Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/29/2012 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB366 | |
| HB364 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 366 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 364 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 366-DISASTER PLANNING AND SERVICES
8:05:39 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 366, "An Act establishing an Alaska intrastate
mutual aid system and relating to the duties of the Alaska
division of homeland security and emergency management and the
duties of the Alaska State Emergency Response Commission."
8:06:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC FEIGE, Alaska State Legislature, informed
the committee that HB 366 proposes to establish a statewide
mutual aid framework. He explained that mutual aid is a system
used by emergency service organizations to provide backup to one
another. It's fairly common for neighboring communities to
respond to a request from a local fire department for additional
equipment.
8:07:24 AM
MICHAEL PASCHALL, Staff, Representative Eric Feige, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 366 by paraphrasing from the following
written remarks [original punctuation provided]:
For disclosure purposes, I am an assistant chief and
board member of a fire department that may fall under
this agreement and I chair the Delta Greely Local
Emergency Planning Committee, which may be asked to
participate in planning activities under this
agreement, and am a member of the State of Alaska
Interoperable Communications Committee under the State
Emergency Response Commission.
Representative Feige is the chief of the Chickaloon
Volunteer Fire Department and may participate in
activities under this agreement.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency:
"Mutual aid agreements and assistance agreements are
agreements between agencies, organizations, and
jurisdictions that provide a mechanism to quickly
obtain emergency assistance in the form of personnel,
equipment, materials, and other associated services.
The primary objective is to facilitate rapid, short-
term deployment of emergency support prior to, during,
and after an incident."
Through the EMAC (Emergency Management Assistance
Compact), all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands all
have agreed and established guidelines to provide aid
across state boarders.
Across Alaska, local organizations adjacent to each
other sometimes have agreements to provide assistance
in the event of an emergency, often within the same
political subdivision. When an incident commander
needs additional resources, such as an additional
ambulance, established procedures work to make the aid
available.
Unlike the EMAC that allows response across state
borders, and local agreements that provide assistance
for isolated incidents - Alaska has no unified
agreement in place allowing one political subdivision
to assist another.
Although assistance can be obtained, all of the
details concerning cost, responsibility, liability,
and other details have to be negotiated on a situation
by situation basis.
When an event occurs, people work to continue the
operation or the reestablishment of these services.
Time is not available to negotiate items such as: Who
will pay the transportation costs to the area? Who is
responsible for maintenance? Who can terminate an
employee? Etc.
HB 366 and its companion in the other body, SB 208,
will put in place a tool that will make assisting
those in need easier for us here in Alaska. This
process is not just about typical emergency services
such as fire, police, and emergency medical services.
It also includes everything from water and sewer
treatment facilities, electricity and other utilities,
care of pets and livestock, debris removal, shelter
management, transportation, fuel delivery etc. All
services individuals expect to be available to them
before, during and after an emergency.
The National Emergency Management Association (NEMA),
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and
interested emergency response organizations developed
model legislation for an intrastate mutual aid system
(IMAS). A copy of the model legislation has been
provided to you.
The bill you have before you is Alaska's adaptation of
the IMAS. It was developed by the Division of Homeland
Security and Emergency Management in conjunction with
several organizations including the Alaska Fire Chiefs
Association, Alaska Municipal League, and the
Fairbanks North Star Borough.
Section 1 of this bill requires the Division of
Homeland Security and Emergency Management to play an
integral part in developing and implementing the
Intrastate Mutual Aid System established by this bill.
Section 2 requires the division to coordinate the
operation of the IMAS.
Section 3 addresses the State Emergency Response
Commission and requires the commission to make
recommendations about IMAS and adopt regulations
necessary to carry out the agreement.
Section 4 requires the commission to review and make
recommendations about the mutual aid system.
Section 5 establishes the mutual aid system between
participating political subdivisions. Provides that
every political subdivision is a participating member
unless the subdivision withdraws. Provides what
assistance a political subdivision may request.
Addresses qualifications and employment of, and
workers' compensation for, emergency responders.
Establishes reimbursement procedures, tort liability
for participating political subdivisions. Provides
definitions for the provisions establishing the mutual
aid system.
8:12:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the mutual aid system envisions
assistance only for disasters as defined or for responses to
routine situations.
MR. PASCHALL explained that under this agreement, the requesting
political subdivision must declare a local disaster in order for
the mutual aid agreement to come into effect. This agreement,
he clarified is not the type of agreement that's utilized for a
house fire or a wreck. The purpose of this agreement is so that
say Fairbanks could provide services to Eagle. In further
response to Representative Saddler, Mr. Paschall said he didn't
believe the term "disaster" is defined in [HB 366], and
therefore he offered to review how it's defined in statute. Mr.
