Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/02/2004 08:05 AM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 2, 2004
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Morgan, Chair
Representative Kelly Wolf, Vice Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Tom Anderson
Representative Albert Kookesh
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 499
"An Act relating to 911 systems."
- HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE
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."
- HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 499
SHORT TITLE: 911 SYSTEMS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HEINZE
02/16/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/04 (H) CRA, L&C
03/02/04 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 461
SHORT TITLE: EMERGENCY SERVICES DISPATCH/911 SURCHARGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HOLM
02/16/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/04 (H) CRA, STA
03/02/04 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JON BITTNER, Staff
to Representative Cheryll Heinze
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of the sponsor of HB 499.
MARK MEW, Chapter President
National Emergency Number Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the goals of HB 499.
JIM HARPRING, Chair
Legislative Subcommittee
NENA Alaska Chapter
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Highlighted that HB 499 provides enabling
language for communities to address concerns with regard to 911
service.
ROBERT RUFUS, Member
NENA
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 499, answered
questions.
JIM ROWE, Director
Alaska Telephone Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 499, expressed
concern with regard to liability.
BILL DOOLITTLE, Project Manager for 911 service
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT:
MARK JOHNSON, Chief
Community Health & Emergency Medical Services
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that [the department] supports
the concept of HB 499 and HB 461.
ED OBERTS, Mayor's Assistant
Office of the Mayor
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 499, indicated that
there needs to be regulatory reform. During discussion of HB
461, noted his appreciation for any assistance from the state.
STEVE O'CONNER, Assistant Chief
Central Emergency Services;
Chair, Kenai Peninsula Borough 911 Committee
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 499.
MATTHEW RUDIG, Staff
to Representative Jim Holm
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of the sponsor of HB 461.
STEVE THOMPSON, Mayor
City of Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 461.
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that AML and the Conference of
Mayors supports the concepts of both HB 499 and HB 461.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HOLM
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 461.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-7, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR CARL MORGAN called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:05 a.m.
Representatives Morgan, Wolf, Kott, and Samuels were present at
the call to order. Representative Cissna arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 499-911 SYSTEMS
CHAIR MORGAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 499, "An Act relating to 911 systems."
Number 0115
JON BITTNER, Staff to Representative Cheryll Heinze, Alaska
State Legislature, speaking on behalf of the sponsor of HB 499,
explained that HB 499 would bring Alaska closer to federal
standards for enhanced 911 services. Basically, HB 499 would
[allow the surcharge to increase up to] $2 and would streamline
some of the language in the current 911 statutes. Furthermore,
HB 499 specifies that the governor's office will be in charge of
the oversight and distribution of those surcharges. Beyond
that, the legislation closes loopholes, ensures that everyone
pays his or her fair share of surcharges for the emergency
services used, and mandates that all 911 calls throughout the
state go through the Department of Public Safety answering
points.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF inquired as to the current surcharge.
MR. BITTNER answered that the current surcharge is $.75 for a
wireline or a wireless telephone. However, the aforementioned
surcharge isn't enough to cover the federally mandated upgrades.
In further response to Representative Wolf, Mr. Bittner pointed
out that the sponsor has been working closely with the National
Emergency Numbering Association (NENA), a nationwide 911 group
which has taken surveys of all 50 states. Between [those
surveys] and Alaska's specific needs, it was thought that $2
would be a good starting point and would address Alaska's
general needs.
Number 0324
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF indicated concern with regard to the $2
surcharge being a "starting point" with the potential for an
increase.
MR. BITTNER explained that the $2 surcharge isn't mandatory, and
would be decided by the municipalities. Furthermore, the $2 is
the upper limit of the surcharge. Mr. Bittner opined that the
$2 is the baseline figure that will provide the municipalities
with enough leeway to bring them up to code and ensure that
everyone has emergency services.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT pointed out that some wireless plans offer a
family plan in which there are multiple cell phones. Therefore,
he surmised that each of those cell phones with different
numbers would have the $2 surcharge. He asked if the
aforementioned is correct.
MR. BITTNER offered to look into that.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT pointed out that the legislation refers to
each wireless telephone number being assessed a $2 surcharge.
MR. BITTNER pointed out that each of the wireless phones in that
family plan would have the potential to make a 911 call. This
legislation spreads the [enhanced 911 costs] over all users. He
reiterated that $2 is the maximum surcharge, and added that a $2
surcharge would be necessary for extreme upgrades.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired as to what other states are
charging.
MR. BITTNER explained that NENA reviewed other states
implementation of 911 systems and factored in Alaska's specific
issues to develop the $2 surcharge.
Number 0636
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS surmised that the telephone company is
the [surcharge] collector for the municipality.
MR. BITTNER replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS inquired as to how much of this is
capital improvements, new equipment, and programming. He
surmised that once the aforementioned is purchased, the
operations should be the same.
MR. BITTNER agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS opined that once the surcharge is raised
to $2, that will be the fee. He predicted that the fee wouldn't
be lowered to match the capital expenditures.
MR. BITTNER directed attention to page 3, line 24, and explained
that by placing the certification and use of all 911 surcharges
in the governor's office, it basically creates a statewide 911
coordinator's position. This position would review what the
municipalities ask for from the users and what is actually
necessary to bring the municipality up to compliance with this
legislation and other statutes. If there is a disparity, he
assumed that the surcharges would be "tweaked."
CHAIR MORGAN inquired as to the meaning of the language on page
3, lines 24-25. He asked if the governor is responsible for
collecting the money.
MR. BITTNER replied no, the governor isn't responsible himself
to collect the surcharge. Mr. Bittner explained that the
municipalities set the original surcharge and the surcharge
would go to the governor, or more likely his representative, the
statewide 911 coordinator. The coordinator would review what
the municipality would need in the context of the number of
users and the sum this fee would bring in, and adjustments to
the surcharge would be made based upon the review. Any disputes
would be settled by the RCA. He pointed out that on page 3,
line 2, the language "[AND HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER AN ENHANCED
911 SYSTEM]" is deleted. This legislation designates the
governor as responsible for the certification and use of all 911
surcharges in order to be eligible for the federal grant money
that's available for states to bring 911 systems up to code.
Number 0884
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked if any of the areas in the state with
an enhanced 911 system have been reviewed.
MR. BITTNER said that he didn't know of any areas in the state
that have an enhanced 911 system. In fact, most areas of the
state don't have basic 911 systems. In certain rural
communities, a 911 call would be routed to a restaurant or a
local house at which someone would likely be present at any hour
of the day or night.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF indicated that the Kenai Peninsula has an
enhanced 911 system, and asked if the $2 surcharge would be
charged to those on the Kenai Peninsula.
