SB 101 - DEFINITION OF DISASTER CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the committee would hear CS for Senate Bill No. (FIN) am, "An Act relating to disasters and to the disaster relief fund." [The final Senate version had been heard on April 20, and a subcommittee chaired by Representative Croft had met. The committee had just received, by fax, a new proposed committee substitute (CS), version 1-LS0625\W, Utermohle, 4/24/99.] Number 0085 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT called to order the meeting of the subcommittee, noting that members Representatives Phillips and Murkowski were present. He made a motion to refer the proposed CS, Version W, to the full committee for consideration. Noting that there was no objection, he then adjourned the subcommittee meeting. CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Representative Croft to explain Version W. Number 0163 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT told members that discussion with a number of different people had resulted in a couple of points of general agreement and a couple of points that still may be policy matters to discuss. First, there was general agreement that under one-half million dollars, and probably even under $1 million, there wasn't much concern of abuse by the governor. They had settled on needing legislature approval for amounts over $1 million. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that this applies mainly to the interim. When the legislature is in session it is easy to get approval or non-approval. Furthermore, because it costs just short of $1 million to hold a special session, it doesn't make sense to call one to approve an $800,000 expenditure. The more they had worked it, he said, the more it seemed appropriate to have general authority to spend $1 million and then, above that, to require consultation with the legislature. Number 0287 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT read from page 2, lines 13 through 15, which stated: "If the disaster described in the governor's proclamation of a condition of disaster emergency is a fire, the governor may expend state funds as necessary to save lives or protect property and public health and safety." He reported general agreement that there is no need to talk to the legislature before stopping a fire, and some comfort with blanket authority to do that. However, dealing with the consequences of a fire was a slightly different matter. The bill had read, "or cure the effects of it", which would be helping people recover, for example, giving them food or loans for their houses, he noted. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT specified that for amounts under $1 million, there would be broad authority. Over $1 million, if the legislature is in session, its approval would be required, as set out on page 2. If the legislature is not in session, and if there is a federally declared disaster, that is enough to provide a comfort level that it is appropriate, and those cases happen fairly rarely. However, if something else happens in the interim, the legislature must be consulted, as delineated on page 2, at the bottom, and page 3. There is either a special session or agreement by the presiding officers that there is no need for a special session. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT mentioned discussion in the subcommittee about whether the presiding officers would need to poll the entire membership, or even a majority of the membership. He pointed out that the committee had heard testimony that a polling requirement can be problematic in a disaster. Although Version W says just that the presiding officers are to be asked, he had requested that George Utermohle draft an amendment regarding polling, as a point of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT next referred to page 3, lines 5 - 13. He explained that the prior law had required the governor to provide a financing plan, but hadn't specified what that should include. In some disasters, the governor may have provided a sketchy memorandum just saying it would be paid for. Therefore, the subcommittee had defined "financing plan" using as a guide a memorandum to the governor from the House Finance Committee, dated November 24, 1998 [copy provided to members]. Number 0545 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS noted that the memorandum was regarding Bristol Bay. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT reported that specific types of information requested in that memorandum had been incorporated into Version W. A financing plan should now describe the amount of money, by fund source, including the amount of state match for federal funds - an issue in the past - that the governor proposes to use to cover the disaster, the estimated total expenditures, and the estimated time frame necessary. He suggested this balances the need for detail with the desire to not burden the governor with too much detail. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that they hadn't used the Senate's full recommendation on the definition. The current statute says, "disasters, including these types of things", whereas the Senate's wording was, "only these types of things". Concerns about the ability to list all disasters had been discussed at the previous committee hearing, and the subcommittee had reinserted, on page 4, line 2, "an event such as storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, avalanche, snowstorm, prolonged extreme cold, drought". Number 0650 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT told members that the first of two major policy-level choices for this committee is what mechanism for legislative approval there should be. For example, the presiding officers could be asked, as in Version W, or legislators could be polled, or use of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee (LB&A) could be required. The second major question is whether to try to define every type of disaster that will come up. Number 0749 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a motion to adopt as a work draft version 1-LS0625\W, Utermohle, 4/24/99. There being no objection, Version W was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS referred members to page 4, lines 2 - 4. She explained that many events could occur in the future that no one even considers now, because of technological advances, for example. The phrase "an event such as" leaves it open. Number 0816 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked whether agricultural disasters are defined separately in Title 3, or whether something needs to be inserted. She noted that the bill removes blight and infestation. CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Representative Croft whether those are contained in the economic disaster provisions. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that deleting an example isn't as catastrophic as deleting an item from an exclusive list. Number 0862 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned the recent potato late blight in the Matanuska-Susitna area. She noted that because of the timing, those folks were able to recover a lot. However, it would have been a disaster if it had stopped the crops altogether. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT read from page 3, beginning at line 30, which stated: "(2) 'disaster' means the occurrence or imminent threat of widespread [OR] severe damage, injury, loss of life or property, or shortage of food, water, or fuel resulting from". He noted that "such as" is similar to the "including" in the current statute. He suggested that even with the specific word omitted, a good argument could be made that it could be included. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that if there were a case of "mad cow disease," for example, all cattle in Alaska would have to be killed. CHAIR MURKOWSKI agreed that there is no way to predict all the types of disasters that ultimately may occur. Number 0949 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA pointed out that agriculture is affected by the same climate changes that affect fisheries. She asked: If there is a situation where people stand to lose their lives because of lack of food, is not one the same as the other? CHAIR MURKOWSKI responded that if the governor issued a proclamation of disaster, and if the financing plan stated that it would be in excess of $1 million, it would go into the approval process. She suggested that is where the checks would be, if there was disagreement. Number 1025 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to a bill she is sponsoring for the Division of Agriculture; that bill considers it an economic disaster if there is a weather failure three years in a row. She said the agricultural community feels they must plan to sometimes have bad crops, but three years in a row would be more disastrous. Number 1067 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that what is essentially left off the list are "weather condition", air contamination, blight and infestation. He suggested that if something fits the general category, the omission doesn't hurt. He stated, "I understand why, ... with the Western Alaska fishery disaster, that weather condition might be taken out for some of the more definitive listed elements. I'm not sure whether blight and infestation should be taken out. ... Most of the others that were on the list before, even in the Senate draft, were there." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to Representative James' three-year criteria. He pointed out that this is really an interim authority to spend under $1 million, because over $1 million, the governor would still have to ask. If the governor approved less than $1 million on any of these, the legislature could address it once back in session, he added. Number 1149 CHAIR MURKOWSKI informed members that George Utermohle, the drafter, was on-line to answer questions. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Utermohle if agricultural disasters are defined separately in Title 3 or would be included in the language in Version W. Number 1198 GEORGE UTERMOHLE, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, testified via teleconference from his office in Juneau. He said there is nothing specific in the language of this bill dealing with an agricultural disaster or crop failure. However, some events here might be classified as, or related to, an agricultural disaster, such as some of the weather conditions described, including drought or flood. An epidemic might also be related to an agricultural disaster. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that the burning of Mount McKinley Meats was certainly a disaster for people who had their animals there or who needed to take their animals there. She believes that was handled fairly well, and because Mount McKinley Meats is owned by the state, the state had to respond anyway. She noted that if it had been a private entity, there might have been some insurance money to take care of it. Number 1253 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested discussing whether the $1 million limit is enough. For example, if immediate action were needed and a guard unit had to be sent to a disaster area, he wondered whether this might throttle the governor's ability to respond properly. Number 1295 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said she doesn't believe so. If there were a federally declared disaster, that is one provision. In addition, the House and Senate leadership could clarify that they don't need a special session for the governor to address a disaster, which could happen almost instantaneously. Number 1319 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested that Carol Carroll could provide information. He said as far as he can tell, this was a 1977 statute, and the $1/2 million and $1 million were put in then. Number 1352 CAROL CARROLL, Director, Administrative Services Division, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA), indicated that because the DMVA would have the mechanism to go to the leadership to get almost instantaneous approval to go above the $1 million, she believes they would be comfortable with that. She explained that they start to be uncomfortable when, in contrast, there is a list of what must be done before going above that amount. She stated, "Like Mr. Liebersbach had said, prior, he could pick up the phone in a real bad disaster, and he could have obligated $2 or $3 million in a matter of minutes." Ms. Carroll concluded that because it is the way it is now, which is how it has been working in the past, she doesn't know how the DMVA would have a problem with it. Number 1402 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that as far as her history with the state, emergencies and disasters, this mechanism has worked. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA referred to Section 3(B), which discusses the convening of the legislature or agreement by the presiding officers. She asked what that time frame is. MS. CARROLL responded that there used to be a five-day turnaround time, to her knowledge. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked whether that is for response. She stated that when the governor sends the letter to the leadership of the House and Senate, regarding whether they will call a special session, they must act within a specific period of time. She asked Mr. Utermohle whether that is included somewhere else. Number 1485 MR. UTERMOHLE answered that there are provisions in the constitution relating to the calling of a special session. MS. CARROLL asked for confirmation that the governor has 15 days to convene a special session. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS affirmed that. MR. UTERMOHLE said there are two provisions in the constitution. One has a time limit, and one is a more of an emergency nature, without a time limit. Number 1509 CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether, in any draft of this bill that Mr. Utermohle has worked on, there were provisions specifying a five-day period in which to respond. She further asked whether that has been discussed. MR. UTERMOHLE replied that it hasn't been an issue in prior discussions regarding the draft, to his knowledge. Number 1529 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that AS 26.23.020 says a proclamation of disaster emergency may not remain in effect longer than 30 days. He asked whether that provision remains in effect, noting that in Section 1 of the bill, page 1, line 13, "law" is added and "a concurrent resolution" is deleted. MS. CARROLL affirmed that. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT then stated, "It can't last more than 30 days unless we approve it by law." He said he believes that change is because constitutionally they never could do it by concurrent resolution, and it should have said "law" to begin with. CHAIR MURKOWSKI said she understood Representative Cissna's concern, however, to be about time parameters within which the leadership needs to get back to the governor. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS responded that the time frame is in the letter to the leadership. CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether that changes, depending on the disaster. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said no, she doesn't believe so. Number 1580 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked who drafts the letter, and whether there is a proposed draft of a letter somewhere. MS. CARROLL explained that in current law, AS 26.23.025, the governor sends a letter to the leadership, along with a financing plan that states how much the disaster is estimated to cost. The letter asks the leadership if the governor should convene a special session within five days. The presiding officers answer back within those five days and say "yea" or "nay." To her belief, that is not included in AS 26.23.025 in Version W. Number 1641 MR. UTERMOHLE paraphrased from the current statute, AS 26.23.025(c), which read in part: "When the governor declares a condition of disaster emergency while the legislature is not in session, ... the governor shall (1) convene a special session of the legislature ... within five days unless the presiding officers ... agree that a special session should not be convened and so advise the governor in writing". Number 1690 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Mr. Peterson, as the sponsor's representative, why that wasn't included by the Senate. DARWIN PETERSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator John Torgerson, Alaska State Legislature, said it was never discussed in committee and may be an oversight. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS responded that she believes it should be added back into the statute. Number 1719 MR. UTERMOHLE suggested it is probably appropriate to put it in AS 26.23.020(j). REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether the old statute essentially said the governor shall call a special session within five days, unless the leadership has informed the governor it is not necessary. He suggested that a time limit, perhaps five days, is appropriate, as an irresponsible leadership conceivably could do nothing with the request, which would put everything in limbo. He asked, "Should the response be, 'The special session is called ... unless we tell you otherwise you've got to do it?" [There were affirmative responses by unidentified members.] REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said it seems costly but probably the ultimate thing that should happen. He asked Mr. Utermohle whether he can work that "five-day or else the governor shall call a special session" into AS 26.23.020. Number 1778 MR. UTERMOHLE affirmed that, adding that he'd like to see it worked into the bill. He said he suspects that he would add it on the bottom of page 2, the last four lines. Number 1810 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a motion to adopt a conceptual amendment, to add the five-day provision language in existing law to the language at the bottom of page 2. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that it would be subsection (j). CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether there was any objection. There being none, the conceptual amendment was adopted. She then asked whether Ms. Carroll wished to comment on Version W. Number 1842 MS. CARROLL acknowledged that the committee had worked to alleviate some of the DMVA's concerns, which she believes have been mostly taken care of, from her perspective. However, she didn't know whether Dave Liebersbach had seen Version W. CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether Mr. Liebersbach was able to receive a fax, then had a copy of Version W faxed to him. She asked the same of Mr. Alcantra. Number 1954 JOHN ALCANTRA, Emergency Management Coordinator, Kenai Peninsula Borough, responded via teleconference from Anchorage, asking that a copy of Version W be faxed to his office in Soldotna for review Monday. Although he hadn't seen Version W, from the comments he believes the bill continues to improve. Some issues had been addressed, such as the raising of the cap to the $1 million level, as well as discussion of the necessity of special sessions for particular dollar amounts. He pointed out that most disasters occur when the legislature isn't in session. For example, the summer months are prone to fires, such as at Big Lake, and floods are likely to happen in the autumn. MR. ALCANTRA said he believes this still rather hamstrings the administration. As the chief of staff for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), under disaster provisions he'd had more authority to spend money than is allowed the governor of Alaska. He believes there are still some problems with. He would like for the sponsor and others to meet with the state emergency response commission, as well as the local emergency planning committee association, which will meet in July and October in Anchorage. He believes there is a chance to have a very good bill, instead of just a little better bill. Although he expressed appreciation to all who had worked on the bill, he believes it probably shouldn't pass this legislative session. "With 25 or so days left in the session, I think there is much more important things on the legislature's plate than to try to rush this bill through," he concluded. Number 2099 CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether Mr. Liebersbach wished to add comments, but there was no response. She then asked the will of the committee. Number 2125 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a motion to move the proposed CS, version 1-LS0625\W, Utermohle, 4/24/99, as amended by the conceptual amendment, from the committee with individual recommendations and two zero fiscal notes. CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether there was any objection. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed the desire to hear from Mr. Liebersbach. CHAIR MURKOWSKI noted that Mr. Liebersbach is the person who would spend the money, basically. CHAIR MURKOWSKI called a brief at-ease at 4:04 p.m., calling the meeting almost immediately back to order. Number 2196 MR. ALCANTRA inquired about the amendment proposed by Representative Coghill at the previous hearing, which would have inserted the language, "per event". He asked whether it is now per event or per fiscal year. CHAIR MURKOWSKI informed Mr. Alcantra that although that amendment was not adopted at the 4/20/99 meeting, Version W provides, on page 2, lines 5 and 6, that it is $1 million per event. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed his understanding that this follows the same pattern regarding notification of the leadership of the House and Senate as in the current statute. CHAIR MURKOWSKI affirmed that. Number 2260 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether there are other times when [Legislative Council] is contacted about events that require legislative action. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS replied that if the legislature itself chooses to spend money, the Legislative Council will convene. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked for confirmation that all they are asking here is for the determination of whether there should be a special session. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS affirmed that. Number 2287 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed, pointing out that, in addition, the financing plan goes to the chair of the finance committee in each house; that was in the original statute and was moved. He referred to page 3, lines 5 - 13, then stated, "In effect, you do two things. If you want to spend over a million dollars, you get permission to do that, instead of a special session, from the leadership, and you tell the finance co-chairs about your financing plan. And we firmed up the details of that financing plan. ... The leadership is the sort of permission to spend the money. This is just an obligation you have to present the plan, in addition. ... I don't think it's a trigger on your permission to spend the money." Number 2327 DAVID LIEBERSBACH, Director, Division of Emergency Services, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, informed the committee via teleconference from Anchorage that he had no problem with Version W. Number 2340 CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether Representative Cissna was willing to withdraw her "semi-objection"; that was affirmed. Hearing no objection, Chair Murkowski announced that HCS CSSB 101(MLV), as amended, was moved from the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.