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.