MR. BITTNER answered that he didn't see any reason why the
municipality would need to charge such a surcharge if it's
already compliant with the enhanced 911 system.
Number 0975
CHAIR MORGAN requested that Mr. Bittner elaborate with regard to
how this legislation would impact Bush Alaska.
MR. BITTNER explained that the surcharges would ensure that Bush
Alaska would receive emergency 911 services that currently
aren't available. All public safety calls would be routed
through a public safety answering point (PSAP), which is
currently not the case in the majority of Alaska. Furthermore,
bringing Alaska up to federal codes would make it much easier to
obtain the location of a call, which is important information
necessary for a prompt and appropriate emergency response. Mr.
Bittner acknowledged that rural Alaska will pay more than it
does currently. However, he opined that the benefits would
outweigh the cost. In further response to Chair Morgan, Mr.
Bittner confirmed that this legislation covers wireline and
wireless telephones.
Number 1066
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired as to the federal mandates with
which the state is trying to comply. He further inquired as to
the consequences if the state doesn't comply.
MR. BITTNER said that he didn't know the specific consequences.
However, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has said it
will take unilateral action soon against states that haven't
moved in the direction of FCC compliance. Mr. Bittner pointed
out that the FCC has specific timelines for wireless carriers to
come into compliance with regard to location and numbering.
With regard to specific state sanctions for those states without
emergency 911 service, Mr. Bittner said he didn't about those.
Number 1204
MARK MEW, Chapter President, National Emergency Number
Association (NENA), started his testimony by clarifying some
points. He pointed out that there is a difference between basic
911 and enhanced 911. Basic 911 means that a 911 call is routed
to the closest PSAP. However, enhanced 911 means that the
aforementioned happens and the PSAP automatically receives the
telephone number, account name, and location of the call.
Enhanced 911 has existed for the wirelines in some places in
Alaska for some 20 years. However, enhanced 911 services aren't
throughout the state. In fact, there are some areas of the
state that don't have any basic 911 services. This legislation
attempts to address those issues. Mr. Mew indicated that
enhanced 911 services for wirelines is relatively easy,
technologically speaking. The surcharges were based on PSAPs
getting enhanced 911 service for wirelines, but now more people
have wireless phones, and in fact over half of the traffic comes
in on wireless phones. The location technology for wireless
phones is new and is being implemented in Anchorage. The
technology necessary to obtain the location of a moving wireless
telephone is extremely complicated, very expensive, and requires
massive infrastructure. The PSAPS need to obtain the computer
equipment necessary to take a latitude and longitude coordinate
to place on a map and turn it into a street address. Therefore,
it's necessary to increase the surcharge. Anchorage's current
$.50 surcharge can't fund that. Furthermore, the $.75 surcharge
elsewhere in the state can't fund what's necessary either.
MR. MEW specified that the up to $2 surcharge proposed in HB 499
would cover wireline and wireless accounts. The surcharge would
allow the PSAPs to pay for their own equipment upgrades as well
as Phase II cost recovery, which is a mechanism by which the
telephone companies can recover some of the costs from the 911
dispatch centers. This is going on across the country under
many different models. There is general agreement in Alaska
with regard to the cost recovery model that the PSAPs and the
industry would like to have. With regard to the amount of the
surcharge, he informed the committee that the surcharge
throughout the nation ranges from $.50 to $4.00.
MR. MEW recalled earlier mention of the FCC, and pointed out
that the FCC regulates wireless 911 issues. The FCC has
established a timeline that wireless telephone companies need to
meet in order to accomplish the FCC's mandate to produce
wireless location. There are also timelines and constraints
that the FCC forces upon PSAPs when they elect to obtain such
information from the wireless telephone companies. Mr. Mew
highlighted that the wireline 911 services isn't regulated by
the FCC. In most states, the Public Utilities Commission of a
state regulates the wireline 911 services. In Alaska, wireline
911 issues aren't regulated. This legislation would correct the
aforementioned by placing the regulatory function at the RCA.
Number 1675
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT related his understanding that HB 499 would
go into effect 90 days after being signed by the governor, which
could be in July or August. Therefore, he questioned what one
would get for the $1.25 increase once this legislation goes into
effect.
MR. MEW explained that this legislation provides enabling
language, and therefore local jurisdictions would have to update
ordinances to match the legislation. He suggested that given
the opportunity, the local jurisdictions would increase the
surcharge to the $2.00. He further explained that the language
in this legislation and most ordinances require that PSAPs
annually evaluate the surcharge revenue, compare it to the
costs, and make adjustments as necessary. In other words, PSAPs
aren't allowed to collect more revenue than is spent on the 911
system. In a jurisdiction that isn't ready for wireless
location or even for an enhanced 911 system, that jurisdiction
may not have a need for the money. Therefore, it may take a
couple of years to study the situation and write a request for
proposals (RFP) to determine whether the $2.00 surcharge would
cover the entire cost of the system. He specified that the
surcharge can't be collected in advance of providing the
service. However, those areas already providing the service are
probably already paying out much more than the jurisdiction is
receiving in surcharge revenue. In Anchorage, historically, the
surcharge has recovered approximately 50 percent of the cost of
providing 911 service and emergency dispatch services. In
Anchorage, when the $2.00 surcharge is collected, wireless
telephones will automatically deliver location information to
the 911 center. However, [this legislation will allow] rural
Alaska and places where there is no 911 system to begin to
establish a system at this point. The desire is to create more
enhanced 911 centers.
Number 1923
JIM HARPRING, Chair, Legislative Subcommittee, NENA Alaska
Chapter, informed the committee that in 34 communities a 911
call goes nowhere. This legislation will provide enabling
language that will allow the aforementioned communities the
ability to address concerns. Mr. Harpring explained that NENA
has been addressing this for over two years.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS related his understanding that Anchorage
currently has a $.50 surcharge, although statute says that it
could increase it to $.75.
MR. MEW explained that current statute takes a two-tiered
approach to surcharge collection. The current statute is based
on population, and therefore Anchorage can collect $.50 per
telephone account, while every other location can collect $.75.
He opined that the legislature felt that Anchorage is of a
population that some economies of scale could be achieved. With
HB 499, the distinction based on population would be eliminated
as would the distinction between wireline and wireless service.
Therefore, under HB 499 each [community] in the state would
calibrate its needs and could collect up to $2.00 per wireline
or wireless account.
