Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/29/2004 08:04 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 461-EMERGENCY SERVICES DISPATCH/911 SURCHARGE [Contains discussion of HB 499 and SB 335.] Number 0600 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 461, "An Act relating to enhanced 911 surcharges and to emergency services dispatch systems of municipalities, certain villages, and public corporations established by municipalities." Number 0620 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB 461, Version 23-LS1633\Z, Cook, 4/28/04, as a work draft. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected. Number 0718 GAIL VOIGTLANDER, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide Section Supervisor, Torts and Workers' Compensation Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, noted that she did not have a copy of Version Z; therefore, her comments would be in regard to CSHB 461(CRA). She directed attention to Section 7 [which is Section 8 in Version Z]. She stated her concern is that "there is a difference in the immunity that's granted." She explained as follows: The immunity under AS 09.65.070(d)(6), which relates to local government, covers ... policy issues, discretionary functions, and operational functions. The citation in that same section for the state, which is AS 09.50.250(1), ... points towards (indisc. - microphone interference) kinds of ... policy decisions other than operational acts. And so, my concern and my suggestion to the committee would be to revise it so that the state is having the same degree of protection as our local government, under their statute. It's simply a "wordsmithing" difference between the state's statute and the immunity statute for a local government. MS. VOIGTLANDER suggested language that would "cover both of those areas and include the same exception that is included in 09.65.070(d)(6)." She offered to send that language by facsimile. It read as follows [original punctuation provided]: No civil action for damages may be brought against the state or an incorporated unit of local government, or their employees, based on the establishment, funding, use, operation, or maintenance of an enhanced 911 or emergency services dispatch system or any toll-free, default public safety answering point, and all activities associated with these systems, which is not based on an intentional act of misconduct or on an act of gross negligence. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH told Ms. Voigtlander that the committee would send her a copy of Version Z by facsimile. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Ms. Voigtlander to look at page 2, line 16, when she receives the copy of Version Z to see if that's the same language to which she is referring. Page 2, [lines 16-20] read as follows: (6) is based on the exercise or performance of a duty in connection with an emergency services dispatch system or an enhanced 911 system, including providing, maintaining, or operating any toll-free, statewide default public safety answering point, and is not based on an intentional act or omission amounting to misconduct or on an act or omission amounting to gross negligence. Number 0788 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the main difference between the two sections is that the language on page 2, lines 16-20 of Version Z only immunizes the state. Number 1093 LINDA FREED, Manager, City of Kodiak, told the committee that she does not have a copy of Version Z; therefore, she hopes her comments are "appropriate and timely." She expressed appreciation toward the proposal that the levy against the city's phone bills be used to help pay for the emergency dispatch system. She said the City of Kodiak currently pays approximately $5,000 for its dispatch system and receives approximately $42,000 in revenue annually from telephone bills. She noted the increase in levy from 50 cents to a dollar would be applied to a billing statement, rather than a phone line and, while on the surface it may be seem like an increase in revenue, the city believes that it will have a greater gap in terms of revenues versus cost. She said, "If, in fact, it is the ... committee's perspective that we need to charge per billing address, we believe - at a minimum to keep us whole - that we need to see a $1.50 charge per billing address, because on average, Kodiak residences have two lines going into their homes." She encouraged the committee to allow local governments to establish a levy, in consultation with their population, to pay for the systems that the communities want to put in place. Ms. Freed also expressed concern with the section in the bill regarding the routing of 911 calls. Number 1192 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM informed Ms. Freed that the language has been changed in Version Z so that the municipality can choose what to charge; therefore, those who make those charges will be answerable to those within the municipality. He suggested that Ms. Freed may want to listen to the ensuing testimony, because it may answer her questions. MS. FREED indicated that that change in the language would be acceptable. Number 1261 KEVIN RITCHIE, Alaska Municipal League (AML), stated