Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/05/2005 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB100 | |
| SB151 | |
| SB88 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 141 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 100 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 70 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 100(L&C)
"An Act relating to enhanced 911 surcharges imposed by a
municipality."
This was the second hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Green informed the Committee that the forthcoming
committee substitute was developed as the result of public
testimony to a similar bill she had sponsored the previous
Legislative session. The committee substitute changes are detailed
in a Memorandum from her office, dated April 5, 2005 [copy on
file]. The Memorandum also corrects inadvertent language omissions
in Sections 4 and 5, as requested by the bill drafter. These
changes would allow the bill "to apply to all municipalities,
regardless of organization, equally".
Co-Chair Wilken moved to adopt the aforementioned committee
substitute, CS SB 100(FIN), Work Draft Version 24-LS0407\S as the
working document.
Co-Chair Green objected for purposes of explanation. She reviewed
the changes as outlined in the Memorandum as follows.
Work Draft to CSSB 100 (FIN) "Version S"
Section 1. AS 29.10.200(37) is amended to include the enhanced
911 system under Home Rule applicability.
Section 2. AS 29.35.131(a)911 surcharge
Page 2
square4 Line 11 - $1.50 surcharge for wireline and wireless
(from $2.00)
square4 Line 23 - requires notification by the municipality
when the surcharge is assessed and when it is
changed.
square4 Line 27 - links the 911 surcharge to the federal
definitions.
square4 Line 29 - requires the Borough to reimburse the
municipalities for their expenses first and that
reimbursement shall occur at least every three
months.
Section 3. AS 29.35 is amended to include Private Branch
Exchange (PBX) phone identification to ensure that responders
go to the actual location of the caller.
Section 4. AS 29.35 is amended to apply to home rule and
general law municipalities.
Section 5. AS 29.35.131(h) is repealed (home rule
applicability).
Co-Chair Green noted that the proposed change to lines four and
five of Section 1, are supported by the bill's drafter. The
customer notification language being proposed in Section 2, page
two, beginning on line 23 is included because, historically, the
telephone utility has borne the responsibility for explaining to
their customers that they did not increase the rate on their own;
the cost of providing Enhanced 911 (E-911) is allowed to be passed
on to the ratepayer. In addition, aligning state definitions with
federal definitions would further clarify to municipalities the
proper usage of the E-911 or 911 "funds for the purposes for which
they were intended". This is specified in Section 2(a), page two,
beginning on line 27. This expense reimbursement language would
clarify that Boroughs with multiple Public Safety Answering Points
(PSAPs) municipal service areas within their boundaries and in
which the Borough is the primary collector of the E-911 surcharge,
must distribute those funds to the municipalities. She noted that
the primary purpose of E-911 systems is to provide emergency
responders both the location of the caller and the caller's phone
number.
Senator Bunde, the bill's sponsor, noted that SB 100 was developed
at the request of municipalities who, while being required to
comply with E-911 service regulations, had no funding mechanism in
place through which to pay the associated expenses. This bill would
provide that funding mechanism. He noted that several testifiers
were available to further explain the situation.
9:16:36 AM
JIM ROWE, Executive Director, Alaska Telephone Association,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support of the
Version "S" committee substitute on behalf of the Association's
fourteen-member companies that serve Rural Alaska. The hope is that
the bill would be adopted this Legislative Session. While the
original version of SB 100 proposed a $2.00 maximum surcharge limit
for E-911 services, the Association is in support of the $1.50
surcharge proposed in Version "S". "This is double the amount that
is currently charged". Language in Section 2(a), line 16, page two
would address "parity in the payment between wireless telephone
service and wireline telephone system". This issue is very
important to the members of the Association because of the
competition between wireless and wireline service carriers.
"Competitive neutrality is important" and if one service is
required to implement a rate increase on its service, then "the
competing service should also be required to do that". The language
incorporated into line 24, page two of Section 2(a) that would
require a municipality to inform the utility's customers about the
rate increase is important, as it would further clarify the reason
for the increase.
Mr. Rowe stated that the PBX and other telephone system language
identified in Section 3, page three, is an area that could easily
invoke confusion. In layman's terminology, there are "dumb PBXs"
and "smart PBXs". Smart PBXs are systems that are able to
communicate both the caller's phone number and location. There
would be costs associated with upgrading or replacing the older
"dumb" PBXs. Consideration should be given to specifying a time
frame in this legislation in which entities that provide telephone
systems must implement the required upgrade. In conclusion, the
Association supports the bill.
