Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/27/2022 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 | |
| SB243 | |
| HB28 | |
| HB79 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 243 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 28(FIN)
"An Act relating to the registration of commercial
vessels; and providing for an effective date."
9:24:51 AM
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that it was the first hearing of HB
28. The committee would hear a bill introduction and
Sectional Analysis and take public testimony.
9:25:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, SPONSOR, relayed that HB 28 was
a House Fisheries Committee bill. She referenced the issue
of derelict vessels coming up in 2013, when there were
boats trying to come into the Homer Harbor and there were
concerns that the condition of the boats would lead to
derelict vessels. There had been other reports of abandoned
vessels in other ports in the state, including in Bethel
where there were up to 30 abandoned vessels. She cited the
issue of responsibility for abandoned vessels. There was
related legislation originally worked on by Senator
Micciche and former Representative Seaton in 2017 and 2018.
The legislation, SB 92, had passed and once the bill went
into effect, and required boat owners to register the
vessel with the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC) as well as the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
Representative Tarr referenced a chart (copy on file) that
showed a summary of the provisions in the bill. The bill
would remove the duplicative requirement for a boat owner
to register with both the CFEC and DMV. Registration with
the CFEC would suffice for state-level registration and
would ensure that all vessels would always be registered in
order to access information for potential clean-ups. She
read from a letter of support from the Homer Harbormaster
(copy on file), which indicated that the Alaska Association
of Harbormasters and Port Administrators supported the
bill.
9:28:50 AM
Senator Olson noted that there were many small vessels in
his district that were involved with commercial fisheries.
He asked if there was an exemption for the size of vessels.
Representative Tarr noted that on the chart there were
different categories of vessels and registration. She
thought smaller vessels typically fell within the
"undocumented" category. She highlighted the second line
and thought the small vessels probably registered with the
CFEC.
Senator Olson was concerned that many of the small vessels
were not involved in fisheries but were recreational
vessels. He compared the use of the small vessels to the
use of a car in a more urban area and asked if there was an
exemption.
Representative Tarr thought the vessels described by
Senator Olson would fall under the vessels that were not
required to be registered by the CFEC. She mentioned a
required three-year registration with DMV.
9:30:31 AM
THATCHER BROUWER, STAFF FOR REPRESENTATIVE TARR, discussed
a Sectional Analysis document (copy on file):
Section One
Amends AS 05.25.055(i) to exempt documented commercial
vessels with a valid certificate of documentation
issued by the United States Coast Guard and a license
issued by the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission,
under AS 16.05.490 or AS 16.05.530, from the provision
that requires owners to register their vessel with the
Division of Motor Vehicles.
Section Two
Adds a new section to AS 16.05.475, that assesses a
new additional annual $8 registration fee for
documented vessels licensed with the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission, beginning January 1, 2023.
This is in lieu of the current 3-year $24 fee
collected by the Division of Motor Vehicles at the
time of registration or registration renewal.
The fee will be accounted for separately for as
provided in AS 05.25.096(b), to be made available for
use by the Departments of Administration, Natural
Resources and Commerce, Community and Economic
Development for boating safety and to the derelict
vessel fund.
Section Three
Adds a new section to the uncodified law of the State
of Alaska which requires the Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission waive the $8 dollar registration fee
for calendar years vessel owners have already paid the
Division of Motor Vehicles. This section ensures that
as vessel owners do not pay the Commission for the
years, they have already registered for with the
Division of Motor Vehicles.
Section Four
Adds a new section to the uncodified law of Alaska to
make section one of this act retroactive to
January 1, 2022.
Section Five
Establishes an immediate effective date for the
remainder of the bill.
Senator Wilson had a question for the DMV.
Senator Wilson asked if the DMV currently had enough tags
and registrations for the change proposed in the bill. He
understood that there were certain tags or licenses that
were on backorder.
9:33:27 AM
JEFFREY SCHMITZ, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), was not
aware of any current inventory issues at DMV. He understood
that the bill would transfer the responsibility for the
collection of some registration fees away from DMV to the
CFEC.
Senator Wilson suggested that Mr. Schmitz reach out to his
staff to learn about potential registration supply
shortages. He asked the director to follow up with the
committee on the matter.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the bill was headed in the right
direction. He wondered if the derelict vessel legislation
should be looked at or even repealed. He noted that the
funds collected were swept into the General Fund. He shared
concerns that the fees were a tax on boat owners and would
not generate enough funds to have an impact on derelict
vessels. He wanted an accounting of the revenue collected
and where it was spent. He did not recall any resultant
beach cleanup from fee collection. He suggested expanding
the bill to repeal the tax and streamline the system. He
did not have issues with the harbors knowing the legitimate
ownership of vessels. He thought the registration of any
vessel of consequence was either with the CFEC or the
United States Coast Guard. He thought there were junk
boats that could be dealt with via another mechanism.
