Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/01/2018 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 | |
| SB128 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 104 | 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."
9:05:18 AM
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, SPONSOR, invited his staff to the
table.
9:05:35 AM
AT EASE
9:06:19 AM
RECONVENED
Senator Micciche he stated that the bill provided the
ability to identify ownership of derelict vessels in order
to address the vessels before they sunk in harbors and
state land. He also stated that there was a portion about
insurance to ensure financial capacity. He stated that the
current bill restricted it to the ownership. He stated that
it would help track the ownership of vessels through
titling, and would expand the pool of registered vessels
that required titles. He noted that the shorelines were
littered with derelict vessels, so the bill provided a
simple method to begin to deal with the problem
RACHEL LORD, ALASKA ASSOCIATION OF HARBORMASTERS AND PORT
ADMINISTRATORS, HOMER (via teleconference), discussed the
presentation, "SB 92, Derelict Vessels, Accountability
Across Alaska, a presentation to the Senate Finance
Committee" (copy on file).
9:08:44 AM
AT EASE
9:11:36 AM
RECONVENED
Ms. Lord highlighted slide 2, "What's the Problem?"
"By 2025, the Alaska fleet will include roughly 3,100
vessels between 28' and 59' that are more than 45
years old...the Alaska fleet also includes 75
passenger vessels, tugs, and barges over 50 years
old..."
Ms. Lord addressed slide 3, "A Guy Walks Into A Bar?":
We love our boats, and we depend on our coasts and
rivers for transportation, commerce, and quality of
life. But there is no denying the immense cost of
owning and maintaining a boat. Those costs of owning
and maintaining a boat. Those costs only increase over
time.
Ms. Lord discussed slide 4, "Jakolof Bay, 2012-2013." She
stated that on Christmas Eve 2012, two vessels sank under
heavy snow load in Jakolof Bay. Those vessels were in a
critical oyster habitat area. The boats were purchased and
moored on state waters. The vessels were the first vessels
that the state impounded under the derelict vessel chapter.
9:15:40 AM
Ms. Lord highlighted slide 5, "A Growing Problem":
ADNR has begun a database, but it is far from
complete. There are nearly 200 documented derelicts
across Alaska. We know many more exist, and the number
will continue.
Ms. Lord displayed slide 6, "The Public Pays the Price":
With outdated statues our municipalities and state
agencies are unable to effectively prevent and manage
derelict vessels. Alaskan waters are a default dumping
ground.
Ms. Lord addressed slide 7, "Solutions in SB 92":
Over a two-year period the Derelict Vessel Task Force
identified major barriers and solutions to improve
derelict vessel prevention and management in Alaska.
Ms. Lord discussed slide 8, "Task Force Participants":
Please note that while many people sat at the table,
nothing within this presentation or testimony is
intended to speak on the behalf of any individual
agency, municipality, or task force participant.
ADNR, Mining, Land, and Water
ADEC, Spill Prevention and Response
ADOT, Ports and Harbors
ADFG, Habitat
USCG, Sectors and Anchorage and Juneau/Division of
Waterways Management
NOAA, Marine Debris Program/Restoration
EPA, Response Region 10
AAHPA (Bethel, Homer)
Orutsararmiut Native Council
Senator Lisa Murkowski's office
Alaska Marine Response
Ms. Lord highlighted slide 9, "Registration and Titling":
Agencies and municipalities have found establishing
ownership is one of the major hurdles to holding
owners responsible for derelict vessels. Requiring all
vessels operating in AK to be registered with DMV, and
beginning a titling system for vessels similar to that
in place for motor vehicles, are commonsense solutions
to improve accountability.
Ms. Lord discussed slide 10, "Increase Clarity":
Agencies and municipalities statewide need increased
clarity for defining a derelict vessel, vessel
ownership, and for the impoundment process including
clarified hearing and notice requirements. SB updates
Chapter 30.30 to bring clarity and improve utility of
the statutes.
