Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/20/1995 01:40 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL 55
"An Act repealing the sunset of the enhanced 911
emergency reporting systems."
SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON testified in support of SB 55. He
explained the legislation would repeal the delayed Amendment
provisions of the enhanced 911 emergency reporting systems,
as enacted in 1993.
Senator Torgerson indicated that there is a review of
federal and/or state funding for enhanced 911 systems. He
ascertained that a funding source for a statewide system
would be remote. At the same time, there are enhanced 911
systems in the State which are operating, and the State must
be assured of the ability to assess a surcharge to ensure
operations. He added that those systems have proven to be a
viable and critical service. The bill, SB 55, would remove
the "sunset" provisions resulting from the 1993 legislation.
He continued, the effect of the bill would allow
municipalities to continue to impose a surcharge for 911
services after July 1, 1996, and which in turn would provide
for the critical service of the enhanced 911.
Senator Torgerson spoke in opposition to Amendment #1
provided by Representative Brown. [Copy on file].
Representative Brown provided the Committee with a brief
history of the system. She stated that Alaska currently
does not have a universal 911 system although communities
are moving forward in developing a more sophisticated system
of E911. At this time, ten percent of Alaska does not have
any type of emergency response system. A number of other
communities have a basic system, but not the enhanced
service.
2
Representative Brown suggested the benefits in providing
middle ground communities the opportunity to use the same
mechanism that the larger communities have in place for
taking advantage of the E911. That system would provide for
an adequate public safety response system within the State.
She suggested ways of funding the statewide response system
which would not effect the revenue source to the existing
municipalities. Amendment #1 would expand the definition of
who could use the funds for a basic system.
Representative Brown summarized that there would be no cost
to the State associated with the proposed amendment. At
this time, in order to have use of the E911 system, a charge
to the users is attached at a rate of $.50 cents per month
for the larger communities and $.75 cents per month for the
smaller communities. Those fees are collected by the phone
companies and then passed on to the local government. The
local governments in turn use those fees to purchase
equipment.
Representative Brown pointed out that the sunset on the
original legislation would have removed the authority to
make the change next year. The effect of the amendment
would allow those communities to use that fund for any
aspect of their basic enhanced response system.
Representative Brown pointed out that there has been no
municipal opposition to the concept proposed by Amendment
KEVIN KOECHLEIN, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR THE MATSU
BOROUGH, MATSU, spoke in support of SB 55. He pointed out
that the most important service that government can provide
its citizens is emergency medical services and basic public
safety reporting systems. SB 55 would allow local
municipalities around Alaska to continue to provide enhanced
911 capabilities not only in the development and
installation of the systems but also the yearly operational
costs to the systems. He urged the Committee to implement
the proposed legislation promptly.
Representative Martin asked when the public would no longer
be responsible for paying the service charge. Mr. Koechlein
agreed that the municipalities should either reduce the
surcharge or reduce the tax dollars. He guaranteed that at
some point there would be a reduction to the public.
Representative Brown disagreed stating that the
municipalities would continue to use the surcharge in order
to maintain the dispatch services. She added that currently
Anchorage is spending over $5 million dollars per year for
costs associated with the response.
3
Representative Parnell elaborated that when the surcharge
was initially enacted, he understood that it would be
discontinued when the systems had been paid for. He asked
if the surcharge funded an entire communication system
currently in place or just the enhanced 911 system. Mr.
Koechlein replied that Matsu Borough understood that the
cost of the E911 system would include the software and
hardware for the mapping system and would also display a
primary response for the police or fire station. Also
included in that sum would be costs associated with the
telephone line charges, costs to maintain the data base and
the individual 911 tracking lines.
BOB GRIFFITH, SGT., ANCHORAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT DISPATCH
CENTER, ANCHORAGE, testified in support of SB 55. He added,
the Municipality of Anchorage generates $883 thousand
dollars revenue from the surcharge. Current expenditures
to support the 911 related service is $5.1 million dollars.
Representative Parnell asked what costs had been included in
the expenditure total. Mr. Griffith pointed out that 50% of
the dispatch operation costs amounted to over $5 million
dollars and did not include the operator expenses to
coordinate the response. Discussion followed between
Representative Parnell and Mr. Griffith regarding the
expenditures.
Representative Martin voiced his concern that the people of
Anchorage were paying for more than the E911 services. Mr.
Griffith reiterated that the costs to man the 24 hour
operation, which receives more than 12,000 calls per month,
plus the cost of operating the fire department, creates a $5
million dollar budget expenditure.
Representative Parnell agreed with Representative Martin
that the surcharge had been passed only to fund the cost of
the E911 acquisition. He asked if the acquisition costs had
been met and pointed out that the surcharge had not been
designed to pay for the personnel costs. Mr. Griffith
responded that the acquisition costs had been amortized over
a ten year period. In the meantime, the maintenance costs
associated with the E911 amounted to $48 thousand dollars
per year to maintain the municipal data base subscribers.
Mr. Griffith added that the legislation would provide
coverage of the associated telephone and personnel charges.
Representative Martin recommended extending the sunset.
Senator Torgerson stated that all municipalities were not
like Anchorage, pointing out that the Kenai Borough collects
$1000 dollars a month less than the cost of operation. He
urged members not to remove the sunset.
(Tape Change, HFC 95-57, Side 2).
4
STEVEN O'CONNOR, CHAIR, KPB 9-1-1 ADVISORY BOARD, SOLDOTNA,
stated that the Advisory Council supports the legislation to
repeal the sunset date, July, 1996. He added, following the
review recommendations from the Alaska Division of Emergency
Services, he encouraged Committee members not to adopt any
amendments.
Mr. O'Connor continued that the statewide E911 system as
currently proposed would be inappropriate. If the State
wants to develop an E911 system then they should do so with
general funds, a statewide user fee, or make that system
their priority as a capitol project to the Legislature. The
fee that the Kenai Peninsula Borough currently collects is a
user fee gathered to support the E911 system, not a tax.
Mr. O'Connor suggested creating a working committee upon the
passage of the legislation. That committee could consist of
technical specialists and E911 users to address
recommendations being made by the Alaska Division of
Emergency Services. He added that a statewide system should
come from the grassroots level and have input from local
jurisdictions and agencies.
CRAIG LEWIS, DIRECTOR, INTERIOR REGION, EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES, FAIRBANKS, encouraged the Committee to consider
Amendment #1 offered by Representative Brown. He advised
that the amendment would create a more fair situation for
rural areas to receive basic 911 services.
Co-Chair Hanley noted his concern that the amendment would
guarantee that the initial surcharge never be repealed. He
pointed out that the addition of the amendment would also
require a resolution and title change which could delay
passage of the legislation.
Representative Brown argued that the initial request for the
surcharge created conflicting intentions. She stated that
it would be used to "acquire, operate and maintain the
system". She pointed out that if a fee existed for larger
communities, other municipalities should be included, adding
that it would be appropriate for the local governments to
use the system.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #1.
Representative Mulder OBJECTED.
A roll call was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Navarre, Brown, Grussendorf
OPPOSED: Parnell, Therriault, Kelly, Kohring,
Martin, Mulder, Hanley
5
Co-Chair Foster was not present for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-7).
Co-Chair Hanley recommended the House Finance Committee
introduce at a later date legislation which would address
Representative Brown's concern as stated in the amendment.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report SB 55 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and with the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 55 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with zero fiscal notes by the Department
of Commerce and Economic Development dated 2/13/95, the
Department of Public Safety dated 2/13/95, and the
Department of Health and Social Services dated 2/13/95.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|