Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/08/2018 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB92 | |
| SB158 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 321 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 92
"An Act relating to abandoned and derelict vessels;
relating to the registration of vessels; relating to
certificates of title for vessels; relating to the
duties of the Department of Administration; relating
to the duties of the Department of Natural Resources;
establishing the derelict vessel prevention program;
establishing the derelict vessel prevention program
fund; and providing for an effective date."
9:03:02 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon directed attention to SB 92. she relayed
that the committee had heard the bill on March 1, 2018;
public hearing had been opened and closed.
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for SB 92, Work Draft 30-LS0481\U (Bruce,
3/7/18).
RACHEL HANKE, STAFF, SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, stated that
most of the changes to the bill were technical. She
discussed the substantive changes detailed on "Explanation
of Changes Ver.O to Ver.U"(copy on file):
16. Page 13, Lines 19, 20: Rewrites to read "develop
and maintain a publicly available database of known
derelict vessels in the state." This clarifies that
this database is only for existing derelict vessels
and not for all vessels.
17. Page 13, Line 31: Adds new subsection (4), which
allows the fund to be used to pay for administration
costs.
18. Page 14, Lines 11-28: Adds new subsection that
grants departments, municipalities and peace officers
to enforce the chapter.
9:05:26 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
9:05:54 AM
Ms. Hanke gave a high-level overview of the bill. She
detailed that SB 92 rewrote AS 30.30, which had been
largely unchanged since the 1970s. She said that the bill
would make procedures for dealing with derelict vessels
through the state clear for local governments, strengthened
vessel owners due process rights, expanded current boat
registration to capture U.S. Coast Guard documented vessel
and barges, allowed for the titling of vessels, and created
a Derelict Vessel Program Prevention Fund. The revenue
sources for the fund were the barge registration funds,
titles, federal receipts, donations, vessel sales under the
chapter, and civil penalties. The fund would pay for
establishment and administration of the Derelict Vessel
Prevention Program, education and community outreach, an
advisory council, and the Derelict Vessel data base. The
fund may pay for reimbursement costs of vessel removal on
state and municipal property, development and
implementation of programs to incentivize compliance with
the chapter, subsidizing Derelict Vessel Prevention Program
projects, and fund administration.
9:07:19 AM
Senator Stevens understood that the requirement for a title
did not include a requirement for small boats such as
skiffs. He wondered whether there was a size threshold
included in the legislation.
Ms. Hanke stated that all boats required to register would
be titled.
Senator Stevens asked again whether the bill excluded
vessels such as skiffs.
Senator Micciche stated that all motorized boats and barges
would be required to register and have a title. He stated
that he was working with the Department of Motor Vehicles.
He said that the bill did not include vessels like canoes.
All motorized vessels were required to have a title.
Senator Stevens asked whether a skiff with an outboard
motor (and moved by a trailer) would be included in the
requirement. He asserted that the danger of a skiff sinking
and causing problems was not equivalent to the danger cause
by a fishing boat or barge. He wondered whether there
should be an exclusion for smaller vessels.
Senator Micciche thought the topic was worthy of discussion
and noted that excluding smaller vessels would shrink the
size of the fund. He thought that smaller vessels could
sometimes be part of the problem. He reiterated that the
issue was worth consideration but would remove a
significant amount of the funding for the fund.
9:11:12 AM
Senator Stevens wondered what the requirements under the
bill would be to register a Boston Whaler.
Senator Micciche explained that the bill would add $2 per
year to the registration fee, as well as a one-time $20
title fee that would extend for as long as the person
registering owned the boat.
9:12:02 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked whether the cost would be the same
for an 18-foot skiff and a large yacht.
Senator Micciche replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Hanke stated that all boat registration would cost $30
under the bill; except for barges, which would cost $75;
titling of vessels would be $20 across the board.
Co-Chair Hoffman thought the committee should consider
different fees for different sizes of vessels. He discussed
different size thresholds. He thought the bill should treat
the registration of various sizes of boats in an equitable
manner.