9:20:54 AM
Ms. Lord displayed slide 11, "Enforcement Authority and
Increased Penalties"
Current statutes restrict enforcement of derelict
vessel laws. One major way to reduce vessel sinkings
and prevent owners from walking away is to provide for
enforcement of the chapter to hold owners accountable
and prevent derelict vessels from sinking on public
waters.
Ms. Lord highlighted slide 12, "Clarified Liability":
Hearing concerns from agencies and the public, Task
Force members acknowledged that it is important to be
clear that a vessel owner is liable for all costs
associated with the impoundment, storage and removal
of a derelict vessel.
Ms. Lord discussed slide 13, "Streamlined Capacity":
Outside states have found significant improvement in
derelict vessel prevention and management by
streamlining their efforts through a statewide
program/point person. Having a point person at ADNR
will concentrate work that is currently being done by
numerous staff, will reduce overall costs, and
increase efficacy of derelict vessel management.
Ms. Lord addressed slide 14, "Cradle to Grave":
Addressing vessel disposal was outside of the scope of
the Task Force, but must be addressed. Through the
derelict vessel prevention program, the state will
have the opportunity to begin looking at options for
vessel disposal, scrap and salvage solutions that cab
benefit the private sector and be a reasonable
alternative to vessel abandonment.
Ms. Lord highlighted slide 15, "Juneau Empire Editorial,
October 15, 2015":
The Alaska Department of Natural Resources?lacks event
the authority to fine?for littering. ?In places like
Bethel, which has a dumping ground called Steamboat
Slough, the problem of derelict and abandoned boats
long ago broke the surface of public awareness. ?we
could instead simply mandate the registration of all
boats - commercial and recreational alike - through
the DMV. We could also mandate that boats of a certain
size, like all cars, carry insurance sufficient to
cover their salvage. At the very least, we could grant
the Department of Natural Resources the simple
authority to levy fines on those who pollute Alaska's
waters.
Ms. Lord discussed slide 16, "Chinook Observer, March 22,
2017":
Too many people get in over their heads, and their
dreams of ship renovation or making money from scrap
become a nightmare for the citizens of the state and
the marine environment. 'A hole in the water into
which you pour money' is a famous definition of a
boat. To the maximum extent possible, we must ensure
taxpayers are not the ones doing the pouring.
Ms. Lord addressed slide 17, "HCR 53 1990":
Whereas the state does not currently have statutory
authority to impose liability on the owners abandoned
vessels?
9:25:14 AM
Ms. Lord highlighted slide 18, "Akutan Dutch
Harbor/Unalaska." She stated that there was an article
about Akutan in the packet. She stressed that it was the
third boat impounded under derelict vessel laws.
Senator Olson had been opposed to registration and titling,
because he did not believe the smaller vessels were
protected. He wondered how to protect the smaller boats
from a cumbersome registration requirement. Ms. Lord
replied that the smaller boats would have a title. She
stated that vessels under five net tons were currently
required to register with the state. She discussed the
exceptions.
Senator Olson wondered whether inflated boats were
included. Ms. Lord replied in the affirmative. She stressed
that motorized boats were required to register with the
state.
Senator Stevens stressed that it was a major issue in his
community. He felt that it did not deal with the problem
directly. He wondered what could be done to help people
with an aging boat. He wanted to help people dispose of the
vessels.
9:30:55 AM
RACHEL HANKE, STAFF, SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, discussed the
Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
Section 1
Adds titling to the requirements for boats placed on
the waters of the state.
Section 2
Requires all boats have a certificate of number if
operated on the waters of the state for more than 90
consecutive days or 60 consecutive days for barges
unless otherwise provided in the chapter.
Section 3
Provides exceptions from numbering and registration
for boats and barges.
Section 4
Adds new section for establishing a system for
certification of titles.
Section 5
Inserts cross-reference.
Section 6
Increases boat registrations for a three-year period
from $24 to $30, adds barge registration fee at $75
for a three-year period, adds boat title and duplicate
boat title fee of $20.
Section 7
Adds definition of "barge".
Section 8
Repeals and reenacts definitions from AS 05.25.100.