MR. MEW informed the committee that a subcommittee of NENA
drafted the language of HB 499. However, he emphasized that
NENA isn't simply a PSAP organization, although it happened that
most of those who worked on this language were from PSAPs or
carried that point of view. Mr. Mew pointed out that many
telephone companies and wireless providers are members of NENA,
which is an open organization. He indicated that not all of
NENA's members are happy with everything included in HB 499.
However, NENA believes this legislation is a good place to
start.
Number 2148
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked if the costs for [enhanced 911
services] are capital outlay, such as for programming and
computer software or hardware, or for operating expenses,
including the ongoing expense of people. He asked if the $2.00
surcharge would ever fall below $2.00.
MR. MEW replied that he didn't believe so. In response to
Representative Samuels' first question, Mr. Mew explained that
initially there will be major capital outlays from everyone,
industry and PSAPs alike. The language in the legislation
permits surcharge collections to be spent on the salaries of
employees charged with ongoing operations and maintenance of the
system. Mr. Mew predicted that [under the $2.00 surcharge] most
[communities] will still not receive enough revenue,
particularly in the beginning when the capital outlay is
occurring simultaneous with paying the employees. He suspected
that tax dollars would always be necessary to keep the PSAPs
operational.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS turned to the matter of the industry
recouping its costs, and related his assumption that those
already collecting a surcharge already have the same costs.
Therefore, he surmised that if the size of the check is larger,
shouldn't it be a moot point.
MR. MEW specified that it relates to the Phase II cost recovery
issue, and noted that Phase I is relatively inexpensive for the
telephone companies to deliver. The statute specifies that the
telephone companies could cover their costs, although it doesn't
specify how. In order to cooperate with the wireless companies,
most states are conceding that the companies deserve to receive
some of their money back, which is cost recovery. In some
states, the wireless company will bill the PSAP for every 911
call. The aforementioned cost recovery model isn't favored for
Alaska because there tend to be multiple wireless calls for one
911 situation whereas there may only be one wireline call. In
either case one event requires only one radio dispatch and one
policeman to respond, although there may be 50-60 calls for that
event. Therefore, billing by the call would result in
skyrocketing bills by the company for its cost recovery,
although the workload of the PSAP wouldn't increase. The per
account monthly bill model seems manageable, predictable, and
provides the ability to budget. The aforementioned is probably
the most favored across the nation. Although the PSAPs would
like to avoid the Phase II level cost recovery and not have to
raise the surcharge to $2.00, he acknowledged that the telephone
companies are putting millions into the system and are being
paid back some of their expenditures throughout the country.
Therefore, Mr. Mew didn't believe the [Phase II cost recovery]
could be avoided, which has led to addressing it in statute.
Number 2373
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA surmised that this legislation provides an
option for municipalities.
MR. MEW replied yes, and stated that the legislation provides
enabling language that allows municipalities to take steps that
they aren't now. For example, a large company may purchase one
main switchboard [a private branch exchange (PBX)] to which the
telephone company delivers service. There may be many numbers
with the same prefix. Much of the time, the PSAP would only see
the location of the privately owned switch. Therefore, a 911
call from the public works building 10 miles away from city
hall, which has a private switch, would provide city hall as the
location of the call if the individual calling couldn't provide
an address. This legislation authorizes municipalities, if they
choose, to enact language that would force PBX owners to
purchase whatever is necessary so that the actual location of
the telephone can be passed through. The aforementioned is an
expense to a PBX owner. Therefore, it's left to the local
[governing bodies].
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related her understanding that the
legislation relates to some responsibilities associated with the
911 routing. She asked if the aforementioned places any cost
responsibility or equipment responsibility on communities that
have not elected to be part of the enhanced 911 system.
MR. MEW stated that nothing in HB 499 mandates [any community]
to provide 911 service. Mr. Mew specified that Representative
Cissna is referring to unincorporated areas that don't currently
have statutory authority to collect any surcharges. The
language would merely allow those unincorporated areas to obtain
the surcharge and provide the service.
MR. HARPRING surmised that Representative Cissna is referring to
AS 40.05.295, which works through the local exchange carriers in
order to allow them the opportunity to route wireline calls to
to a PSAP some place in the state.
Number 2674
ROBERT RUFUS, Member, NENA, interpreted Representative Cissna to
ask if HB 499 is an unfunded mandate to the smaller communities.
He explained that there wouldn't necessarily be any cost from
the local exchange carrier. The local exchange carriers are
ready, willing, and desire to do so. The local exchanges have
repeatedly requested a location to route those calls, and
therefore this language would provide the authority for them to
physically route the call; there wouldn't be any associated
costs unless the community decided to provide its own dispatch
services.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to liability with regard to
911 calls [and the ability or inability to respond].
MR. MEW answered that statutory language providing some
liability protection for the operators of the PSAPs already
exists. There is also some liability coverage for the telephone
companies that provide the 911 service and equipment to those
PSAPs. He opined that the aforementioned language could be
strengthened, although it doesn't seem appropriate at the
moment. However, he expressed the need to address it at some
point because things are getting very complicated and in some
communities it will be difficult to get telephone companies to
bid because the liability would be so high. In fact, there has
been some hesitancy from some in providing this service in
Anchorage.
Number 2856
JIM ROWE, Director, Alaska Telephone Association, informed the
committee that the association represents four incumbent local
exchanges that serve rural areas of Alaska. Although Mr. Rowe
said that he was in general agreement with most of the comments,
he disagreed with the comment that nothing in HB 499 forces [any
community] to provide 911 services. He pointed out that
wireline local exchange carriers are forced to do 911 calls.
Mr. Rowe turned attention to page 4, line 28, "each local
exchange telephone company that provides wireline service to an
area outside a municipality must route all 911 calls originating
from within its customer service base to a public safety
answering point." However, there aren't PSAPs for all rural
communities. Mr. Rowe interpreted the language on page 4, line
28, to place the responsibility on the telephone company without
providing it the authority to create PSAPs. Although the
telephone companies don't want the aforementioned authority, the
telephone companies want folks to realize that a 911 call can't
be routed if there is no PSAP. Therefore, he suggested adding
language such as "as designated by the state" because the
[telephone companies would like a telephone number that is a
PSAP]. Mr. Rowe pointed out that in a rural community connected
by a satellite, the only place a local telephone company can
deliver a call outside the local area is to a long distance
carrier.
MR. ROWE expressed concern with regard to the lack of a
reference of who is paying for the call. He posed a situation
in which there was a statewide number located in Juneau. If
someone calls from a rural community, there would be an
interstate long distance service charge that the long distance
carrier would like to have reimbursed. However, under this
legislation he wasn't sure who would be reimbursed. Mr. Rowe
informed the committee that there is a federal regulation that
burdens a local carrier with the decision of where to route a
911 call even if the state hasn't designated such. The
aforementioned places a lot of responsibility on the local
telephone company.
