Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/19/2005 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB142 | |
| SB160 | |
| SB100 | |
| SB70 | |
| SB112 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 160 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 70 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 100 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 112 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 100(L&C)
"An Act relating to enhanced 911 surcharges imposed by a
municipality."
This was the third hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
11:28:27 AM
Co-Chair Green noted that her staff had assisted Senator Bunde's
staff in the development of this bill.
Senator Bunde, the bill's sponsor, moved for the adoption of CS SB
100 (FIN), Version 24-LS0407\R as the working document.
Co-Chair Green objected for explanation.
KIM CARNOT, Staff to Senator Green, noted that a memorandum from
Co-Chair Green's office, dated April 18, 2005 [copy on file] had
been distributed. It detailed the changes included in the Version
"R" committee substitute as follows.
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 is amended
Page 2
· Line 11 -- $1.50 surcharge for wireline and wireless
· Line 13 - 15 --L&C version language allowing for vote to
go about cap remains in the bill.
· Line 15 - 17 -- requires parity between wireless
telephone and wireline telephone surcharge
· Line 24 - 26 -- requires notification by the municipality
when the surcharge is assessed and when it is
changed.
Section 3. AS 29.35.131 is amended by adding two new sections
· (i) Page 2 Line 30 - Page 3 Line 26 defines appropriate
use of the enhanced 911 surcharge
· (j) Page 3 Line 27 - Page 4 Line 3 requires enhanced 911
providers to execute an agreement addressing the
duties and responsibilities of each and establishing the
priorities for the use of the E-911 surcharge
revenue.
Section 4. Amends AS 29.35 to allow municipalities to require
implementation of E-911 from a multi-line telecommunications
system.
Section 5. AS 29.35 is amended to apply to home rule and
general law municipalities.
Section 6. AS 29.35.131(h) is repealed (home rule
applicability).
Ms. Carnot noted that Sections 1, 5, and 6 would make structural
changes in order "to make the bill generally applicable to any form
of government; any form of community in the State".
Ms. Carnot stated that the majority of the changes made are in Sec.
2 of the bill. While a $1.50 limitation would be imposed, language
in Sec. 2 would allow the decision to increase the surcharge above
that amount to be made locally. In addition, parity in the
surcharge amount must occur in regards to wireless and wired phone
service. There would also be a requirement that a municipality
rather than the telephone company must notify phone customers at
the time a surcharge was imposed or changed.
Ms. Carnot continued that Sec. 3 would define the appropriate use
of the E-911 surcharge funds so that the funds would not be
"mismanaged or misused". Both federal and other states'
requirements were considered in the development of this section.
Sec. 3(j) would require an agreement to be entered into when
another provider in lieu of the local municipality, provides the
service. Such an agreement would clarify how the funds would be
utilized and would allow for regional planning efforts between, for
example, a borough and its municipalities. The agreement should
also include the Alaska State Troopers were their service provided
in the area. The purpose of subsection (j) would be to help
communities coordinate planning on how to utilize "the money
wisely" and accommodate system growth.
Ms. Carnot stated that Sec. 4 would require multi-line
telecommunication systems, often referred to as Private Branch
Exchange (PBX) systems, to implement technology through which
emergency responders would be notified of the location of the
caller. However, concern was voiced regarding this requirement and
in response, rather than specifying a timeline in State Statute,
the language was included that would allow a municipality to
develop an ordinance and regulate the timeline.
11:32:15 AM
Senator Bunde conveyed that the federal Enhanced-911 requirements
"are costing our communities a lot of money". Absent the ability to
raise the E-911 surcharge amount, as would be provided by the
legislation, communities would be required to increase local
property taxes and other sources. It is also important to take into
consideration the increasing use by wireless phones of the 911-
service and require them to make "a larger contribution". It is "a
fairness issue". This would be likened to asking those who use
something to pay for it.
Co-Chair Wilken noted that the City of Fairbanks had written a
letter dated April 7, 2005 [copy not provided] regarding PBXs and
the fact that this Legislation might incur significant expense to
some businesses, such as hotels, that currently own PBX systems, as
some older versions are not up-gradable. To that point, he asked
whether his understanding of the situation was correct.
Ms. Carnot responded that language in Sec. 4, page four, lines five
and six of Version "R" would provide a municipality the option of
whether or not to require the implementation of such technology.
The requirement would be a local decision that would allow for
public comment and consideration.