Sections 9 & 10
Clarifies existing language.
Section 11
Raises the fine for abandoning a vessel from not less
than $500 to not less than $5,000 or more than $10,000
and lowers the maximum term of imprisonment from six
months to 90 days.
Section 12
Allows the department or a municipality to report
violations to the Attorney General in order to enforce
criminal penalties.
Section 13
Adds new section allowing an aggrieved person to file
a civil injunction with a penalty of not more than
$1,000 per violation.
Section 14
Allows the department to provide written authorization
for a vessel to be left within 14 days and clarifies
language.
Section 15
Changes section to pre-impoundment notice and hearing.
Requires 30 days' notice prior to impoundment,
requires the impounding authority to post notice on
vessel when possible and online.
Section 16
Adds new subsections establishing notice specification
and defines the procedure for pre-impoundment
hearings.
Section 17
Adds new section establishing requirements for the
notice of disposition.
Section 18
New section proving clear guidelines of procedure for
impoundment of a vessel by the state or a
municipality.
Section 19
Removes requirement that an interested party taking
possession of a derelict vessel post security.
Section 20
Establishes procedure for the immediate impoundment of
derelict vessels that pose an imminent threat to
safety.
Section 21
Adds new section stating that the individual owning an
impounded vessel is liable for all costs incurred in
the process.
Section 22
Provides situations that would make a vessel derelict.
Section 23
Gives the department the power to establish and
administer the derelict vessel prevention program
which includes education, outreach, an advisory
council and creates a program fund which consists of
money appropriated from donations, vessel sales under
this chapter, federal funds, civil penalties and money
collected from barge registration and titling of
vessels.
Section 24
Adds "floating facility" to the definition of
"vessel".
Section 25
Adds definitions.
Section 26
Names this chapter the Derelict Vessels Act.
Section 27
Adds titling to Title 37.
Section 28
Allows civil penalties collected under AS 30.30 to be
deposited to the derelict vessel prevention program
fund.
Section 29
Removes repealed sections allowing the fund to remain
without federal funding.
Section 30
Repealing sections of AS 30.30.
Section 31
Transition language allowing DNR and DOA to adopt
regulations.
Section 32
Revisor's instruction to change two headings.
Sections 33-36
Effective date sections.
9:35:16 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop looked at Section 4, and felt that he
might be able to ask the administration a question at a
later date.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted to wait until the public hearing
was complete before she asked her questions.
Senator Stevens stressed that it was an enormous issue. He
wanted to know the costs. He wondered whether there was a
survey to understand the cost of the sunken vessels.
Senator Micciche replied that there was an Alaska Abandoned
and Derelict Vessel case studies document that captures a
few of the cases. He remarked that there were some places
with many large barges that were on the beach, and the cost
for those would be many millions. He stated that the bill
was about stopping adding to the collection of abandoned
vessels that littered the beaches in Alaska.
Senator Stevens felt that the information would be
available by contacting communities that experienced the
enormous expenses.
9:38:11 AM
CARL UCHYTIL, PRESIDENT, ALASKA ASSOCIATION OF
HARBORMASTERS, spoke in support of the bill. He remarked
that the Alaska Municipal League also expressed support of
the legislation. He shared that in Juneau, since 2014, he
had impounded over 50 vessels and destroyed 37 vessels. He
stressed that it was important to maintain harbors in the
state.
9:41:53 AM
Senator Stevens understood that the cost of a sunken vessel
was much more than addressing the disposal of an floating
vessel. He wondered whether the fund was out of the
harbormaster fund. Mr. Uchytil replied that he was
committed to having a safe, secure, and clean harbor. He
remarked that vessels that ended up derelict sometimes were
owned by people with the least resources. He remarked that
due process was afforded, but there was no derelict "fairy"
that would pay for the removal of the vessels.
Senator Stevens stated that Section 22 related to education
outreach and an advisory council. He wondered whether it
would assist in letting the owners know that they could not
avoid the responsibility. Mr. Uchytil replied that there
was a network among the harbormasters to reach out to the
vessel owners.
