SB 92-VESSELS: REGISTRATION/TITLES; DERELICTS  3:52:46 PM CHAIR GIESSEL called the meeting back to order and announced consideration of SB 92 [CSSB 92(RES), version 30-LS0481\J, was before the committee]. This is its third hearing in this committee and a committee substitute was adopted; public testimony was concluded. A deadline for amendments was for 5 p.m. yesterday and none were received. SENATOR MICCICHE, sponsor of SB 92, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said this bill originally had two pieces: one was identifying ownership and responsibility for a vessel and the other was financial capacity to be responsible. Because of difficulties some people had, they decided to remove the insurance requirement, but more work needs to be done on a cradle-to-grave situation. He related that one of his vessels he has owned since 1985, and when he gets to the point of moving on to a new commercial fishing vessel, his boat will probably be purchased by someone who is in a different stage of vessel care and the ability to invest in that vessel. At some point it could end up in a harbor with a lot of marine growth and will eventually start sitting a little bit lower in the water. Things happen to vessels over time. When it gets to that point harbor master will have the tools to know who owns the vessel and to be able to notify him of problems. If the problem isn't dealt with, the boat will get pulled out of the water while it is still afloat for just a fraction of the cost of lifting it from the bottom of the harbor or a channel. This is a first step in that process. SENATOR COGHILL asked what the intent is of the forfeiture rule on page 5, line 25. SENATOR MICCICHE replied that "or" is because the municipality or state has the flexibility to realize taking a vessel out of the water is the best option. Hopefully, it never results in a misdemeanor or a fine; hopefully one can arrive at a solution that avoids a vessel being on the bottom. But the state must be given the opportunity to act and that includes up to forfeiture. He added that sometimes a boat owner no longer lives in the state and forfeiture may be the only way to remove the vessel. In other cases, an owner may not be financially capable of even removing the vessel from the water. This measure delivers some options and a little bit of a stick for folks that may be fighting to have the vessel dealt with. SENATOR COGHILL said the testimony from the working group on this was "truly impressive," and this is a partial solution. He didn't want to go down the road of tools that were going to be costlier to do or could be misused. He noted that SB 92 has civil penalties and forfeiture and should probably should go to the Judiciary Committee. CHAIR GIESSEL reminded the committee that Senator Coghill brought up the cost involved, and the fiscal note is there from DMV and not yet from DNR. But they heard that one vessel in Dutch Hour cost 250 hours of DNR Division of Mining, Land, and Water staff time. 4:00:55 PM SENATOR BISHOP asked if a vessel is deemed worthy to be preserved by the division, would that be honored. The DNR commissioner [in the audience] indicated yes. CHAIR GIESSEL noted three fiscal notes attached to the bill; one from DNR, one from DEC, and one from the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). SENATOR COGHILL moved to report CSSB 92(RES), version 30- LS0481\J, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). There were no objections and it was so ordered.