Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/26/1999 01:55 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 101(FIN) am
"An Act relating to disasters and to the disaster
relief fund."
DARWIN PETERSON, STAFF, SENATOR TORGERSON read the sponsor
statement in support of SB 101:
The House Military and Veterans Affairs Committee
Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 101
clarifies the definition of a disaster by replacing
vague terminology in statute with more specific
language. This will direct the executive branch of
government in identifying what constitutes a disaster
prior to making a gubernatorial disaster declaration.
In addition to amending the definition of disaster, HCS
CS SB 101(MLV) makes a diversion from current law to
the funding limits within the executive branch in
reference to disaster emergencies. The governor is
given broad authorization to expend up to $1,000,000 to
prevent or minimize the effects of an event or a
disaster within the state. If the governor feels that
further expenditures from state funds are necessary in
excess of $1,000,000 for a specific event, legislative
authorization or a presidential declaration of disaster
is required. Wildland fire disasters are exempt from
this policy.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if the sponsor had concerns with
the HCS (STA) version. Mr. Peterson replied that they had
concerns with language on page 2, section 3. He explained
that there are two caps under current law, one at $500
thousand dollars and one at $1 million dollars. These were
combined into one cap of $1 million dollars. He recommended
that the two limitations remain separate. The caps would be
under $500 thousand dollars for a broad variety of events
and $1 million dollars for specifically for disasters.
Seventy-five percent of disasters since 1978 have been under
$500 thousand dollars. This would return to the current
statutory limitation.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that there is no cap on wildlife
fires.
Mr. Peterson also pointed to page 3, lines 4 - 6. He
explained that under current law the Governor must notify
the presiding officers if he wishes to spend more than a
million dollars. The Senate language required the presiding
officer to poll all members of the legislature and receive
majority consent. He acknowledged that it could be difficult
to contact all members during the interim. The sponsor
recommends that the presiding officers contact a majority of
members telephonically. There would still need majority
consent. If 31 members agree that a special session is not
necessary than the governor could go ahead with the disaster
plan.
Mr. Peterson referred to page 4, definition of disaster. The
Senate wanted a more concise definition. "An event such as"
may be objectionable due to its broad interpretation.
Representative Foster observed that "including" was deleted
from page 4, line 9.
Mr. Peterson explained that the language was amended in the
House Military and Veterans Affairs Committee. The intent
was to broaden the definition and allow the governor to
declare a disaster on any event that resulted in a disaster
of $2 million dollars. The Senate definition was more
specific. In the Senate version, the governor could spend up
to $1 million dollars on disasters that were enumerated. The
governor could spend up to $500 thousand dollars on
disasters that were not enumerated such as a plane
collision. If the governor want to spend more than $500
thousand dollars on a disaster that was not enumerated he
would have to address the legislature.
In response to a question by Representative Foster, Mr.
Peterson noted that if there was a disaster such as a plane
crash the governor could spend funds immediately. He
estimated that further funding could be obtained within a
few hours.
Representative Foster recalled an emergency in his district.
It took 14 calls and an hour and a half before he was able
to reach anyone to respond.
Representative Austerman concluded that the sponsor's
concern is with the addition of "such as". He clarified that
the sponsor prefers the Senate version. He ascertained that
if the disaster was not defined the governor would have $500
thousand dollars.
Representative Foster noted that a number of people would
have to be contacted. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that
the governor would only need to contact further members if
he wanted to spend more than $500 thousand dollars.
Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of the House
State Affairs Committee version. He stated that he would
prefer to argue to the funding after the disaster. He did
not want to see a delay on funding.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the $500 thousand
dollar and $1 million dollar limitations exist in current
law. In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Mr.
Peterson noted that the current disaster spending limits
have not created problems.
Representative J. Davies stated that page 2, lines 6 and 7
needed further clarification.