TAPE 04-7, SIDE B
MR. ROWE related that [the Alaska Telephone Association]
believes the state should identify a default PSAP if there is no
local, municipal, or regional PSAP. He clarified that he is
only referring to basic 911 services. Before looking at this
legislation, Mr. Rowe said he believed 911 calls could be routed
to the Alaska State Troopers. However, that's not acceptable.
As Mr. Harpring mentioned, there are a number of communities
that can't deliver 911 calls to a PSAP. One of the large
liability issues is when nonresident individuals out fishing in
rural Alaska call 911 and nothing happens.
CHAIR MORGAN noted that he agreed with Mr. Rowe's statements.
He informed the committee that in Aniak there are three Alaska
State Troopers who are stationed in Aniak. However, when there
is an emergency before 8:00 a.m. or 5:00 p.m., the call is
routed to Bethel, which is long distance. The sergeant in
Bethel has to authorize a trooper in Aniak to be dispatched
because it is considered overtime. Chair Morgan acknowledged
that although the troopers are stationed in Aniak, they serve a
large region that includes Aniak. Chair Morgan thanked Mr. Rowe
for bringing out that many communities don't even have a public
safety building.
MR. ROWE pointed out that there are also communities that don't
have village public safety officers any more and some that don't
have any troopers close by.
Number 2846
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired as to the consequences for
noncompliance.
MR. ROWE replied no, but related that members of the Alaska
Telephone Association are very concerned with regard to
liability for those communities for which there is no PSAP to
route an emergency phone call. He referred the committee to FCC
01-351 paragraph 15.
MR. MEW pointed out that the FCC has a schedule in place and
could fine wireless carriers for not meeting the deadline to
provide location information. Furthermore, there isn't a
federal law to which telephone companies and PSAPs alike must
conform or be fined. If a PSAP requests Phase I and Phase II
wireless location and certain criteria is met and certain FCC
rules go into place, the telephone companies could be fined if
they don't deliver and the PSAPs complain.
MR. ROWE emphasized that the concern is not so much about a
fine, but rather the liability associated with not being able to
deliver a 911 call from a community.
Number 2720
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT posed a situation in which an attorney from
Las Angeles, California, is fly fishing in rural Alaska and
dials 911 after being bit by a bear. However, it's six hours
before someone responds. Isn't liability assumed because of the
[lack of readily available] services required to [respond] to
the call, he asked.
MR. ROWE clarified that the telephone company is concerned that
it is able to get the call through.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT surmised then that the liability has been
shifted from the telephone company to the state.
MR. ROWE emphasized that the telephone companies want to be in
compliance and want to deliver the call.
MR. MEW reminded the committee that there is no wireless
coverage in many places in rural Alaska.
MR. ROWE informed the committee that the members of the Alaska
Telephone Association are concerned with the up to $2.00
surcharge. He pointed out that many items on one's telephone
bill aren't local service charges, and it appears that the local
telephone company is making this money. However, that's not the
case.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted that his constituency is also
concerned about the increase in the surcharge. He inquired as
to the difference between basic and enhanced 911 service.
Number 2550
BILL DOOLITTLE, Project Manager for 911 service, Municipality of
Anchorage, explained that basic 911 means that a 911 call goes
to a PSAP that is staffed 24 hours a day. However, an enhanced
911 system includes the additional features of a call back
number, automatic location, and the subscriber's name.
Selective routing is a feature in which a 911 call is routed
based on the jurisdictional boundary rather than the telephone
company boundary. Mr. Doolittle pointed out that part of the
confusion is that enhanced 911 service for a wireline call
utilize an address from a database maintained by the telephone
companies on behalf of the PSAP while a wireless telephone
expresses location information as either the cell site or a
latitude and longitude, which is typically provided by a third
party to the wireless carrier.
MR. MEW pointed out that enhanced 911 for wirelines is a
reality, but Alaska hasn't explored the location portion of
enhanced 911 for wireless telephones.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if any of the states have considered a
user fee.
MR. DOOLITTLE answered that one of the guiding principles of 911
service is that there should be no barriers to dialing the call.
Therefore, 911 calls from a pay phone or uninitialized cellular
service are free. The aforementioned is the reasoning behind
not having a fee for service for 911 calls. In fact, there are
many programs throughout the nation in which discarded cellular
telephones are refurbished and given to victims of domestic
violence or other folks because there is no fee associated with
the phone and the only number that can be dialed is 911.
Number 2337
MARK JOHNSON, Chief, Community Health & Emergency Medical
Services, Division of Public Health, Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS), began by relating that [the department]
supports the concept of HB 499. One of the advantages of 911 is
that it's an easily remembered number for emergency situations.
The enhanced 911 feature [allows] the ability to call back the
person in order to provide additional instructions. Sometimes
it's necessary to know the location of the caller because he or
she may not know his or her location. As a result of
legislation passed 10-12 years ago, enhanced 911 is in some of
the major communities in Alaska. Enhanced 911 service allowed
the municipalities to charge a surcharge through the telephone
bills. However, enhanced 911 service hasn't been implemented in
many of the rural or smaller communities of the state. As
wireless service has come about, the FCC has mandated that
wireless telephones must be capable of features that allow
enhanced 911. Mr. Johnson said that it's in everyone's best
interest to have a system in which a caller can easily access
emergency services so that the response can be quick and
appropriate. Mr. Johnson specified that although [the
department] isn't in a position to specify how much money [the
improvements require], it can say that it would like for the
system to be improved.
MR. JOHNSON turned to the emergency response situation in rural
areas. He explained that two-thirds of the state's emergency
medical service providers (EMS) are volunteers. In some of the
smaller communities EMS providers carry a portable radio
telephone, and therefore a number of EMS providers may receive
the 911 call on these portable radio telephones. Although that
doesn't meet the definition of a PSAP, he acknowledged that it's
better than nothing. He noted that there have been instances in
which emergency calls from a smaller community have been routed
to a larger community, which have sometimes resulted in
responders being sent to the wrong place. For the long term,
the goal is to have a statewide system in which calls received
at a PSAP with enhanced features in order that the responders
can be directed to the appropriate place. This legislation
moves the state in the aforementioned direction.