Co-Chair Green noted that others had also raised this concern.
Efforts to accommodate it were made.
Co-Chair Wilken noted that a technical correction might be required
as the word "with" appears to be missing between "guide" and
"valid" in language in Sec. 4, page four, line nine.
Co-Chair Green suggested that rather than the word "with" being
inserted, a comma might suffice.
Co-Chair Green stated that the bill's drafter would review the
language.
11:36:00 AM
Co-Chair Wilken noted that a copy of the Version "R" committee
substitute had recently been provided to the Mayor of the City of
Fairbanks, and a response is expected. Continuing, he expressed
that the City "is very, very concerned about the $1.50 cap"
limitation. According to the City's calculations, a level ranging
between $2.50 to $3.50 would be required. Therefore, he requested
that consideration be given to allowing the local governing bodies
to determine the level that would be needed to support their
service.
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether "the issue about who controls what"
in regards to cities within boroughs had been rectified.
Co-Chair Green affirmed that that issue had been addressed in Sec.
3(j) on page three, beginning on line 27. That language specifies
that an "agreement must be reached between overlapping geography."
11:37:12 AM
Co-Chair Wilken asked for further clarification about how a
community vote on an E-911 issue would transpire in the case of a
city within a borough, in which the city operates the 911-system.
11:37:28 AM
Ms. Carnot responded that this is a two-part issue. Sec. 3(j) would
establish the agreement between the primary Public Safety Answering
Point (PSAP) and the secondary PSAP. She explained that the
surcharge funds collected by the local telephone company are
transferred to the designated primary responder. In the Mat-Su
area, for example, which emergency responder would respond to the
call would be determined by the type and location of the call.
Either the Alaska State Troopers or the municipality could respond.
Therefore, the language in Sec. 3(j) would develop the mechanism
through which those communities could work to form an agreement in
regards to how services would be provided in addition to how the E-
911 surcharge would be utilized.
Ms. Carnot stated that the people being served in the E-911 service
area would vote on the surcharge level issue. She was unsure
regarding which entity would be responsible for coordinating the
election.
11:39:09 AM
Co-Chair Green asked whether the City of Fairbanks was the
Fairbanks North Star Borough's primary PSAP.
Co-Chair Wilken understood that the City provides the E-911
service, as the Fairbanks North Star Borough is a second-class
borough and as such "does not have public safety powers".
Therefore, the City "shoulders" the expense of the service,
borough-wide. Financial assistance would be welcome as the City has
a three million dollar deficit in that regard.
Co-Chair Wilken noted however, that while further clarification of
the voting process would be sought, he would not object to the bill
moving forward.
11:40:07 AM
Co-Chair Green asked whether the language in Sec. 3(j) would apply
to the Fairbanks area, as she doubted that any of the area's 911-
funds were directed to any budget other than that of the City's
primary PSAP service budget.
Co-Chair Wilken understood that the City supported the Fairbanks'
E-911 service in its entirety. He worried that voters living
outside of the City but within the Borough might decide not "to
support moving that responsibility from the City to Borough-wide".
Uncertainty in regards to how this might pan out was the reason
that he had sought further advice from the Mayor of Fairbanks.
Co-Chair Green understood that "the entire universe of who is
served by the system" would pay. In other words, anyone whose
emergency calls transit through that system should support it.
Ms. Carnot stated that both Co-Chair Wilken and Co-Chair Green's
"understanding of the situation are correct".
11:42:29 AM
Ms. Carnot counseled that while "a sales pitch" would be required
to garner borough wide support of the bill and increasing the 911
surcharge, "selling the issue of bringing emergency 911 services to
people in your borough is a lot easier than what local communities
often have to sell in terms of increasing fees or taxes".
Co-Chair Wilken agreed, but noted that his concern centers on the
fact that, as his second-class borough does not have safety powers,
it would be unable "to tax for those powers in order to transfer
monies from the borough to the provider, which is the City of
Fairbanks".
Ms. Carnot conveyed the understanding that this situation would
fall under "what is defined as the Enhanced 911 System". She
referred the Committee to Sec. 2(a), page one line seven, as this
language would specify that "A municipality may, by resolution or
ordinance, elect to provide an enhanced 911 system …". This
language might address Co-Chair Wilken concern, as, by definition,
the enhanced-911 system would include the entire service area of
the borough beyond the borders of the municipality.