9:20:35 AM
TIM ROGERS, Alaska Municipal League (AML), testified via
teleconference from an offnet site and noted that, while he does
not have access to a copy of the Version "S" committee substitute
and therefore could not address it specifically, AML does not take
issue with the customer notification process that would be required
of municipalities. AML is, however, concerned about the proposal to
reduce the surcharge from $2.00 to $1.50, as AML considers $2.00 to
be a more reasonable amount based on some of the local government
needs. Nonetheless, the bill would be acceptable.
DON SAVICH, Wasilla Police Department, City of Wasilla, testified
via teleconference from an offnet site in support of the bill.
9:23:09 AM
BILL DOOLITTLE, Contract Project Manager, Municipality of Anchorage
911 System, testified in Juneau and informed the Committee that two
components of the bill could generate "significant impediments to
911 programs within the State". The first, located in Section 2(a)
line 26, page two, is the language specifying that "The
municipality may only use the enhanced 911 surcharge for phase I
and phase II enhanced 911 services, as described in 47 CFR 10.18 as
revised?" That specific code of federal regulations "only applies
to wireless carriers". This would, in effect, "block using the 911
surcharge for even a basic 911 system within the State".
Mr. Doolittle explained that the initial step in developing a 911
system is "the basic" 911 system, which allows 911 calls to be
made. An E-911 system, which is built upon the basic system, would
provide both the phone number and the address of the caller.
Wireless phase I capability, which would provide the address of the
cell site transmitting the call, and Wireless phase II capability,
which would provide the latitude and longitude of the handset
making the call, are programs developed upon the basic 911 and E-
911 systems.
Mr. Doolittle noted that the second significant matter involves the
issue of reimbursement to the municipality, as specified in Section
2(a), line 28, on page two. The language specifies that "A borough
must use the enhanced 911 surcharge to fully reimburse each city
within the borough for expenses borne by the city for the enhanced
911 services before the enhanced 911 surcharge may be used for
other expenses of the enhanced 911 system". He noted that "there
are necessarily some area-wide types of expenses, such as the "the
database management piece", that must be put in place" prior to the
911 system becoming operational. "The database management piece
aggregates the subscriber records from all the carriers" for the
location identification capabilities for the E-911 system. "This is
generally a super-jurisdictional area", and in addition to its one-
time start-up fee, continuous monthly expenses would be associated
with the maintenance of those records.
Mr. Doolittle continued that trunking and circuitry from each of
the carriers to the primary PSAP would also be necessary. In a
situation where there might be multiple PSAPs, there could be the
opportunity to identify municipal-specific expenses; "but they
would be equally reimbursable to all municipalities or a borough's
911 center". He offered "as an alternative" the ability "to
determine precedence of cost" of such things as database costs,
infrastructure costs, and technology costs. These components would
be less expensive were they aggregated among agencies. Doing so
would allow for some of the surcharge revenues to reimburse call-
taking and operational expenses associated with the 911-program.
The current challenge is that the existing surcharge program does
not allow reimbursement for many of these costs, and, as a result
of an inadequate surcharge, many 911 programs are operating at a
deficit.
Co-Chair Green asked what specific changes would be required to
address these concerns. The purpose of this legislation is to
remind the collectors and the recipients of the 911-surcharge that
the funds are generated for "specific use", as defined in federal
law.
Mr. Doolittle pointed out that there are two classes of carriers:
local exchange carriers who are regulated at the local level and
wireless carriers who are regulated by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). Therefore, two sets of rules govern such things
as surcharges and collections. The federal government has allowed
each state to establish its own 911 program. As a result, 50 unique
programs exist in the nation, and 27 states impose differing rates
for the two carrier systems. Therefore, State "statute is what
directs or allows what a local level 911 program would be". As a
result of interaction with numerous municipalities and boroughs in
the State, it has been determined that "one of the challenges" is
achieving an inter-local agreement about the scope of services and
the scope of the 911 program. Current statutes provide wide
latitude to municipalities in that regard. "Many municipalities and
boroughs are challenged" in regards to specifying the roles and
responsibilities and the allocation of surcharges. "The priority of
those costs could be specified on a Statewide basis based on the
reality of how you make those expenditures. But really the needs
and configurations of dispatch centers within a borough or
municipality ? is a local selection". The local public safety
agencies "get to choose who will dispatch for them". This would
include decisions regarding whether to have a radio dispatch center
and 911-call taking and service area responsibilities.
