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.