Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/11/1993 01:00 PM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 166: ENHANCED 911 SYSTEMS Number 050 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES addressed the second committee substitute (CS) to HB 166 produced in subcommittee. He testified, in part, "What I want to try to do is solve some minor problems that I have... and I'm offering these in the spirit of trying to make some minor improvements that I think will help the bill along. ...One is just a minor one: There was some language in there that said the municipalities could accomplish this in instituting this enhanced 911 system by resolution or by ordinance. ...It was my feeling it would be better to do this by ordinance... The committee substitute really gets rid of the word 'resolution' in there and also changes the construct of the sentence so that the three things a municipality is being authorized to do here, it's clear that each one of those three things is done by ordinance. Number 142 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES continued, "The second one...is a question of what is the area of service... My concern that I raised at the last committee meeting is we might get into a situation where we had multiple jurisdictions involved... If we went back to the original bill (HB 166), before the committee substitute, there was language in there that talked about how to handle (this), so basically all I've done is taken that language from the original bill and put it back in here... It says that the bottom line power to set the charges rests with the individual communities. My basic concern here is that we don't get into a situation of sort of taxation without representation... However under Title 29, municipalities may join together to exercise power..." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES added, "The last one is simply this question of upper limit of what can be charged. I asked a number of people why we were making a distinction between Anchorage, effectively, and the rest of the state...nobody gave me an answer that suggested there was any particular reason to do that. So I simply suggested in this committee substitute that we should get rid of all that language that talks about 100,000 people and simply set the maximum at 75 cents. Recognizing that...every community, every municipality sets its own upper limit." Number 201 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 166, reminded the committee that HB 166 was introduced concurrently in the Senate and said, "If we change it substantially then we've got a problem: Conference Committee." CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked where the Senate version was presently. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE did not know. He added, "I have no problem with the idea of an ordinance rather than a resolution... Regarding, the 75 cents charge, I think reality says that when we say, 'no more than 75 cents,' the charge will be 75 cents. The 50 cents limit was supported by the Anchorage municipality. There is some indication that Anchorage may not want to support a greater charge than that... I'm not sure that the change to 75 cents total something that will be supportable..." Number 267 PHILLIP REEVES, DEPUTY ATTORNEY, KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH, testified via teleconference from Soldotna. He said, "We don't have any problem with changing things from resolution or ordinance to ordinance. However, the changes that are proposed for the next section would apparently cause us to have to totally restructure 911 as we operate it at this time. What we do is, about 6 or 8 years ago each of the cities relinquished their 911 authority to the borough so that the Kenai Borough provides 911 on an area-wide basis...the cities themselves do not have direct input on the operation and do not have the financial involvement in the operation." MR. REEVES continued, "...We've reached an agreement like a contract, but our agreement is that the borough will do it itself, so we're not a separate legal entity. And we're certainly concerned that each of the municipalities retains the power to set and amend the surcharge when the municipalities aren't involved in the operation... So I guess what we'd suggest...first of all instead of saying 'a separate legal entity', you say 'a unified or cooperative enhanced 911 system'..." He then gave a detailed explanation of the changes he'd like to see made to CSHB 166. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "My concern is that the way this bill (HB 166) was originally written it seemed that it was possible for one municipality without the consent of another to set this rate..." MR. REEVES said, "I haven't read this bill (HB 166) to see whether or not this alters those facts, but under Title 29, I think the authority of a municipality is limited to its jurisdiction unless it meets the specific extraterritorial (criteria)." Number 416 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "That was specifically my concern, that this bill (HB 166) would give the municipalities that legal authority to extend their power outside their boundaries for this purpose." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked, "Would it address your concerns if this (line 29 of the first CSHB 166) were to read 'the municipalities are jointly to set and amend the 911 surcharge'." MR. REEVES said, "I just got this this morning and didn't really have a chance to think about both sides... I think at this point I still have a concern unless it clearly somehow states that where some municipalities have given up their authority and transferred the authority to another municipality, that the municipality that now has the authority is the sole interest involved in setting those charges." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES offered to construct an amendment to address Mr. Reeves concerns. Number 461 ROCKY ANSELL, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, GLENNALLEN FIRE DEPARTMENT, testified via teleconference from Glennallen. He said, "You have my support on this bill (CSHB 166). I do have one question though, I see most of the language referring to municipalities and I wonder if there's going to be any mechanism for the unorganized areas...to take a part in this enhanced 911 project." CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "At the present time, the very lack of organization is, in fact, the answer to the question. There is no legal entity to channel the funds back through from the utility, as I understand it." Number 477 MR. ANSELL described his situation, "Currently, the Copper Valley telephone cooperative in the area of the Copper River Basin provides 911 service, and to me it looks like it should be fairly simple to develop a mechanism for that utility to make direct payment...for that surcharge if they're allowed to collect these monies from their individual customers." CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked if Copper Valley extended into Valdez. MR. ANSELL replied, "Yes." CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "Valdez could be the municipality serving the entire Copper River Valley telephone geographic area." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES added, "Under Title 29, a municipality may exercise powers extraterritorially." REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY added, "At their request." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "Absolutely." Number 511 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OFFERED an AMENDMENT to Mr. Reeves. MR. REEVES tentatively concurred. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES offered to "get together and work out some language that would be mutually acceptable". JOHN GEORGE, ALASKA STATE FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION AND THE ALASKA STATE FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, testified, "We support the concept of enhanced 911. We believe it's important that we have a funding mechanism and this bill (HB 166) does it..." He suggested that "and other essential communication equipment required by the system" be added throughout the versions of CSHB 166. Number 569 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I think it's redundant... That extension that you have in there is effectively incorporated within." MR. GEORGE said, "If that's clear... if that's legislative intent." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES reiterated the definition sought by Mr. George was already incorporated in CSHB 166. Number 583 LARRY FANNING, FIRE CHIEF, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, testified briefly in favor of CSHB 166. BOB EVANS, LOBBYIST, MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE, testified in favor of CSHB 166, saying, "Mayor Fink has indicated support for the 50 cent surcharge." Number 600 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked why Mayor Fink did not support the 75 cents surcharge. MR. EVANS did not know. Number 609 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE talked about limiting the surcharge. He asked Mr. Evans if he thought Anchorage would charge less than the surcharge limit or if whatever the limit was set at would "become the rate" charged. MR. EVANS said, "From the mayor's perspective, I think that he believes the pressure will go to whatever the limit is." Number 625 CHAIRMAN OLBERG called an at ease at 1:47 p.m. CHAIRMAN OLBERG reconvened the meeting at 1:52. He pointed out the committee had two different committee substitutes to HB 166 before them. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I've just received information that the City of Fairbanks is this evening going to pass a resolution favoring my original committee substitute plus the concerns expressed by Anchorage and Kenai, I would MOVE my original committee substitute, I think that would accomplish what I want to accomplish more quickly." CHAIRMAN OLBERG acknowledged the MOTION to ADOPT Representative Bunde's CSHB 166. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED and said, "If I understand correctly, the concern is simply the question of the 75 cents. If that's the only concern, the simplest way would be to adopt the version that I suggested and then amend that back to put the 50 cent language back in there. Number 640 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE retorted, "As I had indicated, there is a large portion of the second committee substitute that addresses some specific Fairbanks concerns and now that I hear that they're going to endorse my original version, I suggest we just go ahead with that, rather than complicate things." CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "Possibly it boils down to a pride of authorship question." Number 663 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Davies and Willis voted AGAINST the adoption of Representative Bunde's committee substitute. Representatives Bunde, Sanders, Toohey, Williams and Olberg voted FOR the adoption of Representative Bunde's committee substitute. Number 667 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE denied that a "pride of authorship" existed. "I feel that this is going to more cleanly address the problem of enhanced 911," he said. Representative Bunde then MOVED that CSHB 166 be moved out of committee with individual recommendations. Number 684 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED and said, "It's always the case, however, in this stage of the legislation, amendments are made. If they weren't, there would be no point in us hearing these things... With respect to resolutions that are made: People pass those resolutions at the municipal level knowing that things are going to get changed slightly." TAPE 93-12, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES PROPOSED an AMENDMENT saying, "I would like to SUBSTITUTE the language that's in my version, the second version of the committee substitute. That would be the language on page three of that draft that comes from line 14 down through line 22 and would REPLACE the language that's in the one that's before us right now on page three, line 14 through 20." Number 025 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he had no objection to the amendment. The AMENDMENT PASSED. Number 047 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I'd like to MOVE the second item which is on that same page three on the second committee substitute, line 23, on page four, line seven and SUBSTITUTE in the one that's before us from line 21 through line five on page four... All I want to do is to substitute the language that's here (to) make it more clear...what is meant by the area and to address the concern that we don't want to establish a principle in law here that says one municipality may effectively establish a tax or surcharge on another." Number 074 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE OBJECTED saying, "In this case, as I said, being Fairbanks took a look at this and didn't have a major objection... I suggest we go ahead with my original version (of the CS)." Number 092 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Are there portions of that amendment that you are willing to keep in?" REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "No." The roll was called on AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO to the first version (Representative Bunde's version) of CSHB 166. Representatives Davies and Willis voted FOR the amendment. Representatives Sanders, Williams, Toohey, Bunde and Olberg voted AGAINST the amendment. The MOTION FAILED. Number 119 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES MOVED that "we strike the language that restricts the upper limit to 50 cents and use the language that makes it consistent 75 cents statewide..." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken on the THIRD AMENDMENT proposed to the first version of CSHB 166. Representatives Davies and Willis voted FOR the amendment. Representatives Sanders, Williams, Bunde, Toohey and Olberg voted AGAINST the amendment. The MOTION FAILED. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE reminded the committee he had a MOTION on the floor to pass CSHB 166 out of committee with individual recommendations. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES REMOVED his previous OBJECTION. The MOTION PASSED to move CSHB 166, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations. CHAIRMAN OLBERG thanked Representative Davies for his efforts on CSHB 166 (CRA). Number 170
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|