Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disaster Recovery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debates new disaster recovery fund, moves bill for further work
Summary
Representative Oda proposed House Bill 46 to create a state disaster recovery fund for immediate post‑disaster response; members praised preparedness goals but questioned dedicating approximately $17.4 million in potential loan repayments and creating a new fund rather than using the rainy‑day fund. The House voted to 'circle' the bill for additional work.
Representative Curtis Oda presented House Bill 46 to establish a state disaster recovery fund intended for immediate needs after a major event (examples cited included a 7.0 earthquake, pandemic, or terrorist attack). The sponsor framed the fund as an "immediate needs" pool for the first 96 hours after a major disaster to clear infrastructure and deploy emergency services rapidly.
Oda estimated that an initial startup payment could come from loan repayments (he referenced about $17,400,000 expected from a prior loan to a county) and discussed other possible sources such as a portion of rainy‑day surpluses or future appropriations. He argued that for every $100 million available immediately, the state could mitigate $500 million to $1 billion in downstream economic losses.
Members supported the preparedness rationale but challenged the approach. Representative Bigelow opposed setting aside $17 million now, arguing the state already has rainy‑day mechanisms and that creating a dedicated fund reduces flexible capacity for other priorities. Representative Mascaro asked about the repayment schedule for the Washington County loan and whether funds would be reliably available in time for an emergency; Oda said he did not have the exact repayment timetable on hand and suggested follow‑up with leadership.
Representative Dougal moved to 'circle' the bill so sponsors and members could refine details and funding sources; the motion to circle passed. The House did not take a final vote on the underlying policy and the bill will return for further consideration after additional work on funding and implementation details.