Senator Olson queried the additional authority that was
needed for Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to ensure
that the disasters were handled before they become worse.
Mr. Uchytil replied that the unfortunate consequence of
Juneau being assertive and provide safe and secure harbors
was the vessel owners would go into DNR lands.
9:46:47 AM
Senator Olson wondered whether the bill gave the authority
to use the least amount of resources to solve the issue.
Mr. Uchytil responded that the bill would help with some of
the smaller communities.
Senator von Imhof noted that in the fiscal note a portion
of the fees would be transferred to DNR each year. She
wondered whether that would help to clean up the derelict
vessels. Mr. Uchytil replied that the money needed to clean
up the vessels was approximately $10,000 to $100,000 per
vessel.
Senator Micciche stressed that the intent of the bill was
to understand the ownership of the vessel to start dealing
with the issue before it sinks.
9:49:37 AM
BRYAN HAWKINS, HARBORMASTER, CITY OF HOMER, HOMER (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation. He
stated that Homer had made an effort to clean up or
encourage movement of larger vessels. He stressed that
there was no more valuable real estate in a community than
its harbor, because it was extremely expensive. The purpose
of a harbor was to provide mooring for working vessels.
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
9:57:21 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop wanted to discuss Section 4 with
Department of Administration (DOA).
Senator Stevens wanted to know about the $2 million cost of
a vessel that was alluded to earlier. He wanted to know
about the Coast Guard's responsibility.
9:58:27 AM
GRAHAM LANZ, COMMANDER, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, stated
that the Challenger that sunk in the Gastineau Channel was
a wooden vessel that sank with a large amount of fuel on
board. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund was open for that
clean up, because the vessel's owner lacked the ability to
raise the vessel himself. He stated that it was rare that
an oil spill response result in a vessel being removed and
destroyed.
Senator Stevens wanted to address the concern about the
vessel in state lands.
Senator Olson wondered what other states had done to deal
with the issue. Mr. Lanz replied that some other states had
created funds, much like the proposal in the bill, to help
manage the end of life for the vessels. He stressed that
the lower 48 saw more available scrapping facilities and
the ease; and retrieval and disposal of the vessels at a
much lower cost.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered how many documented vessels
would be subject to the new titling requirements.
Senator Micciche deferred to Ms. Lord.
Ms. Lord replied that she did not know how many documented
vessels were in the state. She stated that there were 5000
to 6000 commercial vessel permits registered with the
state. She shared that any vessel over 5 net tons owned by
a U.S. citizen could be federally documented. She stated
that many of the larger vessels were probably documented
vessels. She stated that the harbormaster had estimated
that there were probably 10,000 to 20,000 documented boats.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at page 4, lines 5 through 7. She
noted the definition of a barge, and wondered whether flat
bottom vessels, power scrubbers, crabbers, and river skiffs
would be considered a "barge."
Senator Micciche deferred to Ms. Lord.
10:04:02 AM
Ms. Lord replied that the definition of a barge was defined
by its carrying of cargo.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that there was some concern that
those boats might get subjected into the definition of
"barge." She looked at Section 8, page 4, line 15, and
wondered whether paddleboats were considered water toys, or
need to be registered as a boat.
Senator Micciche stated that barges or motorized vessel
would require registration. He stated that a paddle boat
would be considered a water toy.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether paddle boards would be
considered water toys under the definition in Section 8.
PETER CALTAGIRONE, ATTORNEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via
teleconference), agreed to provide that information.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at Section 14, and asked whether
DNR was online.
10:06:59 AM
KRIS HESS, DIVISION OF MINING, LAND AND WATER, DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
introduced herself.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the number of estimated permits
that were expected per year based on Section 14. Ms. Hess
replied that the records were consistent with Ms. Lord's
records.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the estimate was unsure up
to $20,000. Ms. Hess replied in the affirmative.
