Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/30/2004 08:05 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.] Number 0024 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first 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 0044 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered his understanding that a motion had been made at the [4/29/04] meeting to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB 461, Version 23-LS1633\Z, Cook, 4/28/04, as a work draft and an objection had been made to that motion. [No further discussion took place regarding that objection, the committee treated Version Z as adopted.] Number 0085 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 3, Line 22 Delete "resolution or" Page 3, Line 31 Delete "resolution or" REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected [for discussion purposes]. Number 0100 MATTHEW RUDIG, Staff to Representative Jim Holm, Alaska State Legislature, testifying on behalf of Representative Holm, sponsor of HB 461, explained the purpose of Amendment 1 is to clear up language in current statute. Number 0150 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM withdrew his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0169 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 3, Line 26 Insert after company ", competitive local exchange company" Page 4, Line 21 Insert after company ", or a competitive local exchange company" CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM indicated that Amendment 2 defines what [the local companies] are. Number 0245 MR. RUDIG said Amendment 2 clarifies that all phone companies in the state are covered under the bill. Number 0281 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH removed his objection to Amendment 2 and asked if there was any further objection. There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 0339 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt Amendment 3, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 5, Line 26 Insert after company "competitive exchange company, wireless reseller," REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for discussion purposes. MR. RUDIG clarified how the language would read with Amendment 3. In response to a question from Chair Weyhrauch, he confirmed that, in formulating the amendments that the committee is considering today, he had some contact with the following: the Alaska Municipal League (AML), the National Emergency Numbering Association (NENA), [Alaska Communication Systems, Inc. (ACS)], and [General Communications Incorporated (GCI)]. Number 0495 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN removed his objection. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any further objection. There being none, Amendment 3 was adopted. Number 0509 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt Amendment 4, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 5, Line 24 Delete "(1)" Insert "(6)" REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected. MR. RUDIG directed that committee's attention to page 2, lines 16-20, which 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. MR. RUDIG explained that Amendment 4 is a cross-reference [to that language]. He added, "And that was the suggestion of [Gail] Voigtlander, [Department of Law]." Number 0587 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN removed his objection. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any further objection. There being none, Amendment 4 was adopted. Number 0608 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt Amendment 5, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 4, Line 28 Delete "address" Insert "statement" CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected. Number 0644 MR. RUDIG offered his understanding that Amendment 5 would help phone companies delineate between residential and commercial properties. Number 0653 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if a series of buildings rented out as apartments would be considered commercial or residential. MR. RUDIG answered that "it would be per residential line in ... an apartment building." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said people get a statement in the mail and numerous people may get statements within one address. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that he is trying to figure out if there are any situations in which there are multiple residents in one place with only one statement generated. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM clarified that [the statement] would be sent to the address. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH removed his objection. He asked if there was any further objection to Amendment 5. There being none, it was so ordered. Number 0738 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt Amendment 6, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 4, Line 24 Insert after company "or wireless reseller," REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected. MR. RUDIG observed that Amendment 6 is similar to the previously adopted Amendments 2 and 3; it is all-inclusive. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN withdrew his objection. