Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
03/27/2017 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing: Board of Game | |
| Confirmation Hearing: Alaska Gasline Development Corporation | |
| SB92 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 92-VESSELS: REGISTRATION/TITLES; DERELICTS
4:25:29 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced consideration of SB 92 offered by
Senator Micciche. She said Alaska's coastal highways have
turnouts that have become ship graveyards, and hundreds of
derelict vessels pose public safety, environmental, and economic
burdens. Finding the right balance between the public interest,
rights of property owners, and the balance sheets of communities
in the state are addressed by this legislation.
SENATOR MICCICHE, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said
SB 92 is really that simple. He said his staff would provide an
overview and Ms. Lord would provide a presentation that would
reveal the reason for this legislation.
4:26:32 PM
RACHEL LORD, Coordinator, Statewide Alaska Clean Harbors
Program, Homer, Alaska, provided supportive background for SB
92. She said that this program is now run through the Marine
Exchange in Juneau and through it, she worked for years with
harbormasters around the state and with the Alaska Association
of Harbormasters and Port Administrators.
She started off with a story about two vessels - the F/V Leading
Lady and the F/V Kupreanof - that had been kicked out of Kodiak
and denied entrance to several other ports. This led to both
vessels sinking in Kachemak Bay on state tideland waters where
they were anchored, which left a sheen of oil in close proximity
to commercial oyster farms.
On January 18, the Coast Guard raised the vessels and removed
pollutants with their authority ending at that point. When it
became clear that the owner and responsible party was not going
to remove the vessels themselves, DNR impounded the vessels and
moved them to Homer. One was demolished; the other was returned
to the owner after payment of $11,500 to DNR even though the
price tag was at least $40,000 for DNR and $400,000 for the
Coast Guard; and she didn't know the cost for DEC.
This is not a singular story, Ms. Lord said. Alaska has an aging
fleet of vessels and outdated statutes. By 2025 the Alaska fleet
will include roughly 3,100 vessels between 28 and 59 feet that
are more than 45 years old. The Alaska fleet also includes 75
passenger vessels, tugs, and barges over 50 years old. A 2014
McDowell Group Report on trends and opportunities in the
maritime sector considered it a positive highlight for ship
building opportunities, but an excerpt from the executive
summary paints a different picture of derelict vessels.
MS. LORD said the F/V Leading Lady and F/V Kupreanof are classic
examples of boats across Alaska. The current reality is one in
which it is all too easy to pass on an expensive and aging boat.
And the cost of maintaining a boat only increases over time.
With the help from the Derelict Vessel Task Force, DNR has begun
a derelict vessel data base of 200 vessels, but it isn't
complete. Case studies have shown that agencies and
municipalities are hamstrung to effectively prevent and manage
derelict vessel, and the public ultimately pays the price in
money, environmental damage, navigational hazards and loss of
aesthetics. Alaska's waters are too often a default dumping
ground.
An incident in 2012 catalyzed the formation of an ad hoc
Abandoned Ad Derelict Vessel Task Force for the state that
identified major barriers and solutions to improving derelict
vessel prevention and management in Alaska and these are all
captured within SB 92. Participation in the Derelict Vessel Task
Force was open to anyone interested she said and presented a
list of agencies at the table. The municipal law firm of Birch,
Horton, Bitner, and Cherot provided pro bono legal assistance
for this effort. They represent Kodiak, Cordova, Homer, and
other communities and have spent significant time on derelict
vessel cases and ordinances to protect their communities. Their
help, along with the work of all the other people at the table,
and substantial research from other states was instrumental to
navigating potential solutions for the myriad of problems raised
by derelict vessels around Alaska.
MS. LORD said it was an honor to work with these people and
facilitate their work. The task force met for nine full-day
meetings over the course of two years and identified major
problems that were addressed by SB 92.
4:32:48 PM
A major barrier to effectively dealing with derelict vessels is
a lack of clarity in current law. The course of action is
different if one declares a vessel derelict versus abandoned and
the impoundment hearing processes are not clear nor are the
notice requirements. The definition of the vessel owner also
leaves ambiguity. SB 92 addresses these issues and provides much
more clarity in AS 30.30, the derelict vessel statutes.
Current statutes restrict enforcement of derelict vessel laws.
One of DNR's biggest tools is to write trespass notices and
those are clearly not enough enforcement. The current penalty of
$500 is both not enough and not enforceable.
MS. LORD said she has noticed news articles on derelict vessel
cases and that the comments are resoundingly in support of
response efforts and often ask why state laws aren't more
stringent and they clamor for owner liability.
