Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/08/1999 01:20 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 108 - USE, REGULATION, AND OPERATION OF BOATS
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the first order of business is HB 108,
"An Act relating to the use, operation, and regulation of boats;
establishing a uniform state waterway marking system; and providing
for an effective date."
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that the committee should have copies of the
proposed committee substitute (committee substitute) which reflects
the changes discussed at the April 7, 1999 hearing.
Number 0097
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON, Sponsor of HB 108, noted that at the last
hearing there was concern regarding the failure to register being
labeled a class A misdemeanor which some felt was an excessive
penalty. Therefore, on page 9, line 7 the failure to register was
added to the list of violations. Representative Hudson recalled
that there had been discussion regarding the need to restrict the
amount of meetings the Alaska Boating Safety Council could have.
Therefore, it was determined that two council meetings per year
would be appropriate and such language was included on page 8, in
Section 7 (c). He noted this would not restrict the council from
meeting electronically. Both those changes are incorporated into
the proposed committee substitute, Version LS044\S, Ford, 4/7/99.
CHAIRMAN KOTT believed that one of the concerns raised was in
regard to Section 4, AS 05.25.040 which deals with reporting.
There was discussion regarding the location of that in the proposed
committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified that he was looking at page 4 of
the proposed committee substitute, Version S.
Number 0322
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute, Version LS044\S, Ford, 4/7/99, as the working document
before the committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN KOTT expressed concern with Section 11, the penalties
section of the proposed committee substitute. Section 11 (b) does
not include AS 05.25.030 which deals with rendering assistance
reporting. He stated, "That's the two main areas which would then
include that particular section in the penalty section which would
make it a class A misdemeanor."
SUE HARGIS, Boating Safety Specialist, Alaska Coast Guard,
explained that AS 05.25.030 was not placed in the violations
section was due to the issue of rendering assistance. "So you
could basically have a hit and run accident and then that would
have been reduced to a violation by switching that whole section.
So, if you wanted to consider--previously the state had in the
bill, that the person was guilty of a misdemeanor was not a
classified misdemeanor. So, if you want to reduce that to a class
B misdemeanor or something else. But that's why, I think, the
rationale and the discussions yesterday for not switching 030 [AS
05.25.030] into that violations section was strictly because of
reducing the penalty for somebody who might be involved in a hit
and run accident rather than the reporting issue."
CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out that in Section 4 which discusses
reporting, one would remain subject to penalties under the class A
misdemeanor for not reporting. To put someone away for up to a
year with a fine up to $1,000 under a class A misdemeanor seems a
bit harsh. Chairman Kott said that he would prefer a class B
misdemeanor which carries up to 180 days in jail and a $500 fine.
Chairman Kott commented that would be a policy call for the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON agreed that a class A misdemeanor is probably
excessive, therefore it would be reasonable to change to a class B
misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT understood then that failure to render
assistance would remain a class A misdemeanor while failure to
report would be a class B misdemeanor.
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that was the direction being taken. The
committee should consider whether those two should be separated or
AS 05.25.030 placed in its entirety as a class B misdemeanor under
the penalty section. Chairman Kott further clarified that the
class A misdemeanor would be switched to a class B misdemeanor.
This is a policy call. He noted AS 05.25.030 could be placed in
the fine section and rendering assistance could be left as a class
A misdemeanor. Chairman Kott thought that AS 05.25.030 should be
a class B misdemeanor so that anything other than those listed in
the penalties section would be a class B misdemeanor which would
cover rendering assistance and reporting.
Number 0714
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he felt it important to separate
subsection (b) which defines a violation from a class B
misdemeanor. Currently, there are two levels: a misdemeanor and
a lower violation such as a traffic ticket. Representative Croft
did not believe the bill included a class B misdemeanor; the bill
only includes a misdemeanor or a violation. Placing AS
05.25.030(b) under subsection (b) of the bill which defines only
violations would leave (a) as a misdemeanor and should accomplish
what Chairman Kott desired. Would it be inappropriate to have the
failure to report within 20 days as a violation?
MS. HARGIS stated that would be appropriate because the other
portion in subsection (a) is negligent operations which she
suggested should not be lowered. Either meets the Coast Guard's
standards.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON agreed with Ms. Hargis. If subsection (a) on
page 9, line 4 was left as is and AS 05.25.030 was placed under the
violation section, an adequate penalty appropriate to the offense
would be created.
CHAIRMAN KOTT clarified that on page 9, line 7, after "AS
05.25.020," the language "AS 05.25.030(b)" would be inserted.
Therefore, failure to report would be subject to a fine of up to
$500. The rendering of assistance section on page 4, lines 11
through 14, would be left in tact as a class A misdemeanor.
Number 0860
CHAIRMAN KOTT moved the following as a conceptual amendment.
Page 9, line 7, after "AS 05.25.020,"
Insert, "AS 05.25.030(b)"
There being no objection, the conceptual amendment was adopted.
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to page 10, line 16 regarding the fee
schedule and the non-motorized boat registration which he
identified as another policy call for the committee. Currently,
non-motorized boat registration is set at $10 in this statute.
Does the committee want that fee to be consistent with paragraph
(1) in Section 13 which requires a fee of $24. This is an
administrative function for the department. Chairman Kott
indicated the need for consistency whether it be $10 or $24. He
noted that testimony from the Coast Guard at the March 7, 1999
hearing stated that 30 percent of the fatalities occur within
non-motorized vessels.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA informed the committee that she has an
amendment prepared which would remove vessels such as canoes and
kayaks from the ambit of the bill. This section was specifically
changed to reduce the fees to non-motorized vessels.
Representative Kerttula noted that there is great concern regarding
registering everyone's canoe and kayak. Representative Kerttula
opposed increasing non-motorized vessels to $24.
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to whether Representative Kerttula would
consider making it $10 a year. He believed that much of the money
collected goes towards education and publishing the pamphlet.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON informed the committee that this topic was
discussed at length in the first committee of referral. During
that discussion, the canoers and kayakers testified that they
should not be included in this legislation because they are not in
the federal law. Representative Hudson explained that this fee
schedule attempts to generate a reasonable rate of return from
every boater in Alaska in order to have an educational boating
safety program. He indicated that the fee schedule was drawn from
the discussion of families who use a canoe a few times a year
versus a motorized vessel which would probably be utilized more
often. Representative Hudson said he would like the committee to
consider leaving the fee schedule as it is.
CHAIRMAN KOTT was not sure of the usage. He reiterated that the
same administration is being done for both fees and the same
boating safety pamphlet will be utilized by both types of boaters.
Chairman Kott acknowledged that the usage of non-motorized vessels
would be less than that of motorized vessels.
Number 1237
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that it is the same low level of effort
to register a boat or a kayak. To some extent, there is a
distinction between the purchase price of a motorized and
non-motorized vessel. He inquired as to how onerous the fee should
be on a canoe owner versus a motorized boat owner. The price of a
canoe is not in the same category as that of a motorized boat.
Representative Croft drew a parallel between the fact that bikes
are not required to be registered although there may be a lot of
bike accidents; it is not the same level or cost as registering an
automobile.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if page 10, line 15 could include
inflatables as well as non-motorized boats with regard to the $10
registration fee.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that the Coast Guard has not required
inflatables to be registered. Representative Hudson said that a
motorized inflatable is different.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said there is not much chance of damage with
an inflatable, therefore the registration fee for an inflatable
should be lower. Representative Green believed the question of
whether this is an attempt to recoup costs or make money should be
addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated that her impression was that the
fees would cover the minor administrative costs, but more
importantly the fees would be utilized for boating safety
educational purposes. In her mind, anyone using the water should
pay for some of these educational courses. Furthermore, $10 for a
three year period seems minimal.
Number 1452
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON pointed out that the registration fee is for
each non-motorized boat. Often, people own more than one
non-motorized boat. In response to Representative Green,
Representative Hudson clarified that this is an attempt to recoup
the costs for the management provided by the Division of Motor
Vehicles(DMV) as well as establish a boating safety educational
program. Motorized boat operators believed that those responsible
for a third of the accidents should have registration fees. On the
other hand, the non-motorized boat operators note that they are
only on the water a few times a year and it does not seem equitable
for non-motorized boats to have the same registration fee as
someone who is pulling crab pots every week. He explained that
this legislation has been a balancing act between motorized and
non-motorized boats.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if these people with multiple
non-motorized boats go out in a different boat each time, if their
argument is that they are only on the water a few times a year. He
asked why these folks do not use the same boat.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that those with multiple
non-motorized boats could have single kayaks. Therefore, a family
would have multiple kayaks requiring under this legislation a
registration fee for each which would amount to more than the
registration fee for a motorized boat.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT informed the committee that he has three
non-motorized river rafting boats which are only used once a year.
He pointed out that one could own multiple non-motorized boats such
as three drift boats or three single kayaks which he indicated
would not cost as much as a single motorized boat. Representative
Croft emphasized that the registration requirement should not
overburden the non-motorized boat owner.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested a compromise in which a multiple
non-motorized boat owner would pay a registration fee of $24 for
the first boat and $10 for each boat thereafter.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that he shared the concerns of
Representative Croft and Representative Green.
Number 1791
JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator, Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration, stated that Representative Green's
suggestion would be an administrative nightmare. Currently, those
with senior citizen exemptions are allowed to have the registration
of one vehicle free per year per household, if two or more vehicles
in which the registration fee is paid are owned by that senior.
Ms. Hensley stressed that it is a nightmare to control due to the
difficulty in determining who owns which vehicle or in this case
boat. The fees in HB 108 would generate revenue. She estimated
that in fiscal year(FY) 2001 the revenue generated by HB 108 would
amount to about $1 million per year.
MS. HENSLEY informed the committee, in response to Representative
Croft, that there are approximately 75,000 motorized boats and
100,000 non-motorized boats. She noted that Ms. Hargis could
provide better information.
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to the net effect of making the motorized
boat registration and the non-motorized boat registration a $15
fee. With the approximately 175,000 registrations, as Ms. Hensley
approximated, the registration fee would generate approximately
$2.5 million.
MS. HENSLEY clarified that DMV would process 58,000 registrations
per year of which 33,000 registrations would be non-motorized boats
and 25,000 for motorized boats. Therefore, the result of 58,000
times $15 would be the net effect of a $15 fee for all boats.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if water skis would qualify as a boat
capable of being used as a means for transportation on water and
therefore, be charged a $10 registration fee.
MS. HENSLEY replied no. She explained that water skis are a device
which the boat pulls.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the definition on page 10, line
30, which states, "'boat' means watercraft used or capable of being
used as a means of transportation on water,".
MS. HENSLEY believed that unless the ski is being pulled it would
not be considered a method of transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that he did not believe skis were
watercraft.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified that water skis have never been
declared as watercraft by the federal government. He explained
that he has attempted to take the federal program, rate,
definitions, and intent in order to take over the federal boating
program. The state would then administer the boating program and
assume those monies and expand the safety program. He pointed out
that he has expanded the program to non-motorized boats that are
over 10 feet in length. Representative Hudson expressed the hope
that the funds generated would be utilized towards saving lives.
Number 2036
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if HB 108 had a fiscal note and
indicated the need for a fiscal note.
MS. HENSLEY informed the committee that there would be a new fiscal
note as soon as the legislation passes from committee. She said
that she could not prepare a final fiscal note on the proposed
committee substitute. Certainly, this will cost DMV to administer
the registration portion of the legislation. The boat registration
fees will offset the administrative costs and in future years will
generate revenue for the general fund. The revenue generated would
exceed the DMV's operation, therefore the rest of the money would
be placed in the general fund in order to be appropriated for the
boat education, safety programs, and to meet the federal match, if
any, for federal tax dollars that go to the rest of the U.S. Ms.
Hensley emphasized that in order for DMV to operate this program,
DMV would need the operational costs in the general fund. Ms.
Hensley further stated that DMV does not want its regular budget
reduced as a result of that.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the fiscal note dated March 25, 1999 was
correct or were changes made adding non-motorized boats.
MS. HENSLEY stated that the March 25, 1999 fiscal note is not
correct. The final fiscal note will be different due to the
addition of the non-motorized boats and the change in fee. The
proposed committee substitute would add an additional 100,000 boats
as well as additional personnel required to monitor this program.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that the distinction between motorized
and non-motorized vehicles, in this case boats, is an appropriate
distinction. The distinction is appropriate because motorized
vehicles can get one farther faster and in more trouble than a
non-motorized vehicles. Representative Croft commented that this
is why cars are registered and not bikes. Bikes are registered in
order to protect them from theft, but there is not a state
requirement or fee for bike registration. He acknowledged that
there are vehicles that fall in between such as a motorcycle which
is required to be registered. Representative Croft expressed
concern that good legislation would be hurt by requiring everyone
with a kayak or a canoe, similar to a bike, to have the same
registration requirements as a motorized vehicle. Representative
Croft stated that it made sense to have a less onerous registration
or none at all, which he preferred, for non-motorized vehicles.
Representative Croft suggested that language on page 7, line 26 be
changed from "10 feet" to "20 feet". Therefore, the bikes of the
sea world would not be included. This is an onerous registration
requirement. He acknowledged that the kayaking community is
willing to be included at a lower level, but to treat them
identical to a motorized boat creates a disproportionate intrusion.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to an article by a journalist in
Fairbanks who does not like HB 108. The Fairbanks journalist's
comments lead to Representative Murkowski's question regarding
whether the boating safety regulations are a mirror image of what
is in the Lower 48 or have the regulations been adapted to Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON explained that the regulations are comparable
to some states in the Lower 49. Some states do not include
non-motorized boats while others do. Representative Hudson
believed that all states must apply its boating safety program to
all waters, not just federal navigable waters which the U.S. Coast
Guard is currently responsible for administering. Representative
Hudson felt that if the interest is truly in saving lives, the
regulations must apply to all the waters of the state. There are
not many small rivers or unconnected lakes that would be added.
Representative Hudson specified that under this legislation,
operating a boat on any water in Alaska would have to comply which
he believed necessary to save lives. Furthermore, expanding the
federal regulations to include all waters provides fairness to all.
Number 2428
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved to report CSHB 108, Version LS03445\S,
Ford, 4/7/99, as amended from committee with individual
recommendations and the attached fiscal notes and final fiscal note
forthcoming. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented that she has not had a chance to
explain the committee substitute and its changes to folks.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|