Paschall related that the requesting subdivision would declare
that it has a disaster in that it has exceeded its available
resources and needs help.
8:14:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK observed that HB 366 has been heard in the
House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs and
was reported out from it with no changes.
MR. PASCHALL confirmed that was the case. He noted that the
legislation was drafted mutually with the House and the Senate,
introduced by the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee in order to move through the House and catch up with
the Senate legislation.
8:15:11 AM
RICHARD ETHERIDGE, Chief, Capital City Fire/Rescue, Juneau,
Alaska; related support for HB 366, which creates the framework
for a mutual aid agreement within the state. Currently, each
department has to negotiate with neighboring departments to
develop a mutual aid agreement. In Southeast Alaska the
aforementioned is difficult because there are multiple small
communities that aren't connected by a road system.
Furthermore, there are small mining and logging camps with
emergency responders who can be overrun and experience major
disasters. Since one emergency responder organization doesn't
know which agency it'll be working with, it isn't practical for
one department to make agreements with each separate
municipality or local government. However, it does make sense
for an emergency responder organization to work with neighboring
departments with which they work on a regular basis. This
legislation is a collaborative effort between the state, local,
and federal agencies to establish a uniform framework so that
everyone is on the same page and has the same expectations when
there is a disaster. Furthermore, the legislation creates
common definitions. Mr. Etheridge highlighted that no
department in Alaska has the ability to handle a major disaster
on its own, particularly since smaller local governments would
have a different definition of "disaster" than the larger
municipalities. This legislation provides a framework for
agencies to lend assistance during a disaster and avoids
negotiations for payments and coverage during the disaster, and
therefore quickens the ability to lend assistance. Although
state law allows for mutual aid agreements with neighboring
departments, it isn't practical. Therefore, HB 366 will
eliminate the aforementioned administrative process. Mr.
Etheridge informed the committee that in the last few years
Juneau has been called more often to help neighboring
communities. He opined that with declining budgets and the
difficulty faced with the recruitment and retention of
volunteers, [establishing an Alaska intrastate mutual aid
system] is more important than ever. For example, the town of
Hoonah is down to eight firefighters, and therefore a simple
structure fire could overwhelm Hoonah and result in a request to
Juneau for assistance. In such an event, time is critical and
having this all in place beforehand makes it easier to lend aid
quickly. He then told the committee that just last month Juneau
Fire/Rescue was called to Thorne Bay for a hazardous materials
call. He characterized HB 366 as common sense legislation that
has all the chiefs and emergency managers working on the same
page. In conclusion, Mr. Etheridge related the support of the
Alaska Fire Chiefs Association and Capital City Fire/Rescue for
HB 366, which he encouraged the committee to move forward.
8:19:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled Mr. Paschall's earlier testimony
that a community would have to declare a disaster in order to
invoke the mutual aid system. She asked if the situation in
which Hoonah needed help holding a class would require it to
declare a disaster.
MR. ETHERIDGE clarified that HB 366 wouldn't impact typical
things like that rather he highlighted it in order to illustrate
the shrinkage departments are experiencing. He informed the
committee that the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
requests 18 people as a standard response to a structure fire.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised then that effectively [emergency
responders will continue] working with neighboring communities
in those ways. She further surmised that HB 366 wouldn't cover
the issue of liability in a situation in which [a responder] is
injured, for instance, when the Juneau Fire/Rescue went to
Thorne Bay to respond to the hazardous material call. She asked
if the liability would be borne by the community that requested
assistance or by the entity responding.
MR. ETHERIDGE explained that currently they have to negotiate
with each community when aid is sent. He noted that Juneau
Fire/Rescue does assist prior to the declaration of a disaster
in hopes of keeping the situation scaled down. Therefore,
HB 366 would create the framework so that [the details] are
specified and each individual municipality could model their
agreements after that proposed in HB 366.
8:22:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER related his understanding then that the
definition of disaster is more a function of the capability of a
community/department to the situation rather than an absolute
definition.
MR. ETHERIDGE replied yes, adding that it's based on the
capabilities of the community either through the size of its
emergency responders or the capabilities of its department. For
instance, Juneau Fire/Rescue responded to the situation in
Hoonah when two of its police officers were shot because it
effectively shut down Hoonah's emergency medical services.
Although Juneau Fire/Rescue was able to provide assistance, the
logistics and details took quite a bit of time to work through.
This legislation would allow the details to be worked out prior
to the need for assistance.
8:23:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if there are many logging camps
left in Southeast Alaska. He then inquired as to the
capabilities of the logging camps in terms of autonomous fire
protection or disaster response.