In 2015 representatives from DNR and DEC participated in a
nationwide derelict vessel workshop held by National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). They noted that everyone
around the country agreed: there is never going to be enough
money to remove all derelict vessels. The investment in a point
person or program alone is proving to be instrumental in making
progress on preventing and better managing derelicts. As a
facilitator, every few months she gets a phone call from a
community or village somewhere in Alaska asking for advice and
assistance on a derelict vessel case. Alaska agency employees
are doing this work in different offices around the state with
varying levels of familiarity with derelict vessel laws and
background. SB 92 proposes establishing a derelict vessel
program at DNR allowing for the streamlining of derelict vessel
work around the state to improve efficacy and reduce overall
costs. She believes this will be a big step forward for Alaska
to curb the dumping of vessels in our waters.
Vessel disposal must be addressed at some point, Ms. Lord said,
and while this isn't necessarily the job of the state it would
be beneficial to start looking for vessel disposal options and
solutions including conversations with the private sector and
municipalities. In other states, people are seeing that it is
far cheaper to remove a vessel from the water before it sinks.
This could be different in Alaska; however, any sunken and
abandoned vessel in Alaska is going to be enormously costly.
MS. LORD explained that under the proposed derelict vessel
prevention program, the state will have some opportunity to
begin asking these questions and considering a suite of possible
solutions. Without insurance, when a vessel is abandoned or left
to sink on state waters, it can be impossible to find a
responsible party. A few harbors around the state are beginning
to require insurance of some kind and many others are
considering it.
Under SB 92, a vessel over 30 feet that is engaged in commercial
activity and on the water for more than 90 days would be
required to carry a marine insurance policy. If someone is
considering a long-term commercial venture on the water and
insurance policy will protect the public in the event the
commercial endeavor does not work out as planned. This happens
often unfortunately.
Finally, one of the hurdles to holding vessel owners responsible
is establishing ownership. With the Challenger, a 70-year old
96-foot long tugboat that sank in Gastineau Channel in 2015 the
bill of sale was written up, but the current and former owners
disagreed on who actually owned the vessel. While that will be
up to the Coast Guard to deal with, they carried a nearly $2
million bill for dealing with that case. Our agencies and
harbors face this run-around on a regular basis. SB 92 proposes
establishing more universal registration requirements and a
titling system for vessels similar to motor vehicles. Done in
other states, these are some common-sense solutions to help
improve accountability.
4:37:05 PM
MS. LORD said just looking at the Challenger case that happened
in Juneau, an excerpt from an Empire indicated that "gosh we
really need to do something." It went through some ideas like
requiring vessel registration and insurance. At the very least
DNR could be granted the simple authority to levy fines on those
who pollute Alaska's waters. SB 92 proposes addressing these
matters.
She said in 2013 a Washington State official said, "We need to
find a way to keep these vessels from being abandoned in our
waterways, and that means holding owners accountable. Too many
people get in over their heads, and their dreams of ship
renovation or making money from scrap become a nightmare of the
citizens of this state and the marine environment."
The quote concludes saying. "A hole in the water into which you
pour your money is a famous definition of a boat. To the maximum
extent possible, we must ensure the taxpayers are not the ones
doing the pouring."
4:38:18 PM
MS. LORD said the 16th Legislature knew this was a problem and
passed HCR 53 in 1990 saying that many abandoned vessels are
grounded on the coast of Alaska and they are a problem that the
state doesn't have the financial or statutory resources to deal
with, and that communities around the state are also suffering
from widespread abandoned vessels. The resolution concludes by
requesting that the problems posed by abandoned vessels be
studied with recommendations brought forth to the 17th
Legislature for legislation necessary to remedy existing
problems and prevent future ones.
Today she finds herself with the 30th Legislature and SB 92 is
necessary to move forward on better managing and preventing
derelict vessels around Alaska and she looks forward to their
conversation and forward movement on this bill.
4:39:50 PM
RACHEL HANKE, staff to Senator Micciche, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided a sectional analysis of SB
92.
Section 1 requires that a boat placed on state waters must be
titled as well as registered and numbered as required in this
chapter.
Section 2 removes Coast Guard certificate exception and adds
language that requires certificate of number on a barge that
operated on water for more than 60 consecutive days.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked how a documented and an undocumented
vessel are going to be treated differently, referring to
language on page 1, line 8.
MS. HANKE said some vessels are documented with the Coast Guard
and it is the intention that those be documented with the state
as well.
MS. LORD added that was true and that 26 other states require
all documented vessels to be registered with the state DMV, as
well. Washington is one of those states. Given the size of the
problem they suggest expanding the registration requirement to
include documented boats, because that will help the state
better identify ownership when a boat is abandoned on state
lands or municipal harbors.