Co-Chair Stedman continued his remarks. He noted that the
Coast Guard requested registration from boats. He thought
the bill cleaned up an issue that was problematic but
suggested there was more work to be done on the issue. He
wanted the funding to be used in a meaningful way.
9:36:56 AM
AT EASE
9:38:50 AM
RECONVENED
Senator Olson discussed small vessels and the Port of Nome,
and individuals using vessels to dredge in the Bering Sea.
He described vessels clogging the port and affecting
fisheries. He thought a solution was necessary.
Mr. Brouwer addressed a document "HB 28 Research - Info
from Legislative Finance - Bell 3.24.21" (copy on file).
The document spoke to Co-Chair Stedman's remarks. He cited
that for FY 20, the total registration and title fees
collected was $524,503. Of the amount $300,000 had gone to
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and he
understood much of the funding had gone towards boating
safety programs. He continued that an additional $196,900
had gone to the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development and the funds had been passed on to
the Alaska Marine Safety Education Association for boating
safety. The remaining $27,603 was in the derelict vessel
fund. He believed there was a DNR representative that could
speak to the Derelict Vessel Fund.
Mr. Brouwer asked about the balance of the Derelict Vessel
Fund and how it was managed.
9:42:24 AM
CHRISTY COLLES, OPERATIONS MANAGER, DIVISION OF MINING LAND
AND WATER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via
teleconference), explained that there was about $92,000 in
the fund, and it was on a list of non-sweepable funds. She
noted that the monies had not been spent as the department
was trying to build a regulation package to define how the
funds would be utilized. The funds could be given to local
communities that were engaged in clean-up efforts.
Senator Wilson wanted to clarify that the legislation that
created the fund was passed in 2017 and wondered at the
amount of time taken to develop regulations to use the
funds.
Ms. Colles agreed that the legislation was passed in 2017
or 2018 and agreed that the department had not yet passed a
regulation package due to other regulation packages being
prioritized. She affirmed that it was a priority of the
department to get the regulation package together to start
to get the move the funds into different communities to
clean up abandoned and derelict vessels.
Co-Chair Stedman wanted clarification on the accounting of
the fund and the derelict vessel surcharge. He wanted to
know how much money each year was collected, and where the
funds had gone. He understood there had been no regulations
written, and he opined that the bill section (in SB 92) was
a boondoggle. He recalled that the testifier expressed that
the funds were non-sweepable. He wanted the fund to be
tracked.
Co-Chair Bishop asked if Ms. Colles had heard Co-Chair
Stedman's request for accounting from DNR, which the
committee would also ask of DCCED.
Senator Wilson asked about the cost of a hypothetical
derelict vessel.
Ms. Colles relayed that the cost was dependent upon the
size of vessel and the location. She thought most vessel
owners had insurance policies, and usually with a minimum
of $1 million. She had seen $1 million easily spent on
derelict vessels locations further out. If the vessel was
in a harbor, there would be a more reasonable cost.
Location and depth were factors in the cost.
9:46:29 AM
Co-Chair Stedman recalled that the cost of dealing with a
derelict vessel had to do with boats not in the harbor but
rather along the shore and along rivers. He thought it was
not difficult for harbors to determine the ownership of
boats. He wanted to know what derelict vessels had been
cleaned up using the funds.
Ms. Colles stated that the Derelict Vessel Fund had not
been used yet to clean up derelict vessels. She relayed
that in the past, the department had used state funds to
clean up vessels. She mentioned two vessels that had sunk
in Jakolof Bay, where there was critical habitat and
infrastructure of oyster farms at risk. Because the owner
did not have the funds, the department had paid to have the
vessels taken and stored in dry dock, which had cost
$30,000 to $40,000 and had not been reimbursed. She
reiterated the departments intent to develop regulations
in order to use the funds for similar situations in the
future.
Co-Chair Stedman recalled that if a vessel was sunk in
navigable waters and was impeding traffic flow, the U.S.
Coast Guard would step in. He thought that vessels on DNRs
land were a different matter. He did not think the
legislation had been passed to deal with vessels that were
in navigable waters. He was concerned that money was being
collected from citizens for a specific purpose and it was
not being spent how it was intended.
9:49:30 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked when to expect the regulations
to be written.
Ms. Colles stated that there was a list of regulation
packages that the department was working through. The
derelict vessel regulations were a couple of years from
being completed.
Senator Wielechowski asked if the committee could get a
list of the regulations that had come before in the past
four years and the regulations that would be completed
before the derelict vessel regulations in the following two
years.
Ms. Colles agreed to provide the information.
Senator Wielechowski asked how often DNR did not issue
regulations after a bill had been passed.