Number 2105
MR. JOHNSON addressed the issue of liability. Under the
Emergency Medical Service statutes, organizations or state
certified providers have immunity protections under AS
18.08.086, including those trained and serving as emergency
medical dispatchers. Mr. Johnson highlighted the nationwide
poison control telephone number, which is routed to a certified
local center. However, he pointed out that Alaska doesn't have
a poison control center, which has resulted in a memorandum of
agreement with the Oregon poison control center. Alaska has
provided Oregon with a computerized information system
specifying what medical resources exist in each community so
that the need for additional medical attention can be
appropriately directed. Mr. Johnson said, "I think that the
technology is making it possible for us to provide a better
life-saving service to all of our citizens." Still, he
acknowledged that this will take some time to accomplish. This
legislation will allow the urban areas with the wireline
enhanced 911 to obtain additional resources to implement the
wireless enhanced 911, which could happen fairly quickly.
Although expanding to the smaller rural communities will take
longer, he characterized HB 499 as the first step.
Number 1958
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked whether the ability of the PSAP to
call back the 911 caller is any different than the caller
identification feature to which everyone can subscribe.
MR. JOHNSON specified that he didn't know how different it is.
He said he believes the enhanced 911 would be immediate. Even
more critical is the automatic identification location because
if the caller and the responders don't know the location of the
emergency, then it's a problem, and potentially a life-
threatening problem.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed that the automatic identification
location probably is the more important issue of an enhanced
system. However, Representative Kott pointed out that he has
three lines and no matter which line is used, it will show the
same address. Therefore, he questioned whether he should pay
the $2.00 surcharge for each of those lines.
MR. JOHNSON reiterated that the department isn't in a position
to specify the correct amount for the surcharge. However, he
pointed there are upfront costs and ongoing operating costs.
Mr. Johnson highlighted that the department believes that one of
the important costs is related to ongoing training. In further
response to Representative Kott, Mr. Johnson said that he didn't
know whether the state system or governmental entities currently
pay the surcharge on each telephone.
Number 1800
ED OBERTS, Mayor's Assistant, Office of the Mayor, Kenai
Peninsula Borough, informed the committee that the Kenai
Peninsula Borough has been addressing enhanced 911 for at least
a year-and-a-half. This legislation will allow the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska (RCA) to regulate 911 services, which he
opined is a step in the right direction. Not only does a
"carrot" have to be provided to the carriers in the community,
such as through a payback, there also needs to be regulatory
reform.
Number 1715
STEVE O'CONNER, Assistant Chief, Central Emergency Services;
Chair, Kenai Peninsula Borough 911 Committee, opined that the
discussion today indicates that the technology is complex. The
Kenai Peninsula Borough has had enhanced 911 services since the
late 1980s and is a member of the Alaska Chapter of NENA. After
passage of the last legislation on this matter, the Kenai
Peninsula Borough adopted an ordinance that allows it to collect
a $.75 surcharge, which is currently collected. The $.75
surcharge covers approximately 50 percent of the total operating
costs of the borough's 911 system. Therefore, the Kenai
Peninsula Borough is fairly close to what Anchorage has found
historically. Also like Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula Borough
is looking to implement the wireless technology that comes in
Phase I and II. He reiterated earlier testimony that wireless
telephones now account for 50-60 percent of the total 911-call
volume. These wireless calls are coming in with no location
information. With the passage of HB 499, the Kenai Peninsula
Borough would again need to revise its ordinance to change the
$.75 surcharge. Mr. O'Conner announced support of HB 499 as it
is.
MR. O'CONNER opined that HB 499 basically provides a framework
for municipal governments to utilize enhancements to the 911
system. Furthermore, the legislation allows the infrastructure
at the municipal level to be built. With regard to Mr. Rowe's
concerns over the $2.00 surcharge, Mr. O'Conner pointed out that
as Phase I and II are implemented the [members of the Alaska
Telephone Association] will look for cost recovery. As
mentioned earlier, this process will be expensive for the 911
PSAPs and the telephone carriers. Therefore, some of these
funds will be utilized for cost recovery for the local telephone
carriers.
Number 1551
CHAIR MORGAN returned to concerns regarding multiple lines at
one location, and asked if faxes will be charged a $2.00 fee.
MR. O'CONNER related his understanding that only the lines from
which people can call 911 will be charged the $2.00 surcharge.
He specified that part of the $2.00 surcharge is to maintain an
accurate database for the PSAPs. Oftentimes, those who call 911
are the individuals having the emergency and they aren't always
able to provide the [dispatcher] with complete information
allowing emergency services to be dispatched to the appropriate
location. In fact, the Kenai Peninsula Borough has documented
instances in which individuals try to dial 911 when having a
heart attack or a seizure. Therefore, having accurate
information in the database is critical as is the maintenance of
that database. The per line account surcharge helps pay for the
maintenance of the database.
Number 1434
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF said that his fax line is charged the $.75
surcharge. He asked if the Kenai Peninsula Borough currently
pays a surcharge for enhanced 911-wireline service.
MR. O'CONNER opined that under HB 499 the telephone companies
are allowed to retain a fee for the collection of the $.75
surcharge.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked if the Kenai Peninsula Borough [has a
surcharge] for enhanced 911 [services for wireless telephones].
MR. O'CONNER answered that wireless telephones are currently
paying the $.75 surcharge for the operations of the 911 center
costs. He clarified that the borough is just at Phase I with
upgrades, and Phase II would be in the near future.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF inquired as to the number of extensions in
the Kenai Peninsula Borough schools.
MR. OBERTS replied that he didn't know, although he acknowledged
that it would be a substantial number.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF surmised then that each extension in the
Kenai Peninsula Borough school district would pay $2.00.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT surmised that Representative Wolf was asking
whether the Kenai Peninsula Borough pays $.75 for governmental
lines or is exempt.
MR. O'CONNER related his belief that the Kenai Peninsula Borough
does pay the $.75 surcharge on each line the borough has.
Number 1186
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked if the Municipality of Anchorage
supports HB 499.
MR. DOOLITTLE replied yes. In further response to
Representative Samuels, Mr. Doolittle related that discussions
with the municipality have indicated that there isn't a
commitment to implement the maximum surcharge. He pointed out
that part of the problem is that the possible costs, per the
carriers, could be in excess of $2.00. In fact, one of the
wireless carriers specified that its surcharge might be as high
as $4.00 per handset. Upon exploring this for several months,
carriers have proposed surcharges from $.50 to $4.00. For
wireless service, a $2.00 surcharge seems to be in the middle.
However, on the wireline side, one must keep in mind offsetting
the cost of call taking in addition to the cost of technology.
Mr. Doolittle turned to the statewide perspective, and pointed
out that many communities have to borrow money because the
surcharge doesn't cover the capital cost. Therefore, $2.00
seems to be a good starting point.