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there were further objections. There being none, Amendment 6 was adopted. Number 0975 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the committee would hear public testimony. Number 0882 LINDA FREED, City Manager, City of Kodiak, emphasized that HB 461 is an important issue to the City of Kodiak, which is the regional public safety answering point for the entire Kodiak area. She said the city operates the enhanced E-911 system for the Kodiak road system. She stated that the most important portion of the bill is [Section 4], which would, by ordinance, give the city the ability to set a levy at the appropriate level for the community. She said, "We would urge your passage of this legislation, so that it may go on to the [House] floor and perhaps to the Senate and get ... passed this year." Ms. Freed offered to answer questions. Number 0960 MS. FREED, in response to questions from Representative Seaton, revealed that [the City of Kodiak's] current charge is at a cap of 75 cents per month, per line. She predicted that the city would continue to subsidize with other tax resources, such as its sales tax. She said, "I believe the city council would look at trying to recoup some additional revenue from the levy, but would not levy the entire amount to pay for the whole system." MS. FREED, in response to a question from Chair Weyhrauch, noted that another portion of the bill that [the city] likes is that it would be able to "use the funds to help pay for dispatch services." She continued as follows: E-911 is only the calls coming into the center; we actually have a large infrastructure built up to have the calls go out of the center. So, we spend, roughly, $500,000 annually to operate our E-911 and emergency dispatch center. So, we bring in roughly $45-50,000 a year from the current levy. So, it's a substantial local government subsidy, through sales tax. Number 1061 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 4, [beginning on line 16 through line 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. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Freed, "Do you support that limitation on your local power?" MS. FREED answered yes. She said she interprets that language as allowing a broader use of the funds. She added, "We don't intend to use any of the levy that we might be able to assess for actual response activities." Number 1115 DAVID GIBBS, Emergency Manager, Kenai Peninsula Borough, told the committee that he is a resident of Soldotna and administers the 911 program for the borough. He stated that the borough applauds the increased local control over the surcharge assessment, because it will enable the borough to recover more [money]. Currently, all the municipalities in the borough run a deficit of approximately $1.8 million and collect approximately $650,000 in surcharge revenue. The cost for all of the jurisdictions, including all of the cities, is approximately $2.5 million for 911 and dispatch services. MR. GIBBS noted that the bill does not define the term "emergency services dispatch", and therefore he suggested adding a definition to AS 29.35.137, based on the national standards of either NENA or the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). The definition should include computer-aided dispatch and other processes by which an alarm received at a communication center [is] transmitted to an emergency response facility or to emergency response units in the field. MR. RUDIG noted that there was a definition of "emergency services dispatch" and he doesn't know why it was pulled out. Number 1260 MR. GIBBS, in response to a question from Representative Berkowitz, noted that one of the definitions to which he had referred could be found in the NFPA standard 12.21.1221. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked how the public would benefit from having that definition included in the bill. MR. GIBBS answered as follows: Well, in our situation, in the Kenai Peninsula Borough, the borough assumes the responsibility for call-taking, E-911 services. Many of the cities, for example, Kenai, Homer, and Seward, actually provide dispatch services. One of the ... concerns we have about this bill: If the Act doesn't clarify how revenues are to be collected and disseminated, based upon the differing services amongst differing municipalities. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked why it wouldn't be okay for the municipalities to "figure it out themselves." Furthermore, he asked why the legislature would want to "put it in state statute to tell you how to disseminate the funds to individual municipalities within a borough." He offered his understanding that the Kenai Peninsula Borough is a second class borough, which he said is the same as the Fairbanks [Northstar] Borough, where the dispatch center is run by the City of Fairbanks, not the borough. MR. GIBBS replied that [the Kenai Peninsula Borough] runs the centralized call-taking facility and dispatch center. He added, "We also have a borough-run dispatch center and the cities also run dispatch centers." Number 1352 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he hopes that definition will be included in the bill. He noted that "all the other terms are defined under [AS] 29.35.137. Number 1365 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Mr. Gibbs if he is saying that he would like to see the revenues go to 911 receiving centers, but that he doesn't want to see them funneled off to fund local dispatch systems, such as "regular police and fire" dispatch systems. MR. GIBBS stated his concern is that if the revenue collections are not adequate to cover "the total cost of both services, we're going to be faced with a situation on how to allocate those revenues between multiple jurisdictions." Number 1410 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH turned to the definition, which read as follows: "emergency services dispatch" means a service offered by a municipality that provides continuous day and night dispatch of emergency medical, police, fire, or rescue services using enhanced 911 facilities. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Representative Berkowitz if he would offer that as [Conceptual Amendment 7]. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "I would offer that if we strike the term 'by a municipality', because it's not always offered by a municipality." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that [Conceptual Amendment 7, as amended] would read: "emergency services dispatch" means a service offered that provides continuous day and night dispatch of emergency medical, police, fire, or rescue services using enhanced 911 facilities. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected [to Conceptual Amendment 7, as amended, for discussion purposes]. Number 1450 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if that definition comes from the NFPA source previously referred to by Mr. Gibbs. MR. GIBBS answered he doesn't know. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the committee look at the definition referenced by Mr. Gibbs, because it is apparently a well-defined term. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he would like to take action on the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that if ["enhanced 911 system"] is defined in Title 29, then it needs to be referenced in the amendment to Title 9, in Sections 1 and 2 of the bill, otherwise "they won't necessarily look back at Title 29 for the definition." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested a conforming amendment. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH removed his objection to Amendment 7, [as amended]. He asked if there was any further objection. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Does that require that it be an enhanced 911 system, or is that just an option under that definition?" Number 1535 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM noted that the title of the bill deals with enhanced 911 and 911 emergency dispatch systems. He suggested that the word "enhanced" could be deleted. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 2, line 17, which refers to "emergency services dispatch system or an enhanced 911 system". He said, "So, presumably, some of these places might not have enhanced systems." REPRESENTATIVE HOLM reiterated that "emergency services dispatch systems" is in the title of the bill. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked again if there was any further objection to Amendment 7, [as amended]. There being none, Amendment 7, [as amended], was adopted. Number 1588 MR. GIBBS turned to Section 4 of the bill, which would amend AS 29.35.131(a) by authorizing a surcharge, based upon each exchange billing statement for wireline telephones. He stated, "We, as a borough, strongly encourage the existing language to remain, where the charge is based on access lines for wireline telephones." He noted that many addresses have numerous wireline telephones, and the borough's costs for maintaining, for example, ALI [automatic location identification] database information are not reduced by virtue of telephones' sharing the same billing address. He continued as follows: By only authorizing one surcharge per billing address, the state is requiring those people with one telephone line to subsidize those with more than one telephone line to their billing address. MR. GIBBS added that imposing a surcharge based upon billing address is (indisc.) national practice. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said, "Basically, ... this is a motion to rescind our action in adopting Amendment 5, which deleted "address" and inserted "statement". He offered his understanding that Mr. Gibbs wants the word "address" added back. MR. GIBBS clarified, "Actually, we would encourage the charge to be based on access line, which is the language of the original bill version." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH observed that Mr. Gibbs was referring to the language on page 4, lines 28-29, which read: "on a local exchange billing address [ACCESS LINE] for a wireline telephone." Number 1681 MR. RUDIG said the point of enhanced 911 is that the responder will go to the office from which the call originates. Therefore, it is fairer for people in a residence with multiple lines to only pay one surcharge. He said it was a compromise worked out with AML; the intent was not to have those people charged for their modem and facsimile lines, for example. Number 1745 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, regarding the previously adopted Amendment 5, directed attention to page 4, line 5, and suggested that Amendment 5 be made conceptual, to cover any other places in the bill where "billing address" should go. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated, "So noted for the record, to make it consistent; I'll just write that on the amendment." Number 1766 MR. RUDIG, in response to a question from Representative Berkowitz, offered his understanding that an access line is "any line you can dial 911 from." He noted that the definition could be found in AS 29.135.137. Number 1824 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ sought clarification as follows: I'm sort of seeing three schemes that are emerging here, and this is why I wish this was over in the RCA. Access lines - pretty much every phone gets a charge. Statement means if you bundle it, that could be like a big bundling. And, I guess, in between those two is per address. So, if you want to do it [so that] everybody pays based on their phone, it's access line. If you want to do it ... only per customer, you would do it [by] statement, because whether [or not] you're ... the biggest company in the world, you can get one statement. And if you want to do something in between, you'd do address. Is that right? MR. RUDIG offered his belief that it is the intent of the sponsor that each residential member who has multiple lines in his/her home pays one enhanced 911 surcharge. A business with multiple lines would pay a surcharge on each line. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM added, "That's correct - up to 100." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified that the distinction is between residential and commercial, but he said commercial could still be on an access line basis. MR. RUDIG said he believes that's correct. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that the discussion is in regard to phone lines, not phones themselves. He said, "You may have 10 phones in your house ... accessing one line, or you may have three lines." Number 1896 MR. GIBBS proffered that the borough also pays a charge per access line for maintaining the database information. Presently, that charge is approximately 18 cents per line, which comes off the top of the 75-cent surcharge per access line. He said the expectation is that charge will rise as new [automatic location identification (ALI)] database maintenance agreements are made. MR. GIBBS stated a concern regarding billing statements for which the revenues may be improperly distributed among the municipalities. For example, in the Kenai Peninsula Borough, many residents from outside of the cities - but still technically in the borough - use a billing address at post office boxes inside the city. Mr. Gibbs suggested that there may have to be a better mechanism for distributing the costs and collecting the revenue associated with delivering the services. Number 1939 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there is any distinction made if a business is operated out of a home. MR. RUDIG said he doesn't know. He surmised that it would depend upon the local exchange companies, because those companies have different rates for residential and commercial [lines]. Number 1974 MR. GIBBS said: Remember that telephone companies only provide telecommunications; they don't inquire as to the purpose of the occupancy. Our jurisdiction would be severely challenged, in terms of resources, to ... compare telephone subscriber records with business licenses or building permits, to determine the type of occupancy. So, we would have no way of determining whether it's a residential line or business located within a residence. MR. RUDIG related that he has been told that telephone companies can make that distinction. Number 2018 STEVE THOMPSON, Mayor, City of Fairbanks, emphasized that the city supports HB 461, Version Z, and the amendments that were just adopted. He said, "We think this is really going to help pay for that emergency dispatch and phone-taking services." He noted that Version Z would replace language, which would result in the city being able to enhance its 911 system and pay for that service. He added that he thinks it's important for and will help the entire state. He thanked Representative Holm and Mr. Rudig for their efforts in introducing HB 461. Number 2061 JIM HARPRING, Member, National Emergency Numbering Association (NENA), directed the committee's attention to page 4, line 7. He mentioned the difference between residential billing addresses versus large, industrial areas, in terms of revenue. He offered an example of a hospital where there would be multiple lines, but only one billing address. He observed that that concept doesn't "appear to be any place in the current [bill version]." MR. RUDIG stated that it would be the purview of the committee whether to [allow] more municipal control regarding exemptions. Number 2156 BILL DOOLITTLE, Project Manager, Municipality of Anchorage, told the committee that he manages the upgraded 911 system. He stated his support of HB 461, because he said it would show significant improvements for 911 programs, statewide. He offered to answer questions. Number 2188 GAIL VOIGTLANDER, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide Section Supervisor, Torts and Worker's Compensation Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, stated that if a definitional section is added for emergency services dispatch, it needs to be consistent and have language that ties it to the service, rather than who provides that service. MS. VOIGTLANDER directed attention to page 2, lines 16-22, [text provided previously], and said that she supports having a definition that "cross-references whatever definition is adopted for Title 29." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Ms. Voigtlander to look at the bill again when "the next committee substitute of this bill comes out," to ensure that it addresses those issues. Number 2283 JAMES R. JACKSON JR., Attorney at Law, General Communications Incorporated (GCI), stated that GCI supports a bill that can help with the provision of E-911 service. He noted, however, that there are issues in [Version Z] that need to be addressed. First, he emphasized that it's important that the bill ensure equal charges between wireless and wireline phones. The current proposed language, he noted, says that the municipality "may" impose a charge. He explained that since the language is permissive, a municipality could choose to charge only wireline, and not wireless, or vice versa. He suggested that language be added to require that a municipality that elects to impose a charge must impose the same charge on both wireless and wireline phones. In response to a question from Chair Weyhrauch, he offered his belief that that language could be added to Section 4. Number 2350 MR. RUDIG responded that it would be the purview of the committee to make that decision. He added, "We may want to stay back to local control and lobby that at the municipality level when they make the decision to impose a surcharge on both." MR. JACKSON, returning to his testimony, stated, "We are, frankly, quite bothered by the fact that there is no cap whatsoever on the charge, at this point." TAPE 04-74, SIDE B Number 2368 MR. JACKSON mentioned the possibility that some jurisdictions may try to impose charges of over $6 per line. He surmised that that's what would be needed in Kodiak and perhaps Kenai to recover all the costs, "even if today they don't think they would go that high." He indicated that charges that go that high would create a substantial issue in imposing "this level of cost on telephone service." He posed: "I guess we have to, to some extent, question the underlying premise that this is a charge which is appropriate to collect entirely from telephone users." He said it's not that the telephone system is imposing these costs on society. In some ways, he explained, it's the opposite of that; the telephone system enables a valuable public safety service to be provided. He continued as follows: Certainly, some of the costs are related to a per line basis. And I think Mr. Gibbs, from Kenai, mentioned that they pay 18 cents per access line to maintain the database. So, certainly, there are some costs that are still on a per access line basis, but at the same time, in large part, this isn't just simply [a] valuable safety service, which our society has deemed desirable, that should be paid for through general tax revenue. So, we believe that a cap should be imposed. The amount of money that can be collected from approximately ... 600,000 wireline and wireless telephones across the state -- you really start talking about normal sums of money, if you're talking about charges that start being [$3-$5]. We have, in the past, supported the versions of the bill that have had caps of $1. As to the cap, we do think it's a good idea to have a limit on the number of charges that apply to a user that has more than 100 access lines, such as exists ... under present law. It would be, for instance, hospitals and that type [of] thing that was mentioned previously. MR. JACKSON, regarding the previous question regarding whether or not telephone [companies] distinguish between residential and business users, stated, "It's certain that we do try to." People who run businesses from home should be paying a business rate. Number 2253 MR. RUDIG mentioned the "magic number" and trying to figure out what it is. He indicated that the emergency dispatch service surcharge system and related costs could change from year to year and the legislature should revisit the issue each year. Number 2210 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated that one of the problems to rectify through the bill is that the control is not at the municipal level, because that makes it difficult for municipalities to function. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Mr. Jackson to "provide language" to the committee. Number 2142 JOHN FULLENWIDER, Fire Chief, Municipality of Anchorage, stated that when people in Anchorage call 911, they expect that the call will be answered and the services they need will be provided right away. He stated, "This bill goes a long ways in allowing us to do just that. In its current form, it will allow local government to place the expense of operation and maintenance squarely where it belongs, and that is, of course, on the user." He said Representative Holm and Mr. Rudig have done an excellent job with HB 461. MR. FULLENWIDER noted that there still is an issue regarding the PBX system. He added, "However, I believe that yesterday that was covered, using the capitol as an example." He noted another issue in regard to telephone companies and adding surcharges to the bill. He said, "No doubt they receive a little heat concerning these charges, but this bill, by allowing local government to set the surcharge, should alleviate some of that concern." Mr. Fullenwider encouraged the committee to move [HB 461] out of committee. Number 2083 MARK MEW, President, Alaska Chapter, National Emergency Number Association (NENA), regarding a previously stated concern of Mr. Gibbs over whether or not 911 surcharge money could be used for a CAD [computer aided dispatch] system, suggested looking at the definition of the 911 system in existing statute. He said permissible costs are listed there. He continued as follows: We changed that in the statute - I'm going to say it was in '99 or 2000, at the same time we added the wireless surcharge for the first time - and expanded what was in the definition of a 911 system, specifically to cover CAD systems. At that point in time, we weren't conceiving of separate dispatch and 911 centers, necessarily, but that was our thought at the time, and it may be that that definition is already there and in place to allow for those expenses. MR. MEW said he's heard a lot of discussion during the previous testimony regarding whether billing should be based upon a phone bill, an address, the telephone itself, or the local exchange access line. He said he thinks there is some confusion