Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION & ENERGY
| Date: | 02/04/2015 | ATTENDANCE |
 | | | |
| Time: | 01:38 PM to 03:58 PM | Becker J. | X |
| | Buck | X |
| Place: | HCR 0112 | Carver | X |
| | Coram | X |
| This Meeting was called to order by | Esgar | X |
| Representative Tyler | Kraft-Tharp | X |
| Melton | X |
| This Report was prepared by | Moreno | X |
| Matt Kiszka | Neville P. | X |
| | Nordberg | X |
| | Winter | X |
| | Mitsch Bush | X |
| | Tyler | X |
| | X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call |
| Bills Addressed: | | Action Taken: | |
HB15-1089
HB15-1014
HB15-1046 | Amended, Referred to Finance
Referred to Finance
Amended, Referred to Appropriations |
1:38 PM
Representative Tyler, Chair, called the meeting to order. A quorum was present.
01:40 PM -- HB15-1089
Representative Primavera, prime sponsor, came to the table to present House Bill 15-1089 and distributed documents providing information on kei vehicles (Attachments A and B). She explained the genesis of the bill, and said that the bill allows the Department of Revenue (DOR) to title, register, and issue a rear license plate to kei vehicles—also known as microtrucks or utility transportation vehicles. Under the bill, a person with a valid driver's license and insurance may operate a registered kei vehicle on a roadway with a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour (mph) or less, unless it is a limited access highway. She explained Amendment L.001 (Attachment C), Amendment L.002 (Attachment D), and Amendment L.003 (Attachment E). She responded to questions on how other states regulate kei vehicles, where kei vehicles are manufactured, how kei vehicles are prohibited from getting on a road with a speed limit of 75 mph, which types of roads kei vehicles are confined to in other states, what types of vehicles would fit under the bill, and whether law enforcement had participated in the drafting of the bill. Committee discussion of which vehicles the bill would apply to ensued.
150204 AttachA.pdf
150204 AttachB.pdf
150204 AttachC.pdf
150204 AttachD.pdf
150204 AttachE.pdf
01:58 PM -- RJ Hicks, representing the Colorado Motor Carriers Association (CMCA), testified against the bill, noting that it needed to be amended. He stated that the fees associated with registration for kei vehicles were not adequate, and said that with passage of Amendment L.003 the CMCA would be neutral on the bill.
02:01 PM -- Mark Radtke, representing the Colorado Municipal League (CML), stated that the CML was originally in opposition to the bill, but was withdrawing this opposition in light of Amendment L.003. He responded to questions regarding whether other vehicle types should be included in the bill.
02:04 PM -- Pat Malloy, representing Eaton Minitrucks, testified in support of the bill. He stated that his company imports kei vehicles from Japan, which have been imported into the United States by various companies for ten years. Mr. Malloy described the size and operation of the vehicles and their security features. He discussed how long customers have been buying kei vehicles from his company for use on their farms and in other agricultural settings, and why they purchase such vehicles. He stated that he believes there are over 1,000 kei vehicles in Colorado already. He responded to questions on the common features of kei vehicles, other vehicles that they might resemble in terms of size and features, whether the vehicles meet crash and impact standards, if he is a licensed automotive dealer and whether he would be willing to become one to sell kei vehicles if it were necessary, whether vehicle identification numbers are required for keis, and if vehicle history is tracked on keis.
02:17 PM
Representative Primavera explained Amendment L.001, which amends the bill to state that kei vehicles are not golf cars.
02:22 PM
Representative Primavera explained Amendment L.002, which she said came at the request of CMCA, CML, and DOR, and requires that keis will be registered annually and that the driver will have proof of insurance. She responded to questions on whether keis fit the definition of "motor vehicle." Jery Payne, OLLS, came to the table to explain that kei vehicles do not fit the strict definition of a motor vehicle because they are not manufactured in the United States. He responded to questions on the definition of a motor vehicle and how kei vehicles fit under this. The committee discussed the merits of the bill, the types of vehicle it addresses, where kei vehicles can be manufactured, and whether specific ownership taxes (SOT) would need to be paid on kei vehicles.