MR. DOOLITTLE recalled an earlier question, and informed the
committee that the surcharge would be charged to every access
line because "we" don't know what's on the other end of the
line. Therefore, every access line should be charged the
surcharge because of the possibility that it could present a 911
call. However, he noted that federal reservations don't pay the
911 surcharge in Alaska or nationally.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS turned attention to the bottom of page 2
and the top of page 3 of HB 499. He posed a situation in which
there is a roll over on the Glenn Highway, which prompts 50 911
calls. In the aforementioned situation, would the regulatory
authority pay for all 50 calls or is there a negotiated contract
between the various carriers and the municipality. He inquired
as to who pays for the 50 calls.
MR. DOOLITTLE specified that the only cost for a 911 call is the
cost of the airtime. At this time, there isn't a charge to the
PSAP for receiving a 911 call. However, the PSAP does bear the
911 trunks from the carriers into the dispatch center, which is
a direct cost to that server. The cost burden falls in the
staffing to ensure that all calls are answered.
Number 0914
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if the suggestion, then, is that the
surcharge pays for the dispatchers.
MR. DOOLITTLE replied yes. Current statutes specify that all
the direct costs of 911 services can be paid for through the
surcharge, including the capital investments, technology, call
taking, and operational aspects. Furthermore, it would include
addressing and geographic data management, which is critical to
the success of [enhanced 911].
MR. HARPRING asked if Representative Kott was interested in the
direct staffing costs or the ancillary 911 costs.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT specified that he was interested in whether
the surcharge paid for the dispatchers. He also expressed
interest in whether there is a charge per call or a negotiated
contract that covers all calls.
MR. HARPRING explained that the business model being used is
amortizing the cost of doing business. Any cost associated with
the cost of 911 will allow this enabling language to be
determined at the local level. However, subsection (j) of HB
499 governs what constitutes true costs. Under this type of
legislation, any monies associated with or collected pursuant to
911 [calls] have to be obligated to that type of action. Funds
collected for 911 services can't go into the general fund.
However, the funds are at the discretion of the local community
and could be used to defray costs of training dispatch
personnel. As far as direct personnel costs, Mr. Harpring
specified that it would depend upon the local community's
bonding 911-surcharge use. Still, the funds have to remain in
the 911 field.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented on the increased cellular
telephone use in Alaska. He estimated that currently 60 percent
of Alaskans use cellular telephones, and he predicted that in
the future 80 percent of the population will have cellular
telephones. He asked, "It seems to me that if we're basing our
costs on 20 percent and 80 percent currently has the cell phones
available, or in use, doesn't that then lower the cost per
[line]?"
MR. HARPRING pointed out that many of the questions asked today
could be answered by the information provided at www.nena.org.
MR. DOOLITTLE agreed with Representative Kott that in the future
there would be some efficiencies based on gross revenues and the
actual cost of providing the service. It's difficult to develop
a business model that expresses the direct cost of a 911 call to
the direct cost of what it takes to answer it. Often the
business model for 911 specifies the public as the customer and
"we" try to answer the public's calls for assistance. The
aforementioned becomes important in the context of dispatching
because in many communities, one person answers and dispatches
the call. When the dispatcher answers the call, the public is
the customer but when the dispatcher turns to dispatch the call,
the customer is the public safety agency. Therefore, from a
purist standpoint the focus is on the call-taking aspect. The
hope is that by setting the surcharge high enough that there may
be some cost efficiencies once the technology is implemented,
and therefore the surcharge would be lowered. Mr. Doolittle
related his belief that the aforementioned occurred in the
Fairbanks Northstar Borough.
Number 0407
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related her assumption that the cost of
technology is part of the high cost of this service. She
related her observation that this legislation seems to be highly
suited to municipalities in which there is a fair concentration
of population. Although this legislation seems to be
appropriate for municipalities with a fair concentration of
population, Representative Cissna didn't believe it was a fix
throughout Alaska. She asked if the cellular telephone is the
most expensive part of this because of the newness of the
technology. She also asked if it's possible to craft
legislation that is appropriate to a [geographic] area.
MR. DOOLITTLE agreed that it's a very expensive service. What
has been discovered is that the capital costs are, in some
cases, high. One must remember that the wireless carriers have
a choice of how they deploy wireless location technology. In
some cases, a new handset is required and in other cases, it
isn't. In either case there is typically a service provider who
presents referring costs. The aforementioned is the most
challenging area because there is no knowledge of the cost basis
for providing the services. He pointed out that there are about
three companies in the U.S. that do this for wireless carriers,
with one of them being a near monopoly. Mr. Doolittle explained
that this is an attempt to balance the occasion in which someone
does need assistance. He specified that 911 is the point of
entry for an emergency response. The 911 system is available
for those who find themselves in unplanned circumstances and a
life is at stake. It's difficult to place a dollar amount on
the circumstances. The technology is available and feasible,
and within the budget.
TAPE 04-8, SIDE B
MR. DOOLITTLE highlighted that local communities can elect to do
this. He expressed hope that a balance has been found, although
he acknowledged that he is challenged to find the right cost
point.
Number 0071
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked whether the telecommunications
industry needs a statutory fix for this issue or whether it can
solicit the increase from the RCA in order to cover the
technology costs.
MR. DOOLITTLE related his understanding that wireless carriers
have authority, through the FCC, for cost recovery of wireless
Phase I and II. The quandary is that if [the state] is silent
with regard to that cost recovery, then it's likely that a line
item will be added to the bill for a wireless Phase II cost
recovery and the money will be kept to offset the investments
and recurring costs. Therefore, the reason to pass the
legislation and have the money pass through the local
jurisdiction is to provide some accountability for the
performance of the 911 system. Mr. Doolittle specified that
it's not necessarily saying the dollars would change or that the
carriers would receive less money, but there is the desire to
have that dialogue at the local level with regard to how
wireless 911 works. Therefore, Mr. Doolittle said that the
wireless carriers will receive cost recovery one way or another.
MR. DOOLITTLE informed the committee that NENA meetings have
included much debate with the local exchange carriers regarding
what it means for the RCA vis-à-vis the wireless carriers. It
has been suggested that there is a desire for the RCA to have
some jurisdiction over wireless carriers. However, that seems
not to be allowed under federal statutes and it's certainly not
the intent with this legislation.
Number 0289
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF surmised that the $2.00 surcharge will raise
governmental expenses, however this legislation doesn't have a
referral to the House Finance Committee. Therefore, he asked
whether this legislation will require a fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated that whether the governmental
entities, especially the state, pays the current fee needs to be
addressed. If the governmental entities do pay the current fee,
then there should be a fiscal note, which would require a
referral to the House Finance Committee. Representative Kott
submitted that the state would be the largest user and thus pay
the largest fee.