Mr. Doolittle concluded that some alternative language regarding
these issues could be developed and provided to the Committee.
However, being unsure as to whether the Committee wished to further
delay the bill, he noted that there "is great support for the bill
as written today", and his comments could be viewed as cautionary
in regards to how some of the language is written and the
challenges it might create.
Co-Chair Green voiced the desire to correct the bill in Committee
rather than allowing it to move out of Committee "flawed".
Co-Chair Green noting that Mr. Doolittle's first concern dealt with
the federal regulations, asked for further clarification regarding
his second concern.
Mr. Doolittle verified that the federal concern involved tying the
surcharge to Phase I and Phase II. His second concern dealt with
"reimbursement to municipalities as a priority".
Co-Chair Green acknowledged and asked whether Mr. Doolittle
understood the issue the legislation was intended to address.
Mr. Doolittle assured that he understood, as he has worked with a
number of municipalities. There "is a question regarding program
scope and accountability to municipalities within boroughs", as not
all 911 programs hold monthly, quarterly, and annual meetings. The
scopes of many programs are not published and explicit. "It would
be very easy to have that requirement. It is very simple and
straight forward to do that on a local level."
Co-Chair Green asked how the issue could be addressed in State
Statute.
Mr. Doolittle suggested that there be a requirement "that a 911
program explicitly document the scope of the program and
reimbursement to agencies". This would establish "the groundwork"
for establishing a mechanism through which to address "a bona fide
request" for reimbursement from an agency.
9:31:15 AM
AT EASE 9:31:41 AM / 9:39:45 AM
Co-Chair Green stated that upon the conclusion of today's public
testimony, staff would work with "experts" to further develop the
bill's language.
Co-Chair Wilken voiced being pleased that the bill would be further
refined as he has a few problems with it; specifically whether a
surcharge level of $1.50 would be appropriate. Continuing, he asked
regarding the home rule city within second-class borough situation
that exists in Fairbanks; if the City of Fairbanks is responsible
for the 911/E-911 system and they wished to adjust the rate, the
question is who would vote on the issue: the residents of the City
or the residents of the Fairbanks North Star Borough.
Co-Chair Green asked for further clarification as to which entity
manages the 911-system.
Co-Chair Wilken affirmed that the City does.
Senator Bunde speculated that the vote would depend on who the
subscribers of the telephone utility system were: whether the
subscriber base was limited to the City or included other areas of
the Borough.
Co-Chair Wilken noted that he would ask the community to provide
the answer to this question.
STEVE HEBBE, Lieutenant, Anchorage Police Department, Municipality
of Anchorage testified in Juneau and agreed with Senator Bunde that
anyone assessed the surcharge would vote on it. Therefore, were the
surcharge borough-wide, there would be a borough-wide vote.
Allowing only the City subscribers to vote on an Areawide surcharge
would prevent the borough-wide subscribers from having a voice in
the matter.
Co-Chair Green understood therefore that anyone residing in the
telephone service area should be provided the ability to vote on
the issue. It should not be limited solely to the residents of the
City of Fairbanks.
Lieutenant Hebbe affirmed that anyone to whom the surcharge rate is
charged should have the right to vote on it.
Co-Chair Green asked Mr. Rogers his position on the issue.
Mr. Rogers concurred with Lieutenant Hebbe that the entire service
area should vote.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that his office would develop a definitive
answer to the question.
Co-Chair Green agreed, as she recalled the issue of whom should be
charged the surcharge was the crux of Fairbanks residents'
discussions last year during the discussions on her bill.
9:44:18 AM
Senator Bunde commented that the intent of the language, as
drafted, was to provide "that combination of flexibility for the
municipality and protection from the municipality" in that the
people in the service areas would be allowed to vote regarding the
surcharge assessment. How this would affect other divisions in the
area should be further clarified.
CHUCK KOPP, Kenai Police Department, testified via teleconference
from Kenai and recounted that, in 1985, the Kenai Peninsula Borough
included three home rule cities: Kenai, Homer, and Seward and one
first class city: Soldotna. Each had their own 911 program
supported by residents of that particular city. Eventually, all
four cities transferred their individual authorities to a singe
borough-wide authority to which all borough-wide residents paid a
surcharge. The situation in Fairbanks mirrors that of the Kenai
Peninsula in that the City of Fairbanks has agreed to manage the
911-program for the entire Borough, Therefore, the entire borough
would vote on the surcharge. A single unified 911 system should be
the preferred choice instead of a "fragmented" system, which was
originally the case in the Kenai Peninsula Borough. He appreciated
the Committee's work in addressing this complicated issue and he
supported moving the bill forward.