MR. ETHERIDGE answered that some logging camps will have their
own small fire brigades that would be volunteers. He said that
there are some small logging camps. The mining camps in
[Southeast Alaska] tend to have more structured medical and fire
services.
8:24:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to how this [intrastate
mutual aid system] would work in terms of Anchorage that has
paid firefighters versus Eagle River that has volunteer
firefighters. He further inquired as to whether Anchorage and
Eagle River would be considered one political subdivision for
the purpose of requesting mutual aid or would there be sidebars
between the volunteer force and the professionals.
MR. ETHERIDGE responded that he wasn't sure how such close
neighboring communities would work, but he imagined it would be
up to political leaders in the communities to make the
decisions.
8:25:08 AM
JIM BULTER, Attorney, Baldwin & Butler, began by informing the
committee that he's been involved in the incident management
community for a little over 20 years and remains fairly active
with both the public and private sector corporate incident
management teams that work on the state, regional, and national
levels. He related that about 60-70 percent of his practice
deals with issues surrounding incident management and disaster
related issues for a variety of clients. Over the years the
disaster system has been put together principally by a plan, but
it's often forgotten that the plan is the bone of the system.
This legislation, he opined, provides the muscle and the
connective tissue in that it provides a mechanism for
participating entities to pre-organize the system that's
necessary to ensure resources move between different
jurisdictions, particularly in the area of nontraditional
resources. Because fire and hazardous materials incidents are
more frequent, there are clearer lines of authority between
state and local agencies, especially in the area of fire, to
move resources for wild land fires. The situation becomes more
complex when there is the need to move public
works/utilities/specialist resources. This legislation allows
pre-development of a standardized system for the administrative
matters and helps develop a system that qualifies and types
those resources. Mr. Butler expressed hope that HB 366 will
provide another tool for policymakers who are in office during a
disaster in their community, such that there is a plan as well
as administrative issues in place. In conclusion, he urged the
committee to forward HB 366.
8:28:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if Mr. Butler had any role in
bringing HB 366 forward.
MR. BUTLER said he participated collaterally as he has
encouraged those involved to move along the process. He noted
that he is the sole public member of the State Emergency
Response Commission and although he isn't speaking on behalf of
the commission, supporting the type of initiative in HB 366 has
been an issue it has discussed for some time. Mr. Butler
saluted those involved in taking the initiative for making
HB 366 happen.
8:29:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK inquired as to why the statute is necessary
for something that makes so much sense.
MR. BUTLER offered that in many cases, municipalities view the
authorities/responsibilities granted to them through their
charter documents or Title 29 work within the borders of their
particular jurisdiction. The concept of moving resources across
the line is sometimes different than what is planned for as they
typically plan for situations within their jurisdiction.
Furthermore, while one municipality may work with its neighbor
with a mutual aide agreement, this legislation attempts to
create a standardized framework that's recognized on a statewide
level and would allow issues with insurance and risk management
to be addressed so that everyone has "skin in the game" when
resources are moved between jurisdictions.
8:31:28 AM
DAVID GIBBS, Director, Emergency Operations, Fairbanks North
Star Borough, related the support of the Fairbanks North Star
Borough (FNSB) for HB 366. The FNSB believes HB 366 is good
public policy and provides a framework for a consistent and
integrated mutual aid system to ensure effective response in
disaster situations. He informed the committee that the 2009
ice jam flooding provided real world experience with this matter
and was part of the impetus for the legislation. The FNSB was
asked to provide fire service to the City of Eagle since its
volunteer fire department was inundated with flood waters. The
FNSB emergency management staff also assisted with sheltering a
plane load of evacuees from another Yukon River village. He
noted that there was an additional request for assistance for
animal care and control, which couldn't be provided because of
the lack of an agreement to do so. These communities were
geographically isolated from the borough, and therefore the
borough never contemplated the need for mutual aid agreements
with them. The myriad of issues that arose impacted the FNSB's
ability to provide timely assistance to these communities, and
thus clearly demonstrated the need to have procedures and
agreements in place long before a disaster occurs. Mr. Gibbs
opined that the establishment of an integrated and structured
intrastate mutual aid system as proposed by HB 366 will
substantially close the gap.
8:34:06 AM
DENNIS BRODIGAN, Director, Department of Emergency Services,
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, related support for HB 366 for all
the reasons stated by his colleagues. This legislation will
assist those [communities] with finite resources in times of
disaster as it will provide a clearing house to gain additional
resources in a timelier manner.