MR. JOHNSON recalled that the original legislation [regarding a
911 surcharge] included a provision for organizations with large
numbers [of lines]. At the very least he recalled there being
discussion on the matter.
CHAIR MORGAN announced that due to the numerous questions, HB
499 would be held over. He also announced that public testimony
would be closed. [Later in the hearing HB 499 was assigned to a
subcommittee consisting of Representative Wolf, chair, and
Representatives Kott and Cissna.]
[HB 499 was held over and assigned to subcommittee.]
HB 461-EMERGENCY SERVICES DISPATCH/911 SURCHARGE
CHAIR MORGAN announced that the final order of business would be
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 0555
MATTHEW RUDIG, Staff to Representative Jim Holm, Alaska State
Legislature, spoke on behalf of the sponsor of HB 461. Mr.
Rudig provided the following testimony:
Essentially, HB 461 gives municipalities local
control. We are changing statute to give
municipalities the ability to increase emergency
dispatch surcharges for the users of the service. ...
"Enhanced 911" ... is a relatively new innovation in
rescue technology. It can pinpoint the visual
location and phone number of a caller so an EMT unit
can know the exact location and the phone number of
the emergency and ... act more rapidly .... There is
little debate as to the merits of this service ...
it's a good program. Municipalities have established
this system all over the country .... The State of
Alaska recognized the importance of this technology
when the legislature ... amended statute in 2001 ...
and added ... enhanced 911 to the existing statute.
Currently, a municipality in statute may only charge
75 cents per month, per line for the system. By
adopting this legislation in House Bill 461, we are
giving municipalities the ability to recover the costs
of the operations of enhanced 911. This bill has ...
two provisions regarding that point. First, the
initial charge that a municipality may charge is
raised from 75 cents to 85 cents per month, per line
for the overall system. Second, municipalities will
have the capability to impose a surcharge of up to
$2.15 for the specific use of funding operations of
the enhanced 911 system. This surcharge will be used
for the dispatch of the system. Now this is an
important distinction. So, I want to make this clear.
We have a system in place, the building, [and] the
technology. However, we have no mechanism in statute
to specifically allow municipalities to recover the
costs of the direct operations. Therefore,
municipalities are forced to shift that burden
directly to the property tax owners ....
Now, this bill also adds another important distinction
to existing statute. If you look on page 3 of the
bill, lines 18-20, it states: "The municipality may
only use the emergency services dispatch surcharge for
the actual labor and equipment used to provide
emergency services dispatch." While the amount they
may charge is up to $2.15 per month for the service,
the city or borough cannot charge more than the actual
cost for equipment, labor, and service as I just
described. The city cannot use the funds from the
surcharge in any other manner. They have to review
their costs annually and then they cannot overcharge
the phone users. The statute serves as an automatic
check on the municipality.
Yes, people's phone bills could increase due to this
surcharge. But it is solely to recover the costs
associated of a working system already in place.
Currently the statute does not account for this.
Cities and boroughs are using property tax dollars to
recover the costs. In essence, not all of the users
are paying for their service. So essentially, ...
this bill is the legislature giving municipalities the
ability to recover costs of a working, operational
system. Nothing in this bill states that the
municipality has to impose this surcharge. That is
for the municipality operating the system to decide.
The legislature is just providing them with a vehicle
to do so. And I urge this committee to consider this
bill because it is clearly an important step to help
municipalities around the state deal with this
problem. The legislature is not only giving
municipalities the ability for local relief but
they're also providing Alaskans with further local
control at the lowest level.
Number 0920
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS inquired as to how much money Anchorage
would collect from this.
MR. RUDIG answered that he didn't know.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS indicated that shifting the charge to
phone users sort of skirts tax cap issues. He opined that by
paying through the property tax, everyone is paying because
individuals either own their home or rent a home for which the
property tax is incorporated. He surmised that by allowing the
phone company to collect this through a charge rather than a
tax, general fund dollars can be saved or spent elsewhere. He
inquired as to how much money this would be in Anchorage.
MR. RUDIG pointed out that the property tax payer is paying for
the emergency dispatch and operations in a state building or
federal building with multiple lines. Mr. Rudig suggested that
there are 42,000 lines in Fairbanks and another 46,000 who
aren't paying for the [emergency dispatch and operations]
service. He stressed that the municipalities are given a check
and they have to be accountable for the surcharge. Therefore,
this legislation shifts the burden to the municipalities.
Number 1102
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired as to the problem with allowing a
local government to assess its costs through property taxes. He
indicated that those individuals with multiple lines would fare
better with the property tax covering the cost because it would
be spread across the board, which would be more equitable.
MR. RUDIG opined that [HB 461] makes it a more user-based fee.
He pointed out that this legislation provides a municipal
option.
Number 1233
STEVE THOMPSON, Mayor, City of Fairbanks, testified in favor of
HB 461, as it's broad-based legislation that covers what is
necessary in most communities in the state. Mayor Thompson
pointed out that most communities have tax caps or revenue caps.
With revenue sharing dwindling, the increase in the Public
Employees' Retirement System (PERS) contribution, and the
increase in the federal match for the federal highway dollars,
Fairbanks experienced a 10 percent reduction in revenues. There
is no way to recover that money due to the tax and revenue caps.
Therefore, the City of Fairbanks has experienced a 10 percent
reduction in general fund dollars available to run the dispatch
center and other operations. Mayor Thompson expressed concern
that a 911-dispatch center may not be properly staffed.
Furthermore, whenever there is a reduction in revenues, the
first thing to be reduced is training. This legislation
provides a user fee in order to ensure that the 911-dispatch
center is properly manned with individuals who have been
properly trained. He opined that people wouldn't balk at paying
for this service to be available.
MAYOR THOMPSON turned attention to AS 29.35.131(b), which in
part read: "A customer that has more than 100 local exchange
access lines from a local exchange telephone company in the
municipality is liable for the enhanced 911 surcharge only on
100 local exchange access lines." Therefore, a large company
would have a maximum as far as its liability. Mayor Thompson
opined that this legislation doesn't pose an undue cost to
businesses to upgrade the phone system if there is an exchange
in the building that doesn't specify the location [within the
building]. By attrition, the aforementioned will happen, he
predicted. Mayor Thompson noted that [Fairbanks] is Phase 1
compliant with all of the hard lines and work is continuing with
the local companies and the others with regard to the enhanced
wireless 911 service. However, to accomplish the
aforementioned, everyone will have to purchase cell telephones.
He estimated that it will take about five years to accomplish
the enhanced wireless 911 service. This legislation provides
funds so that all of the aforementioned can occur over a period
of time while relieving communities that provide life-saving
service.