Ms. Colles stated that the lack of completion was not due
to a lack of effort on behalf of the department and shared
that there was a public process that could be time
consuming. She noted that there had been recent regulation
packages that were controversial, including water
regulations that garnered many comments that required
response. She reiterated that there was a backlog of
regulation packages the department was trying to get into
place. She noted that the backlog was not a practice the
department was endeavoring to continue.
Senator Wielechowski wanted to see a list of all the
outstanding regulations at the department. He thought it
was disturbing that there were regulations that were not
being completed for six years. He asked for a list.
Ms. Colles agreed to provide a list. She clarified that
many of the regulation packages being worked through were
updates to current regulation packages. She agreed to
provide a list of current and pending regulation packages
as requested.
Co-Chair Bishop assumed that Ms. Colles would divide the
requested list of pending regulations by category.
Ms. Colles agreed to provide the requested detail. She
noted that she spoke for the Division of Mining, Land, and
Water and would have to work with other divisions to try
and gather the requested information. The division had a
specific number of regulations it was working through and
was not certain how many regulations were being worked
through on a departmental level.
9:53:26 AM
Co-Chair Stedman thought the legislature was always
standing by to help the department with derelict vessels of
consequence through the appropriation process. He mentioned
Senator Wielechowski's concern about the length of time it
was taking to create the regulations. He suggested
postponing fee collection until the regulations were
complete. He thought if it were not for the committee
meeting, the topic of incomplete regulations would not have
come up.
Co-Chair Stedman thought there appeared to be an abandoned
barge with a structure on it in Katlian Bay on DNR land. He
asked if Ms. Colles was familiar with the vessel and if
there was a timeframe for dealing with it.
Ms. Colles was not specifically aware of the vessel
described by Co-Chair Stedman. She mentioned the Statewide
Abatement of Impaired Lands section of the division, which
monitored all vessels and reported potentially derelict
vessels. She agreed to check with the section regarding the
vessel and whether it was authorized to be anchored for
over 14 days.
Co-Chair Stedman stated that DNR had been notified for at
least two years. He wanted to ensure the issue was
addressed before the termination of the contract for the
adjoining road project. He thought it was important and was
concerned the state would receive a significant bill for
dealing with the vessel.
Senator Olson asked about the penalties for those that did
not abide by the regulations in process or by the
provisions in the bill.
Mr. Brouwer stated he would have to check with the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) regarding potential
fines. He noted that DPS had not been enforcing the
duplicative registration with the DMV since SB 92 went into
effect.
9:57:06 AM
TRACY WELCH, UNITED FISHERMEN OF ALASKA, JUNEAU (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She noted
that the United Fishermen of Alaska represented 37
commercial fishing organizations participating in the state
and off the coast. She discussed the bill provisions, and
the proposal to eliminate duplicative registration. She
mentioned SB 92 and its goal to establish a database for
determining ownership of abandoned vessels and noted there
was already such a database at the CFEC. She discussed
vessel registration with CFEC and its relationship with
identifying vessels. She asserted that the bill would
lessen the burden of fishermen in the state by eliminating
duplicative registration.
Co-Chair Stedman recalled that the commercial fishing
industry was told that the double registration would not be
an issue at the time the previous bill [SB 92] was passed.
Ms. Welch understood that there was some confusion when the
original bill had passed, and there was thought that there
had been an interpretation issue with the way the statute
was written. She thought there were some valid points made
with regard to fee collection and fee structure. She hoped
that passage of the bill could clean up some concerns.
Co-Chair Stedman thought people had pointed out the problem
when the bill was passed. He wanted the record researched
for past testimony on the topic for the committees
consideration. He recalled that the committee had been told
the double registration would not be a problem.
10:01:42 AM
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony.
10:01:55 AM
JAMES SQUYRES, SELF, RURAL DELTANA (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. He was a former mariner
that had circumnavigated the globe. He referenced the
comments made by Co-Chair Stedman. He asserted that the
bill was an opportunity to correct an injustice that was a
result of implementation of SB 92. He thought HB 28 needed
to be amended to exclude all USCG-documented vessels, as it
was before SB 92 was passed, as exempt from the numbering
and registration provision. He continued that under SB 92,
it had unnecessarily expanded the scope of government with
a duplicitous and onerous system that affected private
vessels. He thought the matter could be easily corrected.
He understood that no funds collected as a result of SB 92
had been used for derelict vessels. He pointed out that SB
92 had created a burden for the DMV and for the commercial
fishing industry.
10:03:53 AM
Co-Chair Bishop CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Tarr referenced Co-Chair Stedman's remarks
about recreating the history of when SB 92 was being
considered by the legislature. She was unsure of the
misinterpretation that led to the current regulations. She
addressed the Derelict Vessel Fund and noted that the House
had not considered the topic much. She was in support of
the suggestions the committee had towards improving the
derelict vessel program, which was not functioning as some
had envisioned. She mentioned the duplicative registration
requirement and the desire to eliminate confusion as the
bill went forward.
HB 28 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.