fiscal notes for the committee substitute. He asked if this was in the committee members' packets. He said that since he is the "caretaker" of the bill, who sees that the bill is passed through the various committees, he has not studied the fiscal notes specifically. Therefore, today he could not speak "intelligently" on the fiscal notes. Number 1897 CHAIR KOHRING remarked that it looks like the bottom-line cost of this bill is about "half a million, about 1,000 [in] FY 02, down to 531 five years out." He said that he was not in the position to explain this either. He mentioned that it would have been helpful if the sponsor [Representative Kott] were here. MR. WORTMAN commented that the fiscal note is not the issue here. He reiterated that there are peculiar insurance issues that need to be referred to the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. He mentioned that after this was resolved, the bill could be re-referred back to the House Transportation Standing Committee. At this time, this is the sponsor's intent. He reiterated that he was not prepared to discuss the breakdown of the fiscal note. CHAIR KOHRING remarked that it gives him "a source of great discomfort" to have a fiscal note that cannot be explained. He suggested that the department representatives who prepared the fiscal notes and are impacted by this could address the notes. However, this might take time, and "we are already seven minutes before the conclusion of this meeting." Number 1972 CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Corrections, explained that the Department of Corrections submitted a fiscal note [on Version F] for a total of $286.2 [thousand] a year. This amount is for supplementing current contracts for institutional substance-abuse treatment programs. The department's current contracts, for funding of treatment programs, have not been supplemented since 1993. Therefore, [the department] has lost some valuable assets, because the contracts cannot be maintained at the current level. MS. BROWER stated that actually, this increment was in the governor's budget. She said that if the fiscal note were submitted now, it would have probably been a zero fiscal note. However, "we" have been instructed to show our costs even though it was in the governor's budget. Due to the provision in Version F that allows people to "receive treatment while incarcerated at their discretion," the department wanted to be able to maintain the current level of treatment. The $286.l2 [thousand] amount would provide that. CHAIR KOHRING pointed out that the other fiscal note is from the DMV. Number 2077 MARY MARSHBURN, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Administration, said that the current system within the State of Alaska is self-certification of insurance, which means, "Before you register a vehicle, you need to certify." This [Version F] proposes changing that system so that individuals would have to provide physical proof of insurance, by showing a policy or insurance card. This would affect the ways DMV registers vehicles. Currently, vehicles can be registered through partners, over the Internet, by telephone, by mail, and in [person at the] office. The costs envisioned in the fiscal note include the fact that the Internet and telephone transactions would most likely have to be discontinued, and in return, these transactions would come into "our "office. MS. MARSHBURN explained that an additional level of staffing is required for these 30,000 transactions. Time for in-office transactions would increase because people will need to bring in proof [of insurance]. Dealers and I/M [emission inspection] vendors would be required to view the proof of insurance before they complete a sale or before one could get an I/M [emission] inspection done in Anchorage or Fairbanks, where the bulk of transactions are. She went on to say: If dealers chose to discontinue their partnership with "us" because it presents them with delay or inability to complete transactions, then these transactions again revert to DMV. I think the guts of this issue, for DMV, is that offering proof of insurance really does nothing, ... in our view, ... to decrease the uninsured drivers. MS. MARSHBURN referred to testimony that she gave last week regarding her car insurance. She reiterated that she has insurance through USAA. Her insurance card, which she keeps in the glove compartment of her car, states that she is covered through 12/31/01. However, she said her premium is only paid through the end of March. So, even though the intent of the provision is admirable, it adds additional work and "takes us back in venues, at a significant cost." Number 2205 CHAIR KOHRING asked if the committee cared to give him any direction, and if the consensus was to hold the bill over. He said that based on Ms. Marshburn's testimony, it appears that there are substantial costs [with this bill]. He added, "We may not be achieving our goal here. It's not really going to have the impact that it intended, and that could be a wrong analysis .... " Number 2269 MR. WORTMAN reiterated the sponsor's request to move this bill to the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee because that committee deals with other insurance issues. The sponsor's intent within the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, of which he is a member, is to discuss the possibility of dealing with insurance companies to "brunt a portion of this cost" down from the DMV. CHAIR KOHRING replied that he would "hate to act in haste especially when we're dealing with over a half-million dollars." He recognized Representative Kott's intent and said, "It would be a good enhancement to what Representative Rokeberg did." However, he still has concerns about the expenditure. He said, "I don't want to look like a committee that's spending money like a bunch of drunken sailors. We just got through passing a bill that has a price tag of 8 million bucks on it." MR. WORTMAN reiterated that the sponsor's intent was to "grapple this thing" in the committee [House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee] and lower the fiscal note. He believes that once this bill is "grappled" with and the insurance companies come "online," the fiscal note will be lowered, if "they would empty it and, indeed, absorb some costs of this tracking that Ms. Marshburn is talking about." CHAIR KOHRING asked what the will of the committee was. Number 2298 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that he does not have a problem with passing this bill out with personal recommendations. At this point, he can't support either of the bills [HB 4 and HB 39]. However, the focus of the House Transportation Standing Committee is transportation issues. He said that with the "other bill," the fiscal note should probably be addressed in other committees. As long as our recommendations show that, his comfort level is satisfied with an [individual] recommendation of "do not pass." REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said, "I don't think we can do anything more on this bill; I'd like to move it out." REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated that this bill has been scheduled a few times, and that it should go to the next committee. Number 2344 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to move CSHB 39 [Version 22- LS0201\F, Ford, 2/2/01], from the committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being no objections, CSHB 39(TRA) moved from the House Transportation Standing Committee.