Since our legislative “Day on the Hill” last month, a lot of activity has transpired at the state capitol in response to the independent review and its recommendations that were conducted by Mr. Rick King and his team. Certainly, our event was timely in advance of these developments!
The Senate has introduced SF 3582 (Newman) along with separate components of that bill as individual legislation as well. Over the past two weeks the Senate Transportation Committee has conducted hearings on these bills in efforts to finalize a final product in response to the King report. Some individual bills have been referred to other senate committees with jurisdiction over their content, but these will return back to the transportation committee to be duly incorporated into SF 3582. SF 3582 itself has also been amended from its original version and its current language is attached for reference. This current version remains in the senate transportation committee and awaits further action and modifications.
The House introduced the companion to this measure yesterday as HF 4164 (Elkins) which is also attached above in its original form (this document reflects the original language of SF 3582 that was introduced in the Senate before they amended it for comparison). HF 4164 will be heard in the House Transportation Committee in the near future with testimony and amendments considered (separate from the actions underway in the Senate). Unlike the Senate, however, we understand that the House will retain all consideration within their transportation committee rather than refer some aspects of it to other House committees.
Deputy registrar representatives testified on various provisions of pertinent legislation presented in the senate transportation committee. While we largely support the findings of the King report, we nevertheless have concerns over some aspects of the legislation that it has generated. These include:
- Requiring all limited DL agents to become full DL agents to participate in DVS online/mail-in filing fee revenue sharing.
- No consideration for exempting some offices due to physical limitations, staffing issues, remodeling costs, or being in close proximity to other existing full DL agent offices.
- No carve-out to ensure state operated offices are excluded from fund eligibility.
- No repeal of existing grandfather clause that grants a free camera only to full agents in operation as of 1/1/2000.
- Free camera should be offered to all full DL agents regardless of this date.
- Free equipment should also include eye examination equipment.
- Placing all DL and ID credentials on an 8-year renewal cycle.
- No proportional increase in the existing filing fee for this doubling of the license term.
- Proposed DL filing fee increases in the bill are appropriate for a 4-year term.
- Agents will lose $$ long-term if this proposal remains unchanged and is a disincentive in encouraging all DL agents to become full service.
- Absence of language allowing alternative sources in obtaining qualified background checks for newly hired staff.
- Proposed DL filing fee increases in the bill are appropriate for a 4-year term.
- No proportional increase in the existing filing fee for this doubling of the license term.
However, other provisions included in the legislation that we do applaud include the following:
- Ability to offer and provide various certified DL, ID, vehicle registration, and vehicle accident records to qualified customers and retain a fee (averaging $8.50 to $9.50 in most cases).
- Allowed for “full-service” offices only; “limited” offices would be ineligible to offer.
- Creation of a “full-service provider” account to compensate deputies from DVS with a share of filing fee proceeds from any online and mail-in transactions conducted with the State.
- Account would include 50% of all renewal filing fees ($3.50 each).
- Account would include 35% of all long-app filing fees ($3.75 each).
- Account would include 50% of any DL filing fees (varying amount each).
- Annual size of this account is being calculated currently by legislative staff, but we suspect it could be in the range of at least $8-10 million annually.
- Disbursements to deputy offices would occur at least quarterly and based on a formula similar to the 2019 MNLARS compensation model.
- Assuming our projected size of the fund is accurate, offices could realize annual ongoing compensation in the 60-75% range of what they received from the one-time MNLARS reimbursement in 2019.
- Disbursements would occur with at least quarterly portions to deputies from the full annual amount.
- This would be considered taxable income.
- Provides for an appeal process for individuals whose data access is permanently revoked.
- Clarifies authorized access does not necessarily require a corresponding completed transaction.
- Assuming our projected size of the fund is accurate, offices could realize annual ongoing compensation in the 60-75% range of what they received from the one-time MNLARS reimbursement in 2019.
In closing, MDRA remains engaged and committed to advancing the most fair and equitable legislation for the benefit of all our members with our lawmakers. We encourage your continued involvement with our legislative agenda as well as your supplemental voices with your individual legislators in this regard.
MDRA will continue providing you updates as this legislation moves forward and welcome your comments or questions by reaching out to us at mndeputyregistrars@gmail.com.
Thank you!