that HB 461, in its simplest form, is democracy in action; it would allow communities the authority to make the decisions that effect their own residence. He stated, "We'd like to thank the sponsor for considering community so strongly and the relationship that the local people have with their local elected officials, and we think we'll do it, if not perfectly, at least very close to exactly right." Number 1291 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to the concerns of [Ms. Freed], noted that on page 4, [line 5, of Version Z], the language would be changed from "[ACCESS LINE]" to "billing address". He asked Mr. Ritchie if he thinks giving communities the ability to choose whether to charge by access line or billing line would solve the problem. MR. RITCHIE responded that he is not the best person to answer the question. Notwithstanding that, he said his impression is that "this is workable." Number 1359 MATTHEW RUDIG, Staff to Representative Holm, Alaska State Legislature, offered a background summary of HB 461, on behalf of Representative Holm, sponsor. He continued as follows: House Bill 461 gives municipalities local control. ... We are changing statute to give municipalities the flexibility to charge what they need to recover the costs of an ... enhanced emergency dispatch system. Enhanced 911 is a relatively new innovation in rescue technology .... It can pinpoint the visual location or phone number of a caller so the [emergency medical technician (EMT)] unit can know the exact location of an emergency and be able to act rapidly. There's little debate to the merits of this service. Municipalities have established this system all over the country and it can save lives. The State of Alaska recognized this a few years ago when it enacted enhanced 911 legislation in ... 2001. Currently in statute, a municipality may charge up to ... 75 cents per month, per [caller], for the system. But by adopting this legislation, we are giving municipalities the ability to recover the costs of the operations of enhanced 911. We are allowing the municipality to make that decision - for their constituents and for the members - of what they want to charge and what they can recover. We have a system in place, a building, and the technology of enhanced 911; however, we have no mechanism in statute that will allow municipalities to recover that cost. Therefore, municipalities are forced to shift that burden directly to the property tax payers. MR. RUDIG emphasized that municipalities would not be able to charge "willy-nilly." He specified that language that would set limits was on page 4, lines 15-19, which read as follows: The municipality may [ONLY] use the enhanced 911 surcharge for the enhanced 911 system and for the actual labor and equipment used to provide emergency services dispatch, but not for costs of providing the medical, police, fire, rescue, or other emergency service, or for any other purpose. MR. RUDIG stated that the [municipality] cannot use the funds from the surcharge in any other manner and must review its costs annually. He noted that cities and boroughs currently are using property tax dollars to recover their costs. Essentially, he remarked, "not all the users of the service are paying for their service." He stated that [HB 461] is a way for the legislature to give the municipalities the ability to cover the cost of a working, operational system. There is no language in the bill requiring a municipality to impose the surcharge; the legislature would just be providing the opportunity to do so. Mr. Rudig urged the committee to consider [HB 461], and he offered to answer questions. [Chair Weyhrauch handed the gavel to Vice-Chair Holm.] Number 1532 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated the question he previously asked of Mr. Ritchie, regarding access lines versus billing addresses. He asked what the reason was for the proposed change to only billing address. MR. RUDIG noted that that change was made by the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee. The reason, he explained, is that some people may have seven different phone lines in one household and would have to pay seven surcharges if the charge was made per access line. He pointed to page 4, line 27, and noted that the language had been changed to "residential", thus, a business could be charged for multiple lines, but a residence would not be. He said that change was a compromise between the sponsor and the municipalities. Number 1699 DAVID GIBBS, Emergency Manager, Kenai Peninsula Borough, stated that he administers the 911 program for the borough. Currently, the borough collects $650,000 in surcharge revenue to try to offset the cost of all the municipalities in the borough of approximately $2.5 million, and he indicated that there is a need to increase the surcharge. He said he has nothing further to add, regarding Version Z, because he had only just received it. Number 1679 JIM ROWE, Executive Director, Alaska Telephone Association (ATA), stated that ATA represents 14 local telephone companies throughout the state serving rural areas of the state. He noted that he also was not aware of Version Z, and he observed that many changes had been made. He said an