Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/20/1999 05:10 PM House MLV
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 101 - DEFINITION OF DISASTER CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the final item of business would be CS for Senate Bill No. 101(FIN) am, "An Act relating to disasters and to the disaster relief fund." Number 0160 DARWIN PETERSON, Legislative Assistant to Senator John Torgerson, Alaska State Legislature, spoke on behalf of Senator Torgerson, Co-Chair of Senate Finance Committee, sponsor of SB 101. Mr. Peterson read the following sponsor statement: The Finance Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 101 amended clarifies the definition of a disaster. A disaster is an impending threat or actual damage, injury, loss of life or property, or shortage of food, water or fuel resulting from specified environmental catastrophes. CSSB 101 (FIN) am limits the scope 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 enumerating the definition of disaster, CSSB 101 (FIN) am makes significant changes to funding limits within the executive branch in reference to disaster emergencies. The governor is authorized to expend up to $500,000 to prevent or minimize the effects of an event that could become a disaster. If a statutorily specified disaster occurs, the governor is subject to two spending caps - $1,000,000 and $5,000,000. The $1,000,000 spending cap requires legislative authorization and a presidential declaration of disaster before further expenditures from state funds are allowed. The $5,000,000 spending cap only applies to wildland fire disasters. Number 0225 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wondered if the spending limits are per disaster. MR. PETERSON replied that SB 101 was amended on the Senate floor. He stated that there have been discussions with the department indicating that the amendment made on the Senate floor did not specify whether or not the funding limits are per event or per fiscal year. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that it was difficult to tell. MR. PETERSON agreed. He said that the sponsor has discussed it with the department and is also open to amendments to that affect. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion for the following amendment [Amendment #1] to CSSB 101 (FIN): page 2, line 18, insert "per event" after "state funds"; and page 3, line 1, insert "per event" after "state funds". Number 0285 CHAIR MURKOWSKI stated that Amendment #1 had been moved and asked if there was any discussion or opposition. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that he did not want to stand in the way of the amendment, but wondered why the $5,000,000 was not included in the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that he was not sure. CHAIR MURKOWSKI said that she could address the $5,000,000 issue and whether or not it was subject to "per event". She stated that in the conversations she had with individuals from the division it was indicated that the $5,000,000 for the wildland fire is the annual budget, and is not for individual fires. She said it is her understanding when the $1,000,000 and $500,000 caps were discussed they were caps "per event". Number 0350 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that it was her understanding that the amount on wildland fires is not capped. She indicated that the budgeting process involves putting in a certain amount of money for emergencies; and anything beyond that is a supplemental because wildland fires cannot be controlled. She does not believe this is an appropriation. Instead, she stated that it is a limitation. She said that the governor would need to have it in the budget or have a special appropriation. She does not see any reason for there to be a limit on the wildland fires unless "it's intended to say, 'Well, if it's going to cost too much, we just won't put the fire out'." She further added, "I don't think that's what we do. It seems to me like we put the fire out because we need to put the fire out and not because it's going to cost too much money." CHAIR MURKOWSKI agreed with Representative James and stated that she stands corrected. She clarified that it is not the annual appropriation for wildland fires. She stated David Liebersbach from the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA) might be able to provide additional information on the issue before a decision is made. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated, "If this is what we're going to do, that is an extreme change in our policy." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT clarified that he does not have any objections to Amendment #1. CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Representative Coghill if he would be willing to hold Amendment #1 until the committee receives further testimony from the division. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed to hold the amendment, but indicated that it does not really change what has been discussed regarding the $5,000,000. CHAIR MURKOWSKI stated Amendment #1 would be held until further notice. Number 0470 MR. PETERSON said that the committee is welcome to amend the wildland fire disaster section as they see fit. He informed the committee he would provide them with a copy of the Disaster Cost Index which outlines disasters declared in the state per (indisc). He believes there have not been incidents where the state has expended more than $5,000,000 per year on wildland fires without federal assistance. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA pointed out that the nature of disaster is that it is not a planned expenditure. She wondered, referring to page 4, lines 20 through 28, of CSSB 101 (FIN) am, why there was a listing of events when, in fact, they are unthinkable, and we live in a world of such expanding possibilities that it is hard to imagine the kinds of things that could happen. Number 0570 MR. PETERSON replied that Representative Cissna's line of thinking is understandable. He stated that the Senate Finance Committee decided they wanted to define disaster so the definitions that the governor could expend state funds for were specified. This was done in order to eliminate the scenario where state funds are spent for certain situations the legislature deems are not disasters. He said the Senate Finance Committee feels this definition is very complete, but there is room for amendment if there are other disasters the legislature feels could become major. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said she thinks that it might be easier to list what constitutes a disaster since there are certain things that you do not want the governor to spend money on. She believes it would be inconceivable to think of all the different kinds of disasters that could occur. She asked if a list had been made by the Senate Finance Committee of the types of disasters they did not want the governor to spend money on. MR. PETERSON answered that it would be a more ambiguous list. He indicated that the disasters included in CSSB 101 (FIN) am are those which the state may have experienced in the past and may indeed experience in the future. Number 0660 REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER said, The many times here in these committees, and we all sit on a lot of committees, where you might read something (indisc.), but you don't spot something or something, or somebody brings something up. I know, like John Davies, up in Finance, everyday doing his homework. He always thinks of some points or some angle that you never thought of, and that I would never think of, sitting up in my house in Nome. ... I guess what I'm trying to say is, I don't think I'd be as well educated or informed about a disaster or whether it should be a disaster or if it was over five million dollars. If I wasn't actually down there to talk to the commissioners and the people that are actually there looking at that earthquake or that volcano, ... Up in Nome, I'm just out in the middle of nowhere. I could never agree to a bill where it says I could attend a special session like that. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT expressed that he has some of the same concerns as Representative Cissna. He wondered if there was any rationale that would support inclusion of a hurricane or tornado. MR. PETERSON replied that the Senate Finance Committee tried to make the list as complete as possible to include disasters that may occur that have not already occurred. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT referred to page 4, lines 17 through 28, of CSSB 101 (FIN) am. He stated he has a problem with a list, and, generally, does not like inclusions of things. He believes that there may be some disasters which may not have been addressed in the list; and he would prefer to exclude it from the bill. He illustrated his point using a hypothetical situation in which a cloud, containing some chemical, rains down on a small village in rural Alaska, contaminating everyone. Representative Kott perceives this as a disaster, but points out that it is not included in the bill. He provided another example of a disaster in which a tour bus or train crosses a bridge and the bridge collapses. He stated that it would not be possible to respond to this type of disaster from a statutory perspective. He is puzzled as to why a list was included in the bill at all. He feels that if economic disasters are not wanted to be included in the list, then the bill should state this. Number 0907 MR. PETERSON responded that the bill previously was amending language out of the statutes that did specify disaster, but said "including" and was not limited to those disasters. The intent of the legislation was to specify which disasters the state could fund, and which disasters the governor could declare as disasters. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if the governor has the power to declare a place a disaster area if there is an epidemic of diphtheria. MR. PETERSON stated he would rather let Carol Carrol from the DMVA answer that question. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said it appears to him that "epidemic" was taken out of the bill and not put back in. He referred to the Disaster Cost Index, and stated that it does not include a designation of the type of disaster for each disaster listed. He wondered if Mr. Peterson is familiar with some of the items on the list. MR. PETERSON stated that towards the end of the Disaster Cost Index it is indicated what type of disaster was involved. Mr. Peterson said he was not familiar with each one of the disasters on the list. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wondered if there was anyone who could tell him what type of disaster was involved in each item listed on the Disaster Cost Index and whether or not there was a presidential declaration for each one. He noted that a few specific disasters in Alaska, such as the Chukchi storm in 1987, cost over one million dollars. He asked if Mr. Peterson could provide him with the information. Number 1029 MR. PETERSON said he understands that the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] does not have the authority to spend any federal money on a disaster, except for wildland fires, without a presidential disaster declaration. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he is worried by the provision that Representative Foster referred to. With respect to page 4, section B, of CSSB 101 (FIN) am, he inquired, "Do you have a legal opinion that we can do this, or that it doesn't create a separation of powers ideal or problem?" MR. PETERSON replied that he did not have a legal opinion on that. Number 1085 BRUCE CAMPBELL, Legislative Assistant to Senator Randy Phillips, Alaska State Legislature, noted that the concurrent resolution referred to on page 1, line 13, of SB 101 was determined to be unconstitutional by George Utermohle, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services. The entire mechanism by which these funds were going to be unleashed was unconstitutional. He said, "We were really tied into just going into special session. We had no choice but to go into special session if there was a disaster, but that costs a million bucks or a substantial amount of money just to get around to dealing with the disaster." MR. CAMPBELL stated that Senator Donley came up with Section B, page 4, lines 4 through 11, which is a way of not going into special session. He noted that it is not a polling just to determine whether or not the legislature spends money, it is a polling to determine whether or not the legislature goes into special session. He said the presiding officers of both the house of representatives and the senate currently make a decision themselves. They notify the governor whether there is a disaster and decide whether it is worth going into a special session. MR. CAMPBELL stated that this places the burden on the president of the senate and the speaker of the house which is unconstitutional. With respect to Section B, he said, This mechanism allows the entire body to be polled by electronic means to determine whether or not they want to go into special session. It is not determining whether or not they want to spend the money, but it's ... a fairly subtle, small point to determine whether or not they should go into special session to appropriate the funds, or whether the legislature will waive that and let the governor move forward. MR. PETERSON (indisc.) Number 1201 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wondered if there was a legal opinion on whether or not that is constitutional. MR. CAMPBELL indicated that he did not have anything in writing on that, but it is his understanding that there was a "nod and a yes". He said Mr. Utermohle would be available to answer that question. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT believes that Section B seems to do more than just decide whether or not to go into special session. He said, It's the great "or" that allows the spending; either the legislature convenes in special session or the presiding officers, after polling and all that, 'inform the governor in writing that the majority of the members do not object to the financing plan'. ... That's an approval of a financing plan and, all respect to Senator Donley's legal abilities, I'm not yet convinced that that is constitutional. MR. CAMPBELL said he would defer to the attorney in the room from the Department of Law. Number 1247 MR. LIEBERSBACH stated that the DMVA has concerns with the current version of the bill [CSSB 101 (FIN) am]. He commented that the attempt to define every event that might cause a disaster is beyond his expertise and that of the department. He indicated that the bill eliminates all human-caused events such as shootings. He believes that most of the events that have occurred in the past are covered, but he is not sure that takes care of everything that may occur in the future. MR. LIEBERSBACH said there was a question whether something such as purposeful weapons of mass destruction or a terrorism event, other than an explosion, would be covered. He stated that the environment is referred to, but wondered how far the definition could be stretched. He also wondered if he should work at stretching a definition in the bill to protect lives. He thinks a definition of environment could be stretched, but he is not sure that is something that needs to be done. Number 1456 MR. LIEBERSBACH stated that another concern of the department is the aspect of polling the legislative body to decide to exceed the limits set forth in the disaster relief fund - $500,000 without a federal declaration and $1,000,000 with a declaration. He commented that there would be very few federal declarations on $500,000 of state money put up at this point. He feels that in most events, we can take care of that. A really big event, in which there is a substantial loss of life and property or a potential loss of life and property, he said, "I could easily lift the phone and spend two million dollars, three million dollars, in ten minutes in activating resources or commit state monies. That may, down the road, get replaced by federal, but, nonetheless, to do that, would be beyond the caps of this bill." He stated that it would not be the norm, but there is a history of a major disaster event occurring in Alaska which has been used as a benchmark of other things. Number 1548 MR. LIEBERSBACH said it makes him hesitate to want to move forward in a response. He feels that the reality of polling the entire legislature in a timely manner to go ahead and expend over $500,000 without a federal declaration, or $1,000,000 with a federal declaration, may cost some response capability without exceeding the limits. During the Miller's Reach fire, he worked as a representative of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and he stated that he was committing $1,000,000 per day of state monies on the fire even before getting help from the federal government. Eventually, a federal declaration was obtained and much of the money was reimbursed to the state. He noted that Carol Carrol would address the $5,000,000 issue. He said there are other types of things that could cause disasters that would cost a lot of money and exceed these caps, even per event. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if the mechanism the federal government uses for declaring a disaster is similar, or do they have things listed or use dollar figures. Number 1688 MR. LIEBERSBACH cited the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and provided the following federal definition of major disasters: Major disaster means any natural catastrophe including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snow storm or drought, or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion in any part of the United States which, in the determination of the President, causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this act to supplement the efforts and available resources of state, local government and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship or suffering caused thereby. He stated that the definition lists those items, but lists them as "including" them, not excluding anything else. He indicated that this is the way the current Title 26 definition of disaster, more or less, reads. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if there is an appropriation limit. MR. LIEBERSBACH stated there is no federal appropriation limit. Number 1801 REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER said he appreciated Representative Kott's ideas with respect to lists. He noted that an airplane collision which causes loss of life and severe damage, and does not result in a fire, is not caused by anything included in the list. MR. LIEBERSBACH replied that is true unless "we can get a fire started." REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER feels CSSB 101 (FIN) am is basically aimed at rural Alaska. He said, Things like this don't happen in downtown Anchorage. ... So now we're getting this definition of a disaster, but, you know, I can't help but think in my mind if rural Alaska had 90 percent of the population scattered in the thousand towns and Anchorage just had five representatives like we do now in Western and Arctic Alaska here, and bush Alaska had 35, and we had a bill winding our way through here defining a disaster as any kind of a disaster except the one caused by an earthquake, your department would probably recommend to the governor that he veto it, wouldn't he? ... That wouldn't be fair, would it? Number 1909 MR. LIEBERSBACH said it would probably be recommended to the governor that it is not supported. REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked, "I think that's fair too, isn't it?" MR. LIEBERSBACH stated that he believes so. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired when the last time there was a hurricane or tornado in Alaska, and whether or not the division has ever responded to one. MR. LIEBERSBACH answered that Alaska has hurricane-force winds, but there has never been a hurricane in Alaska. He noted that the only time an attempt was made to obtain a federal declaration, it was turned down because a hurricane is more than just high winds. To his knowledge, there has never been a tornado in Alaska. He commented that high winds had been left out in the original version of SB 101. Number 2016 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT pointed out that high winds are not included in the list. MR. LIEBERSBACH believes high winds would fall under the interpretation of a storm. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if it would be under wind storms. MR. LIEBERSBACH believes so. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked, with respect to the deletion of epidemics, if there is a provision of federal or state law which covers them that would provide the ability to respond to a situation. MR. LIEBERSBACH replied that he does not know, but he mentioned there might be two places to look. He said, "Probably there is within law enforcement some reference to, if it's a purposeful release, if you will, some law enforcement terminology in terms of arresting, preventing, et cetera, but I doubt that it talks to the consequence management. For example, the disaster part of it." He noted that another possible place to look would be in the responsibilities of the Department of Health and Social Services (HESS), although he is not familiar enough with HESS to know that there is. He said from his experience in dealing with HESS most of their response is at the request of the DMVA based on their declaration of a disaster. He believes HESS has the ability to take care of people who need medical aid. Mr. Liebersbach, stated, in terms of the catastrophic aspect, it becomes questionable. He feels, as an emergency management professional, he should not have to worry about interpreting who should respond to a disaster when trying to save lives. Number 2272 CHAIR MURKOWSKI referred to a resolution from the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) written by Phillip E. Oates, Commissioner of DMVA and Co-Chair of SERC. She asked if Mr. Liebersbach could provide the committee with some input either from the individuals who serve on the SERC or those who serve on the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC). MR. LIEBERSBACH said the SERC is composed of representatives from several state agencies, local emergency agencies and the private sector. The commission is part of Title 26 and the federal, in terms of hazardous substance. Into Title 26, the SERC in Alaska was formed. The SERC is required under federal law to deal with hazardous materials. The SERC was made an all-risk commission so the commission deals with more than just the hazardous substances. The SERC is also made up of representatives from Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs). He stated that there are between 20 and 25 LEPCs throughout Alaska, and the chairman of each of those committees are formed together in a Local Emergency Planning Committee Associations (LEPCAs). CHAIR MURKOWSKI stated that she is not concerned with the make-up of those committees and where they are from, but she wondered what specific concerns the committees have on CSSB 101 (FIN) am. MR. LIEBERSBACH