Legislature(1999 - 2000)
05/14/1999 08:45 AM Senate C01
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 101-DISASTERS: DEFINITION & FUND
CO-CHAIR HALFORD called the Conference Committee on SB 101 to order
at 8:45 a.m. All members were present except Senator Parnell who
was attending a Senate Finance Committee meeting.
GEORGE UTERMOHLE, legislative counsel, Legislative Affairs Agency,
gave the following explanation of the differences between the final
House and Senate versions of SB 101.
Section 1, the intent section, is identical in both versions.
Section 2 amends AS 26.23.020(c). The Senate provided that a
disaster emergency can be extended by law. The House version
contains existing language that provides for an extension of the
emergency declaration by concurrent resolution and adds language
requiring the governor to state under which provision of the
Disaster Relief Act he intends to expend funds.
Section 3 of the Senate version is comparable to Section 4 of the
House version; both amend AS 26.23.025 which pertains to the
Legislature's role in regard to disaster emergencies. Subsection
(a) of the Senate bill requires that the financing plan relate to
the sources of money identified under AS 26.23.050. That statute
gives the governor authority to, on a sequential basis, first
expend money appropriated for disasters, then use funds from the
Disaster Relief Fund, and then use any other appropriated state
funds as necessary to respond to the disaster. The comparable
language in the House version requires the governor to set out, in
his disaster declaration and financing plan, more detail about the
source of the money and how it will be spent. Subsection (b) of
the Senate version states that any actions taken by the governor
that are not ratified by law during the regular legislative session
or during a special session following the declaration are void.
The House version retains the existing requirement that the
governor's actions be ratified by concurrent resolution.
CO-CHAIR HALFORD stated the Senate required an extension by law
rather than concurrent resolution because of court decisions. He
questioned whether the goal can be achieved with a resolution.
MR. UTERMOHLE said there is a serious legal question as to whether
the legislature could take action with a concurrent resolution.
MR. UTERMOHLE continued with the comparison of the House and Senate
versions of SB 101. Subsection (c) of the Senate version provides
that the legislature may terminate a disaster declaration at any
time by law. The House version retains the existing language which
allows the legislature to terminate an emergency by concurrent
resolution.
Section 4 of the Senate version amends the Disaster Relief Fund
statute (AS 26.23.300); neither bill proposes to change subsection
(a) of that statute.
The significant portion of this bill, particularly the amount that
the governor may expend in regard to a particular disaster, is set
out in subsection (b) and subsequent sections of Section 4 of the
Senate version. The comparable language is found in Section 3 of
the House version. The House proposes to address this issue as
part of AS 26.23.020 rather than use monies from the Disaster
Relief Fund, partly because the divisions have been expanded and do
not only relate to limitations on how the Disaster Relief Fund is
to be spent, but also because it places a cap on total state
expenditures. This language is more appropriately dealt with
outside of the Disaster Relief Fund statute. Both versions set the
first level of expenditures at $500,000 however the two bills take
slightly different approaches.
Number 122
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked Mr. Utermohle where the language should be
placed in statute if it is not placed in the Disaster Relief Fund
statute.
MR. UTERMOHLE answered the House version approaches that subject as
part of AS 26.23.020 which deals with the governor's role in
declaring a disaster.
CO-CHAIR HALFORD noted the Senate made that change with a floor
amendment.
MR. UTERMOHLE continued. The House version makes two changes to
subsection (b) of the Disaster Relief Act statute. One, it removes
the caps from statute, and two, it amends the statute so that it
sets out the purposes for which the fund may be used. It is
essentially a continuation of existing law but it conforms closely
to the removal of the caps.
Number 150
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked why both versions contain a $500,000
limitation if the House removed its limitation. MR. UTERMOHLE said
both versions have a cap.
MR. UTERMOHLE indicated the Senate version contains a $1,000,000
limit on expenditures from the Disaster Relief Fund. In order to
reach the $1,000,000 limit, the President must declare a federal
disaster. The House version places a $1,000,000 cap on
expenditures but did not tie it to a federal disaster declaration.
The purposes for which the $1,000,000 can be used are identical in
both bills, however the procedure to reach the cap differs.
Subsection (d) of the Senate version allows the governor to use up
to $5,000,000 to address a wildland fire. The House version does
not contain a cap on expenditures for wildland fires.
CO-CHAIR HALFORD asked if the House exempted wildland fires from
the limitations. An unidentified committee member said that was
correct. CO-CHAIR HALFORD noted the Senate agrees with that
approach.