aspect that people in rural communities are interested in is that there be a public safety answering point (PSAP). He clarified that the people want a real person who answers the phone in response to a 911 call. He informed the committee that that's not the case in the rural communities. He observed that [Version Z] doesn't address this issue. Number 1751 MR. RUDIG directed attention to [Section 8 of CSHB 461(CRA)], which read as follows: *Sec.8. AS 42.05 is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec. 42.05.295. Routing 911 calls. Notwithstanding AS 42.05.711, to ensure statewide access by all residents to 911 wireline services, traditional or enhanced, for areas where there is no local or regional public safety answering point, the state shall provide a toll-free, statewide default public safety answering point to which each local exchange telephone company must route all 911 calls originating from within its customer service base. MR. RUDIG indicated that the Department of Public Safety informed him that it could not support the bill, because [Section 8] would cause an indeterminate fiscal note. It would also require the department to rush into something for which it is not prepared. Mr. Rudig indicated that the department would need to coordinate with local police, EMTs, and volunteer fire departments on a statewide basis, a process that would take time. He explained that that section was removed from Version Z, not because it isn't a good one, but because of the aforementioned concerns. MR. ROWE suggested that "the public process here is somewhat failed," because the issue is one that needs more discussion. He noted that most of his companies have not had a chance to look at Version Z. He mentioned HB 499 and SB 335, and he said there are varying caps of amounts that a municipality would be allowed to charge - HB 461 having no cap. He said he thinks that's a situation that would make many of the [telephone] companies nervous. He observed that many local telephone rates currently are rising. He stated his main concern is regarding the failed public process; the public hasn't had a chance to consider how much the phone bills may be raised. He suggested that the committee could be hearing other testimony. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH responded, "Before we give a grade, the class is incomplete." Number 1885 SCOTT WALDEN, Fire Chief, City of Kenai, stated that the City of Kenai is "generally in favor of the intent of this bill." He echoed the previous testifiers remarks that he had only recently received Version Z. He indicated that the City of Kenai would like to see the bill moved forward, with additional input addressing what the cap would be on a surcharge. He said the City of Kenai agrees with the City of Kodiak that the surcharge should be a decision made on a local level, because of differences in expenses. He encouraged the committee to continue taking testimony and to move forward on the bill before the end of the session. Number 1925 ALLEN STOREY, Central Office, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), confirmed that [DPS] did have concerns regarding [Section 8 of CSHB 461(CRA)], but that it has been deleted from Version Z. He indicated that he had planned to address that issue, and would if necessary. He offered to stand by to answer questions. Number 1971 JIM HARPRING, representing the National Emergency Numbering Association (NENA), told committee members that he has not seen Version Z and his testimony is directly related to CSHB 461(CRA). He stated his concern is with the concept in [Section 8] and the federal mandate effective date of September 2001. He said, "With that portion gone, I'd like to reserve my testimony now." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that Version Z would be made available, and the bill would not be moved out of committee today. He suggested that those testifying call the sponsor's office to work out any issues they may have with the bill. Notwithstanding that, he encouraged those testifying to offer their conceptual ideas. Number 2046 ROB HEUN, Deputy Chief, Anchorage Police Department, indicated that local control may address problems associated with surcharges applied to wireless billing statements. He also mentioned surcharges per billing address and said the issue might be addressed once he has had an opportunity to look at Version Z. He reminded the committee that Anchorage was the first in Alaska to implement wireless 911 phase-two service, the full costs for which are still being compiled. He stated, "Our mission was to avoid going to the legislature next year, or each year afterwards, to adjust the surcharge, and I hope the local control will help with that." He expressed a concern as follows: In jurisdictions across the state, numbers that are hidden behind a PBX [private branch exchange] pose a particular problem to first responders. No doubt, the capitol building itself is a good example. If someone in one of your offices was to call 911, the emergency responders would be compelled to search the building for the specific location of the emergency if no witness was aware [of] or available to provide the exact source of the emergency's location within the