SENATOR STEDMAN said that documentation database is already
available and suggested getting more information before
increasing regulatory burdens unnecessarily.
4:43:18 PM
MS. HANKE said section 3 states that a boat is exempt from this
title if it operates in the state for less than 90 consecutive
days and has a valid certificate of number; barges that operate
for less than 60 days with a valid certificate of number are
also exempt.
Section 4 adds a new section which directs the Department of
Administration (DOA) to adopt regulations and create a system
for certification of titles. An individual who purchases an
undocumented boat is required to apply for a certificate of
title within 30 days.
Section 5 adds cross-references.
Section 6 increases motorized boat registration for a three-year
period from $24 to $30, adds a barge registration fee of $75 for
a three-year period, and adds a boat title fee of $20.
Sections 7 & 8 add definitions.
SENATOR STEDMAN remarked that this bill has some issues.
CHAIR GIESSEL agreed and added that they would be addressing it
for quite a while.
SENATOR STEDMAN said language on page 4, line 6, talks about a
barge and asked if that is a freight barge and if it would
include a fuel barge.
MS. LORD said the intention is to include all barges.
MS. HANKE said sections 9 & 10 clarify and simplify existing
statute.
4:45:15 PM
Section 11 provides that a person found guilty of abandoning a
vessel is guilty of a class B misdemeanor that is punishable by
one or more of the following: a fine of no less than $5,000 and
no more than $10,000, up to 90 days in jail, or forfeiture of
the vessel.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked her to elaborate on who would be exposed
to the classification of misdemeanor and the fine.
MS. LORD replied it would expose the person who violates the
statute.
4:47:30 PM
LINDA BRUCE, Legislative Legal, Alaska State Legislature,
clarified that a person could be found guilty of violating this
section if they store or leave a derelict vessel on the waters
of the state (section 9) without the consent of the state agency
or municipality or dock at any private property without consent
of the owner.
SENATOR STEDMAN said all submerged lands are owned by the state
and are its navigable waters. He said the curious issue is that
some people own derelict vessels and let them sink in the harbor
or take them out and let them sink on the beach, and they don't
have $5,000. One of the biggest challenges is that a boat ends
up going to the lowest economic common denominator in its final
days.
SENATOR MICCICHE said reminded the committee that this section
is amended, but it was always a misdemeanor that was punishable
by a fine of not less than $500 or more than six months, or by
both. It was changed to a higher fine, but a lower time. They
don't want to be the heavy hand of law, but the spirit of the
bill is to make someone accountable other than the municipality
or state for a vessel sinking in one of our harbors.
MS. HANKE said section 12 allows the department or a
municipality to report violations to the Attorney General for
enforcement.
Section 13 adds new a section which allows an aggrieved person
to file a civil injunction. Civil penalties of not more than
$1,000 can be imposed for each violation. Each day a violation
occurs constitutes a separate violation.
Section 14 allows the department to provide written
authorization for a vessel to be left within 30 days and
clarifies language.
Section 15 states that at least 30 days before impounding a
vessel, the impounding authority shall post a notice on the
vessel, and on the state's or municipality's website. It adds
language to allow use of an address on file with the Coast Guard
or Department of Administration and moves notice specifications
to section (b).
Section 16 adds new subsections that establish notice
specifications and defines the procedure for pre-impoundment
hearings. The owner can file within 15 days after the post-
marked date of the notice.
Section 17 adds a new section to establish notice of a
disposition procedure.
Section 18 provides clear guidelines for dealing with a vessel
after being impounded by the state or a municipality.
Section 19 removes the requirement that an interested party
taking possession of a vessel pay expenses incurred and post
security.
4:48:00 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said the 30-day notification in Section 18 seems
short for finding someone, and asked why it is so short.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that this bill was processed by a
large stakeholder group that deals with these issues all the
time, and if those timelines are not appropriate it's in the
members' hands, but he hoped they would allow a stakeholder
explanation.
BRYAN HAWKINS, Harbormaster, Alaska Association of Harbormasters
& Port Administrators, City of Homer, Alaska, said the timeline
for impoundment was thoroughly researched by the attorneys that
provided the pro bono help for this task force. It's a 30-day
notice of intent of impoundment and then another 30 days takes
place before the second notice of impoundment is delivered.
4:53:35 PM
MS. HANKE said section 20 establishes the procedure for the
immediate impoundment of derelict vessels that pose an imminent
threat to safety.
Section 21 adds new a section that states the individual who
owns an impounded vessel is responsible for all costs incurred
in the process.
4:53:59 PM
Section 22 adds a section that will require insurance for
commercial vessels over 30 feet in length and are operating on
state waters or docked at state or municipal harbors for more
than 90 days.
SENATOR STEDMAN said in trying to deal with the expense of
derelict vessels in the harbor, harbormasters have indicated
that insurance companies require a survey every few years to get
coverage. If the boat can't pass the survey, the insurance
company won't insure it. All that's required is a requirement
that the vessel in the harbor has to show proof of insurance.
The issue then becomes where they go when they go out of the
harbor.
The requirement for the insurance policy to show cost of removal
needs to be looked at, he said, because that could possibly
start incurring additional insurance costs to the boat owners.
For instance, the Juneau Harbor Department requires him to have
insurance, and if he doesn't it would put him into another fee
structure. If the boat isn't insurable that would tip them off
to a problem.
SENATOR MICCICHE said one can look at the bill as a snapshot in
time today or one can look at it as a comprehensive plan for
vessels that are 100 percent shiny off-the-line with the thought
of when they become derelict vessels, which is where the
exposure lies for municipalities and the state. That is when
they want them dealt with.
4:58:39 PM
MS. HANKE said section 23 simplifies the guidelines for
identifying a derelict vessel.
Section 24 directs the department to establish and administer a
derelict vessel prevention program. It establishes the duties
and powers of the department and establishes a program fund.
Section 25 adds "floating facility" to the definition of vessel.
Section 26 adds definitions.
Section 27 names this chapter the "Derelict Vessels Act."
Sections 28 & 29 add sections to Title 37, which allow for
registration and titling receipts, civil penalties, money
received from sales, donations, and other receipts to be
deposited into the Derelict Vessels Program Fund.
Section 30 removes repealed sections, which will allow the fund
to remain without federal funding.
Section 31 repeals sections.
Section 32 directs the Department of Natural Resources and the
Department of Administration to adopt necessary regulations, and
these regulations take affect under the Administrative Procedure
Act.
4:59:52 PM
Section 33 requests the revisor of statutes to change two
headings.
Sections 34-37 establishes effective dates.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked if "floating facilities" on page 14, line
15, include float houses.
5:00:23 PM
MS. BRUCE answered that "floating facility" is broad enough to
encompass float houses.
5:00:59 PM
MS. LORD commented that the term "floating facility" is used in
DNR's management area plans. Those plans include float houses,
float camps, floating structures within that floating facility.
It is important that float houses are explicitly covered under
this bill and if the definition of floating facility does not
fully cover that, then an expanded definition should be found.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked how section 22 requiring insurance
interplays with float houses.
5:02:28 PM
JOE MCCULLOUGH, Office of Boating Safety, Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), Anchorage, Alaska, answered the didn't know how
they intersect, but the definition of "vessel" is anything used
for transportation on the water. He didn't know that a float
house would necessarily meet that unless it was moving around on
the water. If it's anchored up and people are just living in it,
and it's not used for transportation, it's not going to be a
boat or a vessel.
SENATOR STEDMAN said line 15 on page 14 changes the definition
of "vessel."
CHAIR GIESSEL said she was certain that the bill sponsor and
Senator Stedman would be in touch with him.
SENATOR MICCICHE said the numbering and registration provisions
have an exemption for a boat that is not equipped with
mechanical propulsion and then it would have to be 30 feet or
longer to be in the insurance section. It would have to be
engaged in commercial activity. So, he thinks there are a couple
of ways that float houses are left out of the bill, but that
could be clarified.
5:05:21 PM
SENATOR HUGHES said she lives in a district where one might
think derelict vessels are not an issue: Chugiak and Palmer.
However, a ship built in 1912 in Seattle was brought up to
Ketchikan and used as a fish tender there and in Port Graham.
After the earthquake, it was used to rescue 43 individuals on
Kodiak Island when there was concern about a tsunami. Then
sometime in the 80s, Till Wallace from Chugiak saw it in Homer.
Even though it was quite old at the time, he brought it into
Chugiak where it now resides along the old Glenn Highway between
the Birch Wood exists. It's become somewhat of an icon and a
place where folks take photographs. She asked if they should be
concerned about if a community really wants a derelict vessel or
will someone be fined $5,000.
SENATOR MICCICHE said it sounds like that vessel is on private
property and this bill does not deal with vessels on private
property.
SENATOR HUGHES responded that it was recently moved to property
owned by the volunteer fire and rescue department, and therefore
may be on public land. If it is, would it then apply?
SENATOR MICCICHE said he would do further research, although he
was comfortable with "no." The intent is to protect our
waterways from state and municipal expense in removing derelict
vessels.
SENATOR HUGHES said she would like to reassure her community.
CHAIR GIESSEL found no further questions for the bill's sponsor
and held SB 92 in committee.