said the concerns are basically those that have already been heard. TAPE 99-7, SIDE A Number 0001 MR. LIEBERSBACH said the committees are the "front-line people" dealing with the victims. He continued to say, They are dealing with it and they are asking us to help. ... They recognize that we will be potentially caught trying to poll ... the leadership of the legislature will be trying to get the polling completed while we're making a decision on whether we have the money to go forward to deal with that." He stressed that this would not be the day-to-day situation, but "as long as I can look out there and say, it's possible, even probable, given our history in Alaska, then I can't very well say it's something I can overlook. He said the committees share that same concern. Number 0123 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if a diphtheria epidemic in Nome would fit in the disaster and under what provisions. MR. LIEBERSBACH replied that it would not fit under CSSB 101 (FIN) am. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wondered if it mattered if it was a disease epidemic or where it was located. MR. LIEBERSBACH answered, "It's flat not in there." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT (indisc.) MR. LIEBERSBACH stated that there is some potential interpretation of Section C, page 4, of CSSB 101 (FIN) am which states: The release of oil or a hazardous substance if the release requires prompt action to avert environmental danger or mitigate environmental damage. He said, "Now you'd begin to say, 'Which environment? What kind of danger?'. And I'd say, 'Well, the human environment is part of the environment so it's covered.' But I really question that I have to get down to trying to interpret that." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT interjected, "You might be in a situation and I could say, 'People are dying', and you'd have to know whether it's hurting the trees or not?" MR. LIEBERSBACH said what is considered environmental danger or environmental damage would have to be determined. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if this included a riot. MR. LIEBERSBACH stated that a riot would not be covered unless there was an explosion and fire, or if it caused environmental damage. He explained, If it's just people going with baseball bats and beating one another over the head and breaking in plate glass windows, although, hopefully, most of those would be insured, but, nonetheless, ... I'm sure under law enforcement authorities, there would be the ability for the troopers to go out and stop that kind of thing, but, in terms of dealing with the damages and the consequences, ... We wouldn't be involved. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "Troopers could do it, but it couldn't be a disaster?" MR. LIEBERSBACH replied that it would not be a disaster. Number 0313 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he is trying to understand how the "fire part works." He asked Mr. Liebersbach to run him through the Miller's Reach fire as it pertains CSSB 101 (FIN) am. MR. LIEBERSBACH said he would have immediately notified the officials involved if he had known the $5,000,000 limit existed and told them, "You need to start polling the legislature [be]cause we're about to go over $5,000,000." He stated that he has not been on many wildland fires where $5,000,000 has been exceeded in a day or two days. He said another problem with the Miller's Reach fire is that it burned through one of the fiber cables and took out communications and the phone system in Wasilla. There would have been a number of legislators that could not have been reached, and it would have been difficult to poll all of the legislators. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the Disaster Cost Index which lists the Miller's Reach fire as costing $3,868,000. He asked if this was because the federal government made a reimbursement. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS recalled, when she was speaker of the house during this time, that a $14,000,000 appropriation was approved. She said the fire at Miller's Reach cost far greater than $5,000,000. Number 0489 CAROL CARROL, Director, Administrative Services, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs; Director, Division of Support Service, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), came forward to testify. She stated that there were two aspects of the Miller's Reach fire: fighting a fire, which was under DNR; and the disaster declaration, which was a FEMA declaration. She indicated that the FEMA declaration was not used to fight the fire, but was used to help support DNR by doing such things as cleaning up debris and guard patrolling [National Guard]. She said it is very unusual when FEMA comes in and declares on a fire; it's only when it's an urban interface fire. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS stated that the $5,000,000 limit is a short-sighted concept the way the bill is drafted and that it will not "ever get us anywhere on a major fire." She said there are a lot of things not included in the definition of disaster. She is concerned with several parts of the bill. She stated that Section 26.23.025, page 2, of CSSB 101 (FIN) am, does not have any reference, at that point in time, to the legislature not being in session. She also referred to the section on polling. She said the bill does not reference Legislative Budget and Audit, a committee which was established in statute and is responsible for legislative spending when the legislature is not in session. Number 0652 CHAIR MURKOWSKI stated that it is a disastrous situation. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented regarding the National Guard being called out on a disaster and asked, "Is there anything in this that would say, 'We can't do that because it's a riot. It doesn't fall into that.', or would you just keep the government from calling out the troops on a situation where there was a ruckus that is caused by people?" MR. LIEBERSBACH stated that the problem is determining how the National Guard is paid for. He said that once the governor calls the National Guard up, unless it is federalized, then the National Guard is covered under state funds. An example of that was when the National Guard was called for an avalanche search at Turnagain Pass. State funds were used pay for the search. Mr. Liebersbach indicated the governor can activate the National Guard, but he has to pay for it and reimburse the federal government unless there is a federal declaration. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, I am just curious on some of the scenarios that my colleagues here presented, may be that a federal disaster would be called. I don't know. You know, an epidemic in a remote village, may be something that they may call the guard out to fly a helicopter on, and make a FEMA determination on that. And I'm just bringing these up because I don't know if we're addressing it here or if we're side-stepping it here. MR. LIEBERSBACH stated that almost every federal disaster requires a 25 percent state match of federal funds expended. He indicated that there is some discussion at the federal level and even some attempts at legislation to provide a floor for federal declaration on which there would be a cap without a polling of the legislature. Number 0881 JOHN ALCANTRA, Emergency Management Coordinator, Kenai Peninsula Borough; Chair, Statewide Local Emergency Planning Commission Association, testified via teleconference from Kenai. He commented that SB 101 gets a little better with every version. He appreciates Representative Coghill's amendment to insert "per event" on pages 2 and 3 of CSSB 101 (FIN) am. He stated that the members of the State Emergency Response Commission and the Local Emergency Planning Committee came out unanimously against SB 101 even in its most recent version. He feels that every time a list is enumerated someone always gets left out. MR. ALCANTRA stated that changes are trying to be made in the middle of a process and the state disaster declaration is really in the middle of a disaster process. He explained, You have a local event and if you visit an organized borough, the local city declares to the borough, the borough decides, 'We're going to take our (indisc.) beyond the scope of the authority of the committee. We're going to take this on.' And I know Representative Phillips can relate to this, the Homer cannery fire last July was an example of the local (indisc.) Homer, Alaska borough declaration, but we didn't even ask the state for assistance. We took care of that out of borough funds. And you guys are making changes in the middle of a process. ... I spent three and half years working for the Federal Emergency Management Agency as chief-of-staff for the Miller's Reach fire and the Southcentral floods. ... I, as chief-of-staff, had more ability to spend money than you're allowing the governor to have. MR. ALCANTRA feels the Division of Emergency Services and the governor are being hamstringed into specific dollar amounts. He said he takes exception to it and he believes the emergency management community takes exception to it. He spoke with Senator Torgerson and stated that SB 101 is a bill that needs to go to the State Emergency Response Commission and to the Local Emergency Planning Committee Association during the interim to help put out a better piece of legislation. He indicated that he agrees with the comments made by Representative Foster. He feels that this is what needs to be done if we want to eliminate economic disaster or other disasters from occurring instead of enumerating a list. Number 1104 JAMES STUDLEY, Coordinator, Northern Southeast Local Emergency Planning Committee, testified via teleconference from Haines in opposition to CSSB 101 (FIN) am. He stated that he had made a brief speech to SERC. He advises keeping CSSB 101 (FIN) am in committee forever. Mr. Studley does not believe CSSB 101 (FIN) am helps rural Alaska and indicated that very rarely would we get a presidential declaration. He feels that it is inconceivable for 200 legislators to get together to work all of these definitions out, and believes that CSSB 101 (FIN) am severely ties the hands of the executive branch. Mr. Studley agrees that there is not a separation of powers by doing this and does not believe it is in the best interest of Alaska. MR. STUDLEY feels it would be a terrible waste of tax dollars to spend $1,000,000 for a $1.2 million disaster by calling the legislature into special session. He concluded, I am appalled to think that we're discussing a $5,000,000 limit on forest fires when we could conceivably have thousands of people dead in some city, and cost more than $500,000 (indisc.) that we have to call some kind of polling body together. What if it was ten people or even a hundred people in rural Alaska? I can assure you that those ten people or those one hundred people would consider that great of an effect on their community a disaster, but maybe those folks somewhere else in a larger rural areas might not. And that's embarrassing to think that we even have included language like that at all. To think we would say it's okay to spend $5,000,000 on burning down forests, but we have to have approval for $500,000 for anything else. I'm embarrassed to think that we would ever pass this bill, and I hope that you do not. Number 1336 CHAIR MURKOWSKI noted that Mary Gillson had been on-line to answer any questions, but was no longer available. Chair Murkowski appointed the following people to a subcommittee on CSSB 101 (FIN) am: Representatives Croft, Chair; Phillips and Murkowski.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|