02:30 PM
Representative Primavera explained that Amendment L.003 addresses how title and registration fees for kei vehicles are handled.
02:31 PM
Representative Primavera made her closing comments on the bill. She stated that kei vehicles are safer than a number of other types of vehicle on the road, such as motorcycles. She also noted the fuel efficiency of keis and the multiple uses they can be applied to. The committee discussed the merits of the bill.
| |
| BILL: | HB15-1089 | |
| TIME: | 02:34:11 PM |
| MOVED: | Tyler |
| MOTION: | Refer House Bill 15-1089, as amended, to the Committee on Finance. The motion passed on a vote of 13-0. |
| SECONDED: | Coram |
| VOTE |
| Becker J. | Yes |
| Buck | Yes |
| Carver | Yes |
| Coram | Yes |
| Esgar | Yes |
| Kraft-Tharp | Yes |
| Melton | Yes |
| Moreno | Yes |
| Neville P. | Yes |
| Nordberg | Yes |
| Winter | Yes |
| Mitsch Bush | Yes |
| Tyler | Yes |
| | |
Final YES: 13 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS |
02:38 PM -- HB15-1014
Representative Dore, prime sponsor, came to the table to present House Bill 15-1014. He explained that the bill adjusts the registration interval for seasonal farm motor vehicles from 12 months to 24 months, and defines a seasonal farm vehicle as:
- a vehicle used primarily for agricultural production on land that is classified as agricultural land for property tax purposes, and
- a vehicle that is used no more than six months per year.
The bill requires that, upon registering, the vehicle owner pay 24 months of registration fees in exchange for a 24-month registration period. In addition, the bill reduces the amount of specific ownership tax (SOT) for seasonal farm motor vehicles by half; however, the vehicle owner is required to pay 24 months of SOT at the time of registration (one full years' worth of SOT every two years).
02:47 PM -- Mark Radtke, representing CML, testified in opposition to the bill. He stated that CML is concerned about the precedent with SOT that the bill could set, and that it would like to see full SOT collected. He responded to questions on how much of an impact the bill will have on local taxes.
02:49 PM -- Amber Clay, representing the Colorado Farm Bureau, spoke in favor of the bill. She said that the bill would help Colorado ranchers and farmers by reducing the cost of registration for vehicles that are only used for a part of the year.
02:53 PM
Representative Dore responded to questions on whether agricultural vehicles can be registered by mail and changes to SOT collections under the bill. Committee discussion of taxation of property only used for a portion of the year ensued. Representative Dore responded to questions on enforcement methods being considered to address the fact that eligible vehicles for the twenty-four-month registration interval are only used for a maximum of six months of the year, the types of vehicle that could qualify for the registration interval under the bill, potentials for abuse of the registration interval, and if he sees Kansas and Oklahoma plates on vehicles in his district.
03:01 PM
Representative Dore made his closing comments on the bill.
| |
| BILL: | HB15-1014 | |
| TIME: | 03:02:05 PM |
| MOVED: | Coram |
| MOTION: | Refer House Bill 15-1014 to the Committee on Finance. The motion passed on a vote of 12-1. |
| SECONDED: | Buck |
| VOTE |
| Becker J. | Yes |
| Buck | Yes |
| Carver | Yes |
| Coram | Yes |
| Esgar | Yes |
| Kraft-Tharp | Yes |
| Melton | No |
| Moreno | Yes |
| Neville P. | Yes |
| Nordberg | Yes |
| Winter | Yes |
| Mitsch Bush | Yes |
| Tyler | Yes |
| | |
Final YES: 12 NO: 1 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS |
03:03 PM -- HB15-1046
Representative Moreno, prime sponsor, came to the table to present House Bill 15-1046. Under current law, if there are fewer than three bidders for a highway project contract, the contract may only be awarded if it is 10 percent or less than the Colorado Department of Transportation's (CDOT) project cost estimate. In instances where the contract is less than $1.0 million, the contract may only be awarded if it is 25 percent or less than the CDOT's project cost estimate. The bill allows the executive director of CDOT to award a highway project contract where there are fewer than three bidders to the low responsible bidder regardless of the CDOT's project cost estimate if the executive director determines in writing that doing so is in the financial, economic, or other interest of the state.