Mr. Kopp supported Mr. Doolittle' comments regarding the
establishment of program management guidelines. "Any borough that
has 911 authority must have a program, documented, that explains
how the program is managed", to include language addressing the
program's reimbursement methodology.
WALT MONEGAN, Police Chief, Municipality of Anchorage spoke in
Juneau in support of the bill. He noted that the Anchorage Police
Department is the manager of the Anchorage PSAP of which Lieutenant
Hebbe was the commander. He voiced appreciation for the efforts
being exerted regarding the surcharge. The bill is supported "in
that every dollar that is now being utilized to subsidize the
shortfall could be reallocated to its proper duties". Addressing
the funding shortfall "would effectively enhance all public safety
efforts within our municipality".
Senator Olson asked Mr. Monegan his position in regards to the
proposal to reduce the surcharge from two dollars to $1.50.
Mr. Monegan voiced the preference for a two-dollar surcharge.
Adopting a two-dollar levy would provide "more breathing room" for
managers and would negate the expense of possibility being required
to conduct an election to increase the fee over time.
Senator Olson asked whether "a significant decrease in service"
might occur absent that fifty-cents.
Mr. Monegan replied "not at this point".
JOHN FULLEMWIDER, Fire Chief, Municipality of Anchorage, spoke in
Juneau and stated that a great deal of discussion has occurred in
regards to the language in this bill and changes that should be
made. While he, like Mr. Monegan, supported the bill as written, he
opined that a few changes could be made to further enhance it and
make it a "little bit more palatable from the borough's
standpoint". He reiterated Lieutenant Hebbe's remarks to the effect
that the Municipality of Anchorage "does not have a dog in that
fight". Representatives of the Anchorage fire and police community
are testifying today "because of public safety issue". When people
call 911, they anticipate that the call would be answered and that
the response would be to the correct location, regardless of
whether the call is made from a hardwire or wireless phone. "That
is what this legislation is all about ? it's the ability to turn
the switch on so that we can find you or somebody else that has a
cell phone and go forward". Anchorage has been "the first" to
address the wireless issue, but the communities of Fairbanks,
Kenai, Nome, and Juneau "are right behind us". He asked the
Committee to support the legislation.
Co-Chair Green requested that those willing to work on revising the
bill's language to address the issues raised by Mr. Doolittle, work
with her and Senator Bunde's staff in that regard.
Senator Hoffman asked whether information could be provided in
regards to how the Alaska State Troopers' Department of Public
Safety, emergency services system operates on a statewide basis.
STAN HERREA, Director/Chief Technology Officer, Enterprise
Technology Services, Department of Administration responded that
the Department's role in the 911 program is two-fold in that the
Department of Administration and the Department of Military and
Veterans Affairs jointly house the coordinator for the Statewide
911 program. The Department's role with regards to the 911-
coordinator "is to ensure compliance with the law, or the statutes
that are established, for 911". This would include such things as
the collection of the surcharge and the compliance with the terms
within the legislation. The Department of Public Safety's
commissioner, William Tandeske, "has voiced concern about the
affects of the collection of 911 surcharges; specific ? to the Mat-
Su Borough and how that affects the PSAP and ? the role of the
Alaska State Troopers in that". The question is "who is actually
getting the funds verses who is having to provide the services". He
stated that a Department representative would work with Co-Chair
Green's staff to address language revisions.
Senator Hoffman commented that 911 programs must be operated 24
hours a day, seven days a week, year-round. To that point, the
question is how the Alaska State Trooper 911 program is manned and
funded, specifically as it applies to responding to Rural calls for
assistance from anywhere in the State. A response from the Alaska
State Troopers would be appreciated.
Co-Chair Green responded that the Troopers would be contacted for a
response.
Co-Chair Wilken asked to withdraw the motion to adopt Version "S".
There being no objection, the motion to adopt Version "S" as the
working document was WITHDRAWN.
Co-Chair Green ordered the bill HELD in Committee in order to
further modify its language.
9:56:29 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|