"The governor may expend during a fiscal year not more
than $1,000,000 of state funds per event to prevent,
minimize, or respond to the effects of an event that
occurs in the state..."
He pointed out that if an event is prevented then it is not
an event that occurred. He suggested that additional
language is needed to clarify this provision.
Representative J. Davies questioned the intent of language
on page 3, line 17 - 20.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
chapter, if the declaration of a disaster
emergency occurs while the legislature is in
session or if a special session is held, actions
taken by the governor under this chapter after
the close of the session that are not ratified
by law adopted during that session are void."
He pointed out that action could be the result of a law
previously adopted. He maintained that the language is over
reaching and should be deleted. He suggested that any
actions taken that are inconsistent with law adopted during
the session should be void.
Mr. Peterson stated that the language states that if the
governor goes over the cap and the legislature disagrees,
that any action taken by the governor would be void.
Representative Austerman referred to the Bristol Bay
economic disaster. Mr. Peterson replied that there is no
place in the bill that specifically discusses economic
disasters. The legislature discusses physical disaster.
Representative Austerman questioned if "such as" could open
the door to economic disasters. Mr. Peterson replied that
it might be possible if an economic disaster was caused by
an event "such as" the ones listed.
Representative J. Davies suggested that it would be
difficult to separate natural and economic disasters. Co-
Chair Therriault referred to page 4, lines 2 - 4. He
observed that "the occurrence or imminent threat of
widespread or severe damage, injury, [OR] loss of life or
property" could have an economic impact. He observed that a
shortage of food could cause a loss of life and a shortage
of fuel during winter months could cause a loss of property.
He asked why the Senate added the language. Mr. Peterson
explained that the Senate Finance Committee inserted the
language in case a disaster resulted in a shortage of food,
water or fuel. Co-Chair Therriault felt that the language
was unnecessary.
Representative Foster observed that the State Emergency
Response Commission passed a resolution signed by Phillip
Oates, Commissioner of Military and Veterans Affairs
opposing SB 101 (copy on file).
DAVE LIEBERSBACH, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES,
MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS testified via teleconference.
He stated that the Department of Military and Veterans
Affairs feels that the House State Affairs Committee version
is workable. He referred to the resolution by the State
Emergency Response Commission. Discussions with the State
Emergency Response Commission indicated that they would not
object to the current version.
Representative Foster questioned if there is a federal
definition for "disaster". Mr. Liebersbach clarified that
there is a federal definition for "disaster". He explained
that the Western Alaska Fisheries disaster was not included
under the definition of a major disaster by the presidential
declaration. The federal funds for the Western Alaska
Fisheries disaster were obtained under a different route.
In response to a question by Representative Foster, Mr.
Liebersbach noted that the addition of "an event such as" on
line 5, page 4 has broaden the legislation sufficiently to
allow the support of the department. He pointed out that he
did not want to try to delineate every possible disaster for
the future. He stressed that there needs to be a broad
enough interpretation to allow coverage.
Representative Austerman noted that he requested a breakdown
of the $60 million federal dollars appropriated through the
Steven's Act.
Co-Chair Therriault expressed concern with the addition of
the language "an event such as".
CAROL CARROLL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SUPPORT SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES stated that the breakdown of
federal funds is available and that she would provide it to
members.
Representative Grussendorf asked how long the statutory
limitation of $500 thousand dollars has been in placed. Ms.
Carroll noted that the limitations have been in placed since
the 1970's. Representative Grussendorf pointed out that the
value of the funds has decreased.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the bill proposes one
limitation. He questioned if there is a problem with the
current statute. Ms. Carroll noted that $500 thousand
dollars could be used to advert a disaster or an imminent
event that might cause a disaster. Under an actual disaster
the entire $1 million dollars would be available. The
legislation allows $1 million dollars to be spent on a
disaster or to divert a disaster.