03:07 PM
Representative Moreno distributed Amendments L.006 (Attachment F) and L.008 (Attachment G) and explained them. Representative Becker also distributed and explained Amendment L.002 (Attachment H). Representative Moreno responded to questions on the costs that are incurred by the current highway project contract bidding process, and what the loss of time and costs are when a project has to be re-bid because it did not meet statutory bidding requirements.
150204 AttachF.pdf
150204 AttachG.pdf
150204 AttachH.pdf
03:11 PM -- Scott McDaniels, representing CDOT, testified in support of the bill. He responded to questions on how many highway project contracts are rejected because there are not enough bids received, the circumstances that most often lead to bids having to be rejected, if CDOT is competing for the same market of contractors as other entities in the transportation industry, the administrative costs and lost value of scope for CDOT in highway projects, considerations made by CDOT in repeat project estimations and bidding processes, the overall project estimation and bidding process, how quickly CDOT's bidding process usually moves, if CDOT has the ability to negotiate with a contractor it has received a bid from, and how Colorado's mandatory bid rejections compare with other states.
03:30 PM -- Tony Milo, representing the Colorado Contractors Association (CCA), spoke in favor of the bill. He stated that CCA is made up of 350 companies throughout Colorado, and said that the bill would save the private sector millions of dollars a year through less mandatory bid rejections. He explained that contractors have no way of knowing how many other contractors are bidding on a CDOT project, so the bidding process will usually result in the best price possible for the project.
03:32 PM
Representative Moreno explained Amendment L.006, which he said adds a legislative declaration to the bill and provides context for why the bill is important.
03:34 PM
Representative Moreno explained that Amendment L.008 clarifies that the bill will apply to "design bid build" projects, and repeals the bill's reporting requirements on July 1, 2018. He responded to questions on whether similar procedures for an annual report to committees of reference exist for other forms of state contract and what the Joint Transportation Committee will be expected to look for in its oversight of highway project contracts awarded under the bill. Mr. McDaniels responded to a question on how CDOT awards contracts. The committee discussed the annual presentation by CDOT to the Joint Transportation Committee laid out by Amendment L.008. Mr. McDaniels responded to a question on what is intended by "design bid build" in Amendment L.006, if CDOT has flexibility in its acquisition process to negotiate on bids, and what the standard bidding process of CDOT is.
03:53 PM
Representative Becker discussed Amendment L.002, which he said he would hold until a later date. Committee discussion ensued.
03:55 PM
Representative Moreno made his closing comments, stating that the bill would save private contractors and Colorado taxpayers money in the highway project contract process.
| |
| BILL: | HB15-1046 | |
| TIME: | 03:56:23 PM |
| MOVED: | Moreno |
| MOTION: | Refer House Bill 15-1046, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion passed on a vote of 10-3. |
| SECONDED: | Kraft-Tharp |
| VOTE |
| Becker J. | No |
| Buck | Yes |
| Carver | No |
| Coram | No |
| Esgar | Yes |
| Kraft-Tharp | Yes |
| Melton | Yes |
| Moreno | Yes |
| Neville P. | Yes |
| Nordberg | Yes |
| Winter | Yes |
| Mitsch Bush | Yes |
| Tyler | Yes |
| | |
Final YES: 10 NO: 3 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS |
03:57 PM
The committee was adjourned.