building. MR. HEUN, in conclusion, asked the committee to continue to address "this public safety issue," because it brings to light issues that cannot be ignored. He expressed his hope that the bill be moved forward "in the version that you've compiled." Number 2115 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM told Mr. Heun that allowing the municipalities to charge commercial or larger buildings based upon what they determine is appropriate will allow for more charges per site. He indicated that would mean better control over "where those 911 inputs are coming from." He surmised that it would have to be worked out on a case-by-case basis, because it would not be desirable to have every room in every building "be a responder." MR. HEUN responded, "It would depend on whether it's a PBX or a Centrex." He said he is looking forward to viewing the latest version of the bill and possibly discussing the issue. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said, "It really doesn't address that; it just addresses the residential portion that makes it so that there's only one charge for the residence." He stated his concern is more in regard to compensation for providing the service and not so much in the difficulty within providing it. MR. HEUN said he understands Representative Holm's position. He stated his concern is for public safety. Number 2183 TIM ROGERS, representing the Alaska Municipal League (AML), stated his belief that Version Z addresses the concerns of Ms. Freed regarding the number of surcharges per line, by virtue of the fact that a surcharge could be determined by the local governing unit. He stated support for providing 911 service statewide. He said he thinks the bill will help, because it would allow for additional revenue source for local government in setting up a PSAP. However, he recognized that every place will still not have 911 service available, and he said [AML] wants to find a resolution to that problem and would work with the ATA and anyone else to come up with a solution. MR. ROGERS reminded the committee that, in the past, a good deal of the revenues to support dispatch centers and acquire new 911 equipment have come from the Safe Communities Revenue program and the '73 Matching Grant program, both of which were phased out last year. He urged the committee to pass [HB 461]. Number 2272 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Mr. Rogers if there generally is a difference in the expense of the system, per line or address, between smaller and larger communities. MR. ROGERS answered that he thinks there's a huge difference. For example, he noted that the Fairbanks area is currently operating at a revenue shortfall of $4.2 million, which works out to approximately $4.63 per line [per month]. The City of Kodiak operates on a revenue shortfall of $533,000, which works out to approximately $5.88 per line. The Anchorage shortfall, he estimated, is somewhere in the $2.00 [per line] range, currently; however, with the additional cost of the wireless phase two, he said he thinks that amount will increase significantly. Number 2331 DON SAVAGE, Police Chief, City of Wasilla, stated that he has concerns regarding CSHB 461(CRA) and over the PBX issue raised by Mr. Heun. He stated that one of the original intents of HB 461 appeared to be a mechanism for cost sharing when there is more than one PSAP or dispatch center. He observed that that seemed to have been dropped from the bill, which concerns him. TAPE 04-71, SIDE B Number 2368 MR. SAVAGE said cost sharing could be an issue in some of the large communities that have more than one municipality within their 911-authority area. He said he looks forward to viewing Version Z. Number 2351 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he would like a definition of "emergency service dispatch system". He mentioned page 2 and noted that there is no mention of reckless conduct. He remarked that reckless conduct is frequently mentioned, and he asked, "Why are we doing what I feel is more likely to be the RCA's [Regulatory Commission of Alaska] work here?" STEVEN DeVRIES, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial/Fair Business Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, offered his understanding that the reason the issue is not directed to the RCA is because the legislature had previously exempted 911 or E-911-related activities from the jurisdiction of the commission. MS. VOIGTLANDER added the following: The case law in Alaska, which kind of has dumped off the restatement of tort, equates the term ... or the standard of gross negligence with the term or standard of recklessness. So, on previous bills, I believe our testimony is fairly consistent that ... including both [terms] is duplicative. Number 2234 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ characterized [the surcharge] as a tax on individuals which exempts larger entities - corporations in particular that pay per billing statement, not per line. He said it seems unfair that the individual is being disproportionately afflicted by this tax. Number 2220 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that HB 461 was heard and held.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|