Senator Stevens queried the experience of DNR with
abandoned vessels. Ms. Hess replied the case studies from
Senator Micciche's office detailed some of the incurred
cost for DNR. She recalled that others had testified about
how DNR was continually contacted about abandoned and
derelict vessels. She stressed that it was difficult to
find the owners of the vessels, and there was not much
success in making those owners responsible for removing
their vessels.
Senator Stevens surmised that the information was already
provided to the committee. Ms. Hess replied in the
affirmative. She stated that the DNR staff time to address
the issue was not tracked, but the out of pocket cost was
detailed in the case study in members' packets.
10:11:21 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered who would hold the pre-impound
hearings, and an estimate of the anticipated number of
hearings. Ms. Hess replied that there was only three
instances when DNR had taken custody of an abandoned
derelict vessel. She stated that she believed that local
municipalities had not gone through that process. She
stated that the most recent situation was treated as a
derelict vessel.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted the indeterminate fiscal note. She
wondered whether there could be further examination of the
fiscal impact. Ms. Hess agreed to reexamine that fiscal
note.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at Section 22, page 12, lines 2
through 4, in relationship to Section 14. She wondered what
would occur should DNR fail to issue a permit for someone
who had applied for a permit. Ms. Hess replied it was a
fairly fast and streamlined permit process. She stated that
the application was posted on the public notice website for
fourteen days, and allowed public comment. Once that
fourteen days concluded, the comments were adjudicated with
regard to issuance of the permit and any conditions that
may be included in the permit authorization. She
anticipated that DNR would act as quickly as possible.
10:16:38 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at Section 22, page 12, line 22,
and queried the recourse of a private land owner with a
derelict vessel. Ms. Hess deferred to Mr. Caltagirone.
Mr. Caltagirone stated that the private land owner would
have a trespass claim directly against the vessel owner.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the stat would assist
the land owner. Mr. Caltagirone replied that it was an
issue for a land owner.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the state would assist,
if the vessel was in the waters in front of privately owned
land. Mr. Caltagirone replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon surmised that private land owners come
at high tide. Mr. Caltagirone agreed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at Section 23, and understood
that the funds would not lapse. She furthered that DNR
could use those funds that collect without further
appropriations. She wondered whether DNR would provide
grants to municipalities. Ms. Hess replied that DOA would
administer the money in the fund, and DNR would administer
the program. She stated that local municipalities could
apply if they decide to take custody of the vessel.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted to ensure that Section 23
adequately describes a process for the municipalities and
the state us of the funds. She looked at Section 30, page
15, line 1, which removed the private boat yard's ability
to exercise current derelict vessel disposal procedures.
Senator Micciche deferred to Mr. Caltagirone.
10:21:23 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the reason for the repeal of
that portion of state statute. Mr. Caltagirone replied that
the statutory provisions were current iteration of the
derelict vessel statute. He agreed to provide more
information.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the reason for the repeal. Ms.
Hanke replied that private land owners had their own
avenues of recourse, so the sections were used for public
entities. She deferred to Ms. Lord for more information.
Ms. Lord stated that the repeal of Article 3 in the current
statute expressly dealt with vessels abandoned on boat
repair yards. There was a thought that the language was
somewhat misleading.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted to see how the process would
change for the private boat yards under the new statute.
10:25:39 AM
Senator Micciche stated that it was not expected that DNR
never over spend what was available in the fund.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted to outline that issue in the
bill.
ED KING, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES, noted that DNR was working on updated
fiscal notes.
Senator Micciche noted that currently DNR's involvement
with a costly removal of a vessel there may or may not be a
supplemental request. He stressed that the intent of the
bill was about education, outreach, and other issues where
DNR could not overspend within the program. Mr. King
pointed out that his interpretation of the bill was
consistent with the bill sponsor.
Senator Stevens surmised that the fund would not be used
for the potential to raise a vessel.
Senator Micciche stated that the funds could be used to
assisting municipality and the state; however the limited
number was restricted to education and outreach.
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that amendments were due the
following Monday by 5pm.
SB 92 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
10:29:45 AM
AT EASE
10:32:18 AM
RECONVENED