about definitions, and he suggested that "we" may be trying to solve a nonexistent problem. He noted that NENA, on the national level, has set standards. He revealed that an access line is not the same as "a telephone set at the end." He explained, "You can have a few access lines and a lot of sets." He continued as follows: The national standards are to base your billing on access lines for the purpose of landline - wireline, and on telephone numbers, for [the] purpose of wireless. And I think we're not the first ones to have this debate, and I think I'd encourage you to consider the national standards; they're well thought out, well published, and everyone understands them around the country. Number 1936 When NENA started working on legislation about a year ago, we held our first meetings with the House in October, before the session started - that was with a different committee. But over the course of the last few months, NENA has identified nine items that we believe need addressing in our statutes. We filed our version of the bill - that was [HB] 499 - and later tried to get [HB] 499 and [HB] 461 merged. I commend everybody's work on this. A lot of things have happened in the last 24 hours; a lot of concerns we had yesterday have been addressed, and I do hope the bill moves in some form today. I would like to point out, though, that of the nine things that NENA has tried to accomplish, this bill takes up three of them head on and deals with them. The other ... five ... this bill doesn't conceive of at all, and it seems to be missing around the edges on the local exchange access line issue. I think the state needs to deal with the additional issues. I don't know if we'll get it done in the Senate, or if we'll have to do it next year, but remaining to be accomplished [is] dealing with the issue of phase two cost recovery. That's mostly, I think, going to be an industry issue, and if we don't deal with it, I think there'll be quite a bit of friction and a few battles in the future. Number 1900 MR. MEW mentioned "prepaid wireless." He noted that he had heard today that wireless resellers is being added to the language of Version Z. He said he doesn't know if that would cover prepaid wireless, or not. He added that it seems it would, but he doesn't know if there is a collection mechanism there. He said the issue of statewide point of contact has not been addressed. If it is not addressed, the state will not be eligible for significant federal funding, which will be available soon. He indicated that the issue of unincorporated boroughs has been addressed. MR. MEW said the last item he would address is the private switch ALI. He continued as follows: Mr. Fullenwider ... used the capitol example. I think the situation is worse than that. I've been told - I can't confirm it - that you could work on the North Slope, call 911, pass out, and the Anchorage Police Department would get the call and ... would send first responders to Alyeska [Pipeline Service Company's] offices ... in Anchorage. What we would like is the ability of local jurisdictions to be able to enact legislation, so that we can correct those issues. Right now, the situation is you could spend all the money you wanted on building a functioning 911 system, and other people could buy services that, essentially, would negate what you've done. MR. MEW said the aforementioned issues are ones that he hopes [the legislature] will address in the future, and he said he hopes that "the bill moves forward in some form today." Number 1845 ALLEN STOREY, Lieutenant, Central Office, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), expressed excitement about the provisions of Section 1, on page 2, [lines 16-20], because the addition of that language will provide "protection to the state that ... will be enjoyed by municipalities." He indicated that these are functions that the state already performs. In response to a question from Representative Holm, he confirmed that the bill, in its current form, would have a zero fiscal note. Number 1806 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that public testimony was closed. He mentioned a letter of intent. Number 1794 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the second line in the letter of intent and asked, "Are we talking about [the] Division of Homeland Security, within the Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs?" CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested that "the Division of Homeland Security" could be left out, in order to keep the language generic. MR. RUDIG said that would be fine. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that "we simply say, 'It is the intent of the legislature that the Coordinator be established to coordinate'." REPRESENTATIVE SEATON added, "to coordinate and facilitate". Number 1682 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that the amendment to the letter of intent would read as follows: It is the intent of the legislature that a state 911 Coordinator be established to coordinate. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to the amendment to the letter of intent. There being none, it was so ordered. Number 1660 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH removed his previously stated objection to Version Z. Number 1649 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHB 461, Version 23- LS1633\Z, Cook, 4/28/04, as amended, out of committee, with individual recommendations, attached fiscal note, and the [amended] letter of intent. There being no objection, CSHB 461(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|