Number 1502
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT surmised then that there is an exception for
local governments because local governments won't pay any more
than 100 lines, although there may be 3,000 lines in different
locations.
MAYOR THOMPSON pointed out that [the 100 line exception] is in
existing statute, AS 29.35.131(b).
Number 1556
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), commented that it's exciting to make Alaska a better
place. The key issue is revenue for the dispatch centers. In
the last six years, the total amount of revenue for both sales
and property taxes has increased 29 percent. The aforementioned
is very significant and illustrates that municipalities are
paying their own way. Spending hasn't increased to that amount
because the amount that taxes have increased is fairly close to
the cuts in revenue sharing and other cuts [municipalities have
faced]. With the revenue caps in place, there isn't the
flexibility to go higher. Mr. Ritchie pointed out that there is
the possibility of having a better system, but there is the lack
of available revenue to [achieve a better system] and property
taxes may not be the best way [to raise funds for an enhanced
911 system]. Mr. Ritchie emphasized that taxes, surcharges, or
fees are just as difficult to raise on the local level as on the
state level. Therefore, it requires a great selling job to get
the public on board. This legislation merely allows the
possibility of a municipality making some increases in a process
that allows everyone in the community to offer their opinion.
This [legislation] merely authorizes the municipality to raise
rates and go to the maximum, if it can be sold to the taxpayers
at the local level.
Number 1721
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS related his understanding that AML and
the Conference of Mayors supports both HB 461 and HB 499
separately. Therefore, he surmised that AML supports raising
every telephone line in the state by $5 per month.
MR. RITCHIE clarified that AML and the Conference of Mayors
supports the concepts of both pieces of legislation, but work is
necessary to ensure that they make sense. He related his
understanding that the two concepts presented in HB 461 and HB
499 would be merged. He pointed out that HB 461 anticipates a
maximum of $3 per line per month and HB 499 anticipates a
maximum of $2, and therefore he surmised that it would be no
more than $3.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said that isn't what the legislation
says, and related his understanding that [both pieces of
legislation] have a total fee of up to $5 per line per month.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired as to why local governments with
100 lines or more should be given a break at the expense of
constituents or small businesses that may have 10 lines in a
central location. He said he understood that this is an issue
of revenue.
MR. RITCHIE pointed out that HB 499 would eliminate the [100
lines or more exemption] language while HB 461 leaves it alone.
From a municipal level it probably doesn't make a lot of
difference because the money is being collected from "yourself"
to pay "yourself." Therefore, it's basically a wash because the
expense of running the 911 center is there regardless. Although
this isn't problematic at the municipal level, it could be at
the state level.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT opined that if the [100 lines or more
exemption] language was eliminated and specified that the
surcharge will be based on the number of lines one has, then the
surcharge per line would be less.
MR. RITCHIE commented that Representative Kott's argument seems
reasonable.
Number 1965
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA surmised that both HB 461 and HB 499 are
aimed at municipalities, which see a need but it requires
revenue to provide that need. She inquired as to why there is
[a maximum] limit at all, and questioned why something couldn't
be constructed to give the total decision to the local
government.
Number 2042
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HOLM, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB
461, related his understanding that there has never been any
discussion regarding not having any control at all with regard
to the amount of the fee. He explained that when he was
presented with the legislation the [rate] was set at $1.45, and
therefore he questioned what would occur in the future.
Representative Holm acknowledged that it may well be appropriate
that perhaps an upper limit shouldn't be set because at some
point the locals will have to address it anyway. However, he
noted that he wasn't sure how the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska (RCA) or another rate controller would "play into" this
legislation. Representative Holm deferred to Mayor Thompson,
who instigated the introduction of the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS reiterated his earlier question regarding
whether these pieces of legislation are being viewed as mutually
exclusive.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM explained that both pieces of legislation
originated independent of each other. Representative Holm
related his understanding from Mayor Thompson that since the
language is considerably different in the two pieces of
legislation, a marriage of the two would be difficult, and
therefore the two pieces of legislation should probably stand-
alone. However, Representative Holm said he wasn't entrenched
in that thinking. With regard to the upper limit, he opined
that the local issue is with regard to whether to use the upper
limit. He noted that he suspected that there will be
differences in the cost of these services across the state.
Therefore, as a statewide policy, it may be best not to set a
limit at all.
Number 2264
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT reiterated his earlier question regarding
whether it's fair to offer municipalities an exemption from the
surcharge once there are 100 lines at the expense of residents
that may have four or five lines at one residence. He
questioned whether the exemption should be eliminated in order
to spread the costs throughout the users, and therefore lower
the cost per line.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he would suggest that Representative
Kott is probably correct. However, he pointed out that in many
cases [those entities being exempted because of having over 100
lines] include hospitals and universities. The chances of
someone using 911 would be much greater with individual service
as opposed to large businesses or government agencies, he
opined. For example, [large businesses or government agencies]
are open 7.5 to 8 hours a day and the phones aren't used the
other portion of the day. However, a residential phone carries
a greater possibility of using the 911 service.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT informed the committee that he has four
lines at the same location, within 20 feet of each other. To
place a surcharge on each of the aforementioned lines, while
exempting [entities after reaching 100 lines] is unfair, he
opined.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM indicated his agreement with Representative
Kott. Representative Holm mentioned his belief that those who
demand services should pay for the service if possible. In this
particular case, it's a small cost per month for a service that
has huge benefits. He expressed his desire to have the
opportunity to recover those costs.
Number 2560
ED OBERTS, Mayor's Assistant, Office of the Mayor, Kenai
Peninsula Borough, noted his appreciation for the legislature
taking the time to review this important issue. One of the key
issues to keep in mind is the accuracy of the 911 databases, he
said. Any assistance from the state is appreciated, he
remarked.
Number 2576
MARK JOHNSON, Chief, Community Health & Emergency Medical
Services, Division of Public Health, Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS), reiterated that the [department]
supports the concepts of both HB 461 and HB 499 because the
department wants to see improved service. With regard to the
earlier mention of the telephone companies collecting the fees,
the telephone companies would have to upgrade their equipment as
would the municipal/local dispatch centers.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT announced that now that he has a better
understanding of HB 461 and the costs associated with it, there
would be some fiscal impact. Therefore, a fiscal note will have
to be acquired.
Number 2635
CHAIR MORGAN commented that since both pieces of legislation
have raised considerable questions, both HB 499 and HB 461 will
be assigned to a subcommittee comprised of Representative Wolf,
chair, and Representatives Kott and Cissna.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 10:22 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|