Vice-Chair Bunde noted that 75 percent of the disasters that
have occur in the state of Alaska since 1978 have been under
$500 thousand dollars. He questioned if it would be possible
to spend more than $500 thousand dollars within the first
few minutes. Ms. Carroll replied that it is difficult to
tell. She noted that a lot of money could be spent within a
few minutes for a major disaster, if out-of-state resources
were used. She stressed that if the state is committed to
expend funds that they will be expended.
Representative Foster observed that under the House State
Affairs version the Governor would have to contact 6
members. He questioned how the decision would be carried. He
expressed concern that it could take time. He noted that
there would be an executive committee making the decision.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the legislation
requires that the Governor shall prepare and deliver to the
Commissioner's Office and chairs of finance a financing plan
describing the amount.
Representative Foster expressed concern that a decision
could be made not to have a special session without input
from individual members.
GEORGE UTERMOHLE, LEGAL COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY
responded to previous questions. He emphasized that the
listing of events of a similar nature that are classified
modifies an event "such as". He clarified that a riot would
not be "an event such as" if it were not included in the
list.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if economic disasters would be
swept in under the list of events "such as". Mr. Utermohle
observed that disasters that have an economic affect could
be included, but stated that a pure economic disaster as
defined in, AS 44 would not be included under the language.
Co-Chair Therriault asked why "an event such as" is needed.
Representative Grussendorf suggested that a meteorite would
not be included without the additional language. Mr.
Utermohle noted that the issue is how tight the boundary
would be drawn around disasters the governor could declare.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the governor would
still be able to respond to an event that was not detailed,
such as a meteorite, because some of the other events would
occur.
Vice-Chair Bunde stated that the language clarifies that the
events would be natural in nature and exclude economic
disasters. Mr. Utermohle agreed.
(Tape Change, HFC 99 -103, Side 2)
Co-Chair Therriault reiterated questions by Representative
J. Davies regarding the need for language on page 3, line 17
- 20. Mr. Utermohle explained that the language is a
modification of existing law. He noted that the language
would void actions of the governor not sanctioned by the
legislature. He stressed that "it is a function of how tight
a rein the legislature wants to keep on the governor. The
governor's authority to precede expires when the legislature
adjourns if the governor's action was not ratified by the
legislature. Under the legislation, a disaster appropriation
could be cut off at any time by appropriate legislative
action.
In response to a question by Representative Foster, Mr.
Utermohle explained that language on page 3, line 4 pertains
to delivery of the governor's financing plan. He noted that
the other members of the body have the ability to call
themselves into special session. Co-Chair Therriault noted
that the language on page 3, lines 4 - 6 allows the governor
to expend money if the legislature decides not to go into a
special session.
Representative J. Davies referred to page 5, lines 5 - 8.
Mr. Utermohle noted that the language carries forward
existing language. He stated that the following language
could be deleted from existing law in order to resolve
Representative J. Davies' concerns.
"The governor may expend during a fiscal year not more
than $1,000,000 of state funds per event to prevent,
minimize, or respond to the effects of an event that
occurs in the state and that, in the determination of
the governor, poses a direct and imminent threat."
Vice-Chair Bunde questioned if the governor could declare a
disaster on an event that occurs in Canada or another state.
Mr. Utermohle noted that the language clarifies that the
Governor is responding to events in the state of Alaska.
Vice-Chair Bunde referred to page 3, lines 17 - 20. He
questioned if the language is a pocket veto for the
legislature. Mr. Utermohle stated that if the legislature
does not ratify the governor's actions than his authority to
operate ends. It compels the legislature to take action if
the disaster is to be addressed.
Representative J. Davies summarized that the legislature
would have to ratify disaster expenditures under $1 million
dollars. Mr. Utermohle clarified that expenditures after the
end of the session or special session would not be
authorized. Expenditures during the legislative session
would be authorized under the governor's authority. The
language speaks to a declared disaster as opposed to an
event. An event is not necessarily a disaster.
SB 101 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|