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.