8:35:07 AM
BRYAN FISHER, Chief of Operations, Division of Homeland
Security/Emergency Management, Department of Military & Veterans
Affairs (DMVA), related support for HB 366. He informed the
committee that DMVA has worked with local jurisdictions over the
last few years to put together the language encompassed in
HB 366. The legislation directs the Division of Homeland
Security/Emergency Management to work primarily as the
administrative management piece in order to ensure that all the
policies, procedures, necessary documentation on reimbursement,
et cetera are in place. The legislation further directs the
State Emergency Response Commission to oversee the
implementation of IMAS. Statutorily the division is responsible
for review of interjurisdictional disaster response plans and to
work with local governments to ensure that the division is
prepared to meet any size disaster in the state. Currently,
division staff is the primary support to the State Emergency
Response Commission. Therefore, the legislation has a zero
fiscal note because it's already part of the division's routine
business to ensure that the plans are in place, coordinated, and
appropriate records maintained. With regard to an earlier
question, Mr. Fisher informed the committee that the term
"disaster" is defined in the Alaska Disaster Act, AS 26.23.900.
Furthermore, the language in AS 26.23.140 enables principle
executive officers of a political subdivision to declare a local
disaster. Mr. Fisher concluded by stating that the division is
fully prepared to support HB 366.
8:37:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated she was puzzled with the zero
fiscal note because on page 1, line 9, the language says, "To
this end, it may employ or otherwise secure the services of
professional and technical personnel ...."
MR. FISHER explained that there are times when a political
subdivision has contracted response personnel for day-to-day
response, such as to run public works facilities. Therefore,
the intent of the language was to ensure that those folks would
be covered so that contracted public works personnel from one
municipality could be used in another municipality.
8:38:50 AM
MR. PASCHALL, in response to earlier questions, explained that
in terms of Anchorage and Eagle River the Municipality of
Anchorage is one political subdivision and has agreements with
the two volunteer fire departments within it. The Fairbanks
North Star Borough has numerous fire departments within the
municipality as well as in the City of North Pole and the City
of Fairbanks, which are separate subdivisions. The intent with
HB 366 is to address situations such as Valdez requesting
equipment from Deltana, which would be anticipated. With regard
to training, Mr. Paschall directed attention to the language on
page 5, line 28, and on page 6, lines 5 and 7, which is a
response guideline as well as a preparation guideline.
8:40:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related that she was disappointed that no
one from Anchorage is testifying on HB 366, which she assumes
means Anchorage isn't troubled by the legislation. She then
posed a scenario in which HB 366 becomes law and Anchorage has
existing agreements with other subdivisions, which would take
precedent.
MR. PASCHALL clarified that this doesn't override existing or
future agreements between political subdivisions.
8:41:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER surmised then that HB 366 speaks more to
the relationship for mutual aid between the Municipality of
Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, for instance,
rather than the Anchorage Fire Department and the Chugiak
Volunteer Fire Department.
MR. PASCHALL responded that's correct.
8:42:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to the definition of "disaster"
in AS 26.23.900, which doesn't include the component of the
ability to respond to the capacity as mentioned by Mr.
Etheridge. Therefore, he expressed interest in reconciling the
different definitions of "disaster".
MR. PASCHALL explained that responders provide assistance when
the receiving/requesting entity has exceeded its capacity,
otherwise they wouldn't ask for assistance. The definition
speaks to who can declare a disaster. For example, an
unincorporated village, which is defined as a community of
greater than 25 people, can declare a disaster. Upon further
clarification from Legislative Legal Services, he said he
understood that any unique or cohesive area could be considered
a community, a political subdivision, and thus request
assistance under this agreement. In further response to
Representative Saddler, Mr. Paschall stated that he hadn't seen
any language that addressed the number of times a disaster could
be declared. However, an executive officer can declare a
disaster for up to seven days. Following the initial period,
the municipal body has to provide a formal statement of the
declaration of a disaster. He reminded the committee that this
is in reference to a local disaster because a larger disaster
would be declared by the governor and the disaster cabinet. Mr.
Paschall emphasized that [the details/agreements for a larger
disaster] are already in place, this legislation addresses how
small communities declare disasters or emergencies and ask for
assistance from others.
8:44:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER characterized [HB 366] as smart planning;
however, he asked if there are any areas of the legislation that
could be improved.
MR. PASCHALL noted that he didn't participate actively in
drafting HB 366, but believes it was well done and addresses the
unique aspects of Alaska.
8:46:15 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ closed public testimony.
8:46:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to report HB 366 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB364 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HCRA 3/29/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 364 |
| CSHB364 version I.pdf |
HCRA 3/29/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 364 |
| HB364-DOR-TAX-03-16-12.pdf |
HCRA 3/29/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 364 |
| HB364 Leg Research Homeless Stats.pdf |
HCRA 3/29/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 364 |