Senator Micciche agreed. He added that the current cost of
$24 was applied to all state registered vessels, regardless
of size. This would remain the same whether the bill passed
committee. He said that the legislation was largely
targeted at bigger vessels. He noted that the original
version of the bill had included a differential on cost and
well as an insurance requirement for larger vessels. He
thought that the $20 title fee could be augmented to
recognize vessel size.
Co-Chair Hoffman suggested setting policy now that
recognized the issue.
9:16:20 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon recapped that there were boats in Alaska
waters that were abandoned and afloat and were sometimes
harming the environment and creating a safety hazard. She
concluded that the intent of the bill was to alleviate this
issue.
Senator Micciche added that there were thousands of vessels
that were derelict and abandoned, and the problem affected
the entire state. He detailed that there were 3,100 vessels
between 28 feet and 59 feet that were more than 45 years
old, which he believed was a precursor to future problems.
He reiterated that the bill was largely targeted at larger
vessels. He argued that knowing who owned vessels would
help to deal with derelict vessels before they sink.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that Senator Micciche was open to
suggestions. She discussed derelict cars and trucks, for
which individuals were held accountable, and thought that
the issue was similar.
9:20:01 AM
Senator Stevens expressed concern about the definition of
"derelict" and wondered what criteria would be used to
determine whether a vessel was derelict.
Senator Micciche said that you could tell that vessels were
derelict by looking at them. He reiterated that it was
important that vessels owners be known in order to hold
derelict vessel owners accountable. He argued that the bill
provided a method for dealing with the problem before it
became expensive for the state.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that she wanted the committee to
provide a clear definition of derelict vessels.
9:24:08 AM
COMMANDER GRAHAM LANZ, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, JUNEAU,
explained that the Coast Guard did not have a definition
for derelict or abandoned vessels. He stated that the Coast
Guard regulated vessels on their intended service.
Co-Chair MacKinnon used the analogy of overdue parking
fines.
Senator Micciche thought the definition of the term
derelict was present in the bill.
Ms. Hanke stated that Section 22 on page 12 of the bill
provided various situations in which a vessel would be
considered derelict.
Vice-Chair Bishop asked whether the Coast Guard had
protocol for what determined whether a vessel was
seaworthy. Theoretically, a derelict vessel could be made
seaworthy again with enough work and a reinspection.
Commander Lanz answered in the affirmative. He added that
the Coast Guard would not make the decision on whether a
boat was no longer fixable, just when it was no longer safe
to get underway.
9:27:26 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon directed Senator Micciche to work with
Senator Stevens on language defining derelict. She asked
Senator Stevens to provide feedback on the language already
found in Section 22.
Senator Micciche thought the section suggested that if the
vessel was in immediate danger of sinking, had already
sunk, or if ownership could not be determined, it would be
considered derelict.
Co-Chair MacKinnon supported the bill. She referenced page
12, lines 8 and 9, which cited environmental concerns as a
factor for defining derelict vessels. She thought that the
bill could be clearer in the issue.
9:29:43 AM
Senator von Imhof recalled previous testimony that
referenced derelict versus abandoned vessels. She stated
that there were different consequences for derelict vessel
and abandoned vessels.
Co-Chair MacKinnon supported the concept of a tiered
approach to fees as suggested by Co-Chair Hoffman. She felt
that lager vessels were more likely to cause public safety
issues than smaller vessels.
Senator Micciche stated that separating the definition of
derelict from abandoned had no function. He felt that
either way the vessel would need to be dealt with and the
legislation would provide additional tools to deal with
those vessels. He admitted that there was further work to
be done on the bill.
SB 92 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB158 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 3/8/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 158 |
| SB158 Supporting Document-DEC Fact Sheet.pdf |
SFIN 3/8/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 158 |
| SB158 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SFIN 3/8/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 158 |
| SB 92 J. Murgas SFIN written testimony.pdf |
SFIN 3/8/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Explanation of Changes Ver. O to Ver. U.pdf |
SFIN 3/8/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 FAQ Sheet.pdf |
SFIN 3/8/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Work Draft Version U.pdf |
SFIN 3/8/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Support Doc - Northern Economics 2015 Survey Summary.pdf |
SFIN 3/8/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |