HOUSE BILL NO. 22 "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Marine Pilots; and providing for an effective date." 2:33:15 PM ANNA LATHAM, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON, discussed that HB 22 would extend the termination date of the Board of Marine Pilots (BMP) to June 30, 2019. She stated that in accordance with AS Titles 24 and 44 the board was set to expire on June 30, 2013. She relayed that the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee had determined that the board should be extended because its activities demonstrated a public need and it operated in an efficient manner. She stated that regulating and licensing qualified marine pilots benefited the public's safety and welfare and protected the marine environment. She explained that HB 22 had been pre-filed with an estimated extension date of June 30, 2018. She furthered that after reviewing the audit Representative Olson had requested a CS to align the termination date with the date suggested in the audit. Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT the Labor and Commerce Committee CS. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative Thompson referred to a Division of Legislative Audit document (copy on file) and read its recommendation: "While the board has successfully resolved many of the issues identified in the prior sunset audit, current analysis of BMP operational activities showed administrative deficiencies regarding public meeting notifications, licensing documentation, and oversight of the pilot associations' drug and alcohol programs." He wondered whether measures had been taken to rectify the issues. Ms. Latham replied that at the time of the audit in November 2011 the marine pilot coordinator who oversees the mentioned issues had been in his position for under one year; he had been unaware of the operational deficiencies noted in the audit. Subsequently, the board was developing a desk manual and written procedure to codify needed primary functions. She detailed that the coordinator was developing appropriate documentation and checklists to ensure that an adequate oversight process was in place. 2:37:02 PM Co-Chair Stoltze asked about the length of the board's prior sunset extension. Ms. Latham responded that the board had been extended in 2007. Co-Chair Stoltze asked Mr. Habegar for any comments on the audit conclusions. Mr. Habegar answered that the previous marine pilot coordinator had departed from the position with little notice; it had put the board in a bind and subsequently items had been noted in the audit that occurred while the new coordinator had been in training. He believed the recommendation was appropriate. As a result, the board was implementing administrative backstops. For example, one of the issues involved providing ample public notice for board meetings. Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether was any challenge getting board members together. Mr. Habegar replied that the only challenge had to do with meeting during the height of the summer maritime season when special issues arose (e.g. investigative issues requiring board input). He communicated that teleconferencing normally solved the issue. Co-Chair Stoltze wondered if Alaska's entry into Arctic waters and the role of marine pilots had been a board discussion point. Mr. Habegar affirmed that the board had discussed Arctic access, but he had not seen any final conclusions. 2:40:13 PM Representative Munoz asked for an explanation of yacht fees that appeared in the revenues and expenditures budget breakdown from 2007 to 2012. Mr. Habegar replied that foreign pleasure crafts of a certain tonnage or length were statutorily required to have a pilot. A waiver was possible, but certain fees payable to the state were required. Representative Munoz asked if the yacht fees were applicable to vessels of a certain size. Mr. Habegar believed the requirement applied to foreign pleasure craft vessels between 75 feet and 150 feet. Representative Munoz asked for verification that the fee structure was biennial. Mr. Habegar answered in the affirmative. He noted that all of the state's professional licensing programs were biennial. Representative Munoz asked for the fee amount. Mr. Habegar replied that the biennial pilot fee was $2,500 and the ship agent fee was $800. Representative Gara asked what percentage of marine pilots were Alaskans. Mr. Habegar responded that he would follow up on the question. Representative Gara observed that the board oversaw trainings and approved training programs for marine pilots. He wondered if the board had considered doing anything that would increase the number of Alaskan pilots. Mr. Habegar was not aware of any board action that would require Alaska hire of pilots. Representative Gara noted that Alaska hire would probably be illegal. He surmised the training function would be the only avenue to explore that could increase the number of Alaskan pilots; he asked for the department to follow up with the board on the issue. He requested the percentage of Alaskan and non-Alaskan marine pilots. He would like to see the positions filled with more Alaskans, given that the jobs were good and high paying. Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that it would also be good to know how many marine pilots were Alaskans who had moved out-of-state. 2:44:49 PM DAVID ARTZT, CAPTAIN, ALASKA MARINE PILOTS, DUTCH HARBOR (via teleconference), described his marine pilot service region. He was happy to answer any questions. Co-Chair Stoltze asked about Alaska's entry into Arctic waters and the role of marine pilots in safety issues. He wondered about federal government requirement. Mr. Artzt replied that currently statutes required state-licensed pilots onboard specific vessels within the state's boundaries (typically within three miles of the coastline). Federal waters were overseen by the U.S. Coast Guard. He stated that any activity within state water boundaries fell under current regulations requiring pilots on vessels. 2:47:17 PM Representative Edgmon referred to the Northern Waters Task- Force that had provided its report to the legislature the prior year. He noted that marine pilots had not been included in the final report; however, members had been supportive of marine pilots' involvement in areas like the Arctic. PAUL FUHS, LOBBYIST, SOUTHWEST ALASKA PILOTS ASSOCIATION (via teleconference), voiced support for the bill. Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony. He asked if there were any amendments. Representative Costello pointed out that the first line on page 2 of the DCCED fiscal note should be corrected to read June 30, 2019 instead of 2018. The fiscal note included receipt services in the annual amount of $151,200 for FY 14 through FY 19 and one full-time position. 2:50:49 PM Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 22(L&C) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 22(L&C) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the schedule for the following day.