MR. UTERMOHLE explained that subsection (e) of the Senate version
and the comparable section in the House version establishes a
procedure by which the governor would be allowed to exceed the
expenditure caps. Each house sets out a procedure to give the
governor additional expenditure authority if the legislature is in
session. If the legislature is not in session, both versions
provide for alternative mechanisms. The House version involves the
calling of a special session and legislative approval of a
financing plan, or an alternative procedure whereby the Legislature
can decide it did not intend, or need, to come into special session
to address the Governor's financing plan. The Senate version is
more detailed in that it provides for a written poll of all members
and a response from all members. That response would include the
legislator's feelings about the plan, understanding of the plan,
and opinion about the need to call a special session.
Number 206
CO-CHAIR HALFORD informed committee members that in the past
legislators have received a letter from the Governor in the middle
of the summer asking if they want to have a special session. The
almost universal response is immediately, "no". The problem is
that response has then been used to constitute approval of the
Governor's actions and whatever expenditures are made. The
provision in the Senate version was an effort to tie the response
back to a sense of the membership but that provision was adopted as
a floor amendment and is more extensive and expansive than it needs
to be.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked what will happen if one legislator does not
respond. MR. UTERMOHLE said an attempt to contact all members
should be made and a response should be received from a majority of
the members.
MR. UTERMOHLE explained the remaining two subsections relating to
the Disaster Relief Fund are identical in both the House and Senate
versions and are identical to comparable sections in existing law.
Section 5 of the Senate version, and Section 6 of the House
version, contain the definition of "disaster." The significant
difference is the inclusion of the term, "incidents such as" in the
House version. Other minor differences exist in the two versions
regarding which events might constitute a basis for declaring a
disaster.
CO-CHAIR HALFORD referred to a legal opinion written by Mr.
Utermohle on May 1 that deals with the phrase, "such as." The
Senate was concerned that the use of that phrase would
significantly broaden the definition. Mr. Utermohle responded in
his memo that use of "such as" may not be of serious concern
because the incidents must be of a similar nature to those listed.
CO-CHAIR HALFORD asked Mr. Utermohle if this interpretation was
correct. MR. UTERMOHLE clarified that the incident must be of the
same nature and quality, however that is subject to further debate
because it is ill defined. As an example, he noted incidents
that could be considered to be of a similar nature to be a
prolonged cold temperature period and a prolonged high temperature
period even though those incidents might have totally different
effects.
Number 280
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted a tsunami and tidal wave are
interchangeable terms in most people's minds. He asked if there is
a better way to describe storm tide disasters or wind driven water
disasters, and whether that issue warrants concern.
CO-CHAIR HALFORD replied that the term "hurricanes, tornadoes, and
storms" should cover such an event. CO-CHAIR MURKOWSKI commented
that the House got bogged down trying to find a solid definition
for all disasters.
CO-CHAIR HALFORD maintained that the committee needs to craft a
general statement regarding the process by which the Governor can
expend state funds in excess of spending limits when the
legislature is not in session or is not convened in special
session.
Number 318
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE expressed concern that polling all members of
the legislature could be a cumbersome process, especially if an
issue needs immediate attention. CO-CHAIR HALFORD stated the
polling process would not be used unless the governor plans to
expend funds that exceed the limit, and that emergency action would
begin immediately no matter what.
MR. BRETT HUBER, legislative aide to Co-Chair Halford, suggested
that committee members request limited powers of free conference to
adjust the language in that section by either removing the polling
requirement altogether or changing the written poll to a telephone
poll.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to the Miller's Reach fire and said
the expenditure limit was probably reached very quickly. CO-CHAIR
HALFORD said it was, however the State was not billed for its
expenditures right away.
MR. HUBER pointed out that the Senate version has a higher cap for
fire disasters than for other types of disasters, and that the
House version contains no cap on fire disaster expenditures.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE expressed concern that although legislators
want to be involved in the process, a mechanism should be available
so that the Governor can take quick action if necessary.
MR. HUBER said the Governor could ask that a special session
convene immediately, but in any case, a telephone poll of members
could be accomplished in less time than that required to convene.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE moved that committee members request limited
powers of free conference to address the process by which the
governor may expend state funds in excess of the spending limits
when the legislature is not in session or convened in special
session.
There being no objection, CO-CHAIR HALFORD announced the request
for limited powers of free conference would be made of the
presiding officers. He noted that once he receives a response, he
will contact committee members to schedule another meeting. CO-
CHAIR HALFORD then adjourned the meeting at 9:10 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|