Co-Chair Wilken understood therefore that "Fairbanks may, by
resolution or ordinance, elect to provide enhanced 911 to the
entire borough".
Co-Chair Green clarified that in order for the service to be
provided, an agreement between the borough and the city must exist.
The terms of the agreement between the City of Fairbanks and the
North Star Borough could include such things as who would conduct
the election.
Ms. Carnot noted that current language in the Statute definition
section, AS 29.35.137, specifies that an enhanced 911-service area
"means the area within a municipality's jurisdiction that has been
designated to receive enhanced 911 services". This language would
allow whatever provisions are agreed upon by the City of Fairbanks
and the North Stat Borough to apply.
Co-Chair Wilken continued to voice concern regarding whether the
powers of the Legislature or the powers of the City could "bleed"
over to each other in regards to authority or the disbursement of
funds from the citizens of the Borough to the City. It should be
clarified as to whether the City could collect fees from users
outside of the City, and, could the Borough funnel money back to
the City. The concern continues about whether people in the Borough
would support a proposal to begin paying for 911 services, since
that is not currently the case. He would await input from the City
in this regard.
Co-Chair Green asked for confirmation that there is currently no
collection of 911 fees outside of the City of Fairbanks.
Co-Chair Wilken affirmed that to be correct.
Senator Bunde asked whether language in Sec. 3(i), page three,
lines one through four, would prohibit municipalities from using
the surcharge revenue to lease or purchase new facilities for its
911 call centers; the funds could only be utilized "to rejuvenate
or remodel existing structures".
Co-Chair Green opined that the language would not allow the funds
to be used to construct new facilities as the language specifies
that, "The surcharge revenue may not be used for constructing
buildings, leasing buildings, maintaining buildings, or renovating
buildings, except for the modification of an existing building to
the extent that is necessary to maintain the security and
environmental integrity of the public safety answering point and
equipment rooms".
Senator Bunde commented that this clarification should be on "the
record" as some might otherwise interpret enhanced 911 service to
allow such expansion.
Ms. Carnot noted that the funds could be used to modify an existing
building.
Senator Bunde acknowledged that modifications would be permissible.
Co-Chair Wilken conveyed to the Committee that a recent Fairbanks
Daily News Miner newspaper editorial [copy not provided] had
assisted in clarifying the question, as it attests that were the
bill to become law, "local governments" such as the Fairbanks North
Star Borough Assembly "would be allowed, after holding a public
hearing, to raise the E-911 surcharge to a maximum of $2.00, now
$1.50 per wireline and cell phones. In the Fairbanks Borough, the
extra money raised, about a million [dollars] would largely go the
City of Fairbanks since it is the primary E911 provider. The City,
in turn, would be able to reduce its property tax rate cause it's
no longer subsidizing…." He stated that the editorial addressed his
concern as it conveys "that money could be taken from the Borough
and move it to the City".
Co-Chair Green removed her objection to the adoption of the Version
"R" committee substitute.
There being no further objection, the Version "R" committee
substitute was ADOPTED as the working document.
Conceptual Amendment #1: This amendment inserts a new subsection
into Section 3 of the bill as follows.
"call taker" means a person employed in a primary or secondary
answering point whose duties include the initial answering of
911or enhanced 911 calls and routing the calls to the agency
or dispatch center responsible for dispatching appropriate
emergency services and a person in a primary or secondary
answering point whose duties include receiving a 911 or
enhanced 911 call either directly or routed from another
answering point and dispatching appropriate emergency services
in response to the call. The term "call taker" is synonymous
with the term "dispatcher" in that it is inclusive of the
functions of both answering the 911 or enhanced 911 calls and
dispatching emergency services in response to the call.
Co-Chair Green moved for the adoption of Amendment #1 and objected
for clarification.
Ms. Carnot explained that, during discussion on the bill, it was
determined that the term "call taker" should be defined in State
Statutes as its inclusion would allow for continued funding of that
position with the 911 surcharge funds. The term currently appears
in Sec. 3(i)(3) and Sec. 3(i) (4) of Version "R", page three, lines
18 and 21. She read the definition of call taker as depicted in the
amendment.
Co-Chair Wilken noted, for the record, that, the information
provided on an Alaska Municipal League (AML) handout titled "E-911
Dispatch Center Costs and Revenues Selected Alaska Cities", which
depicts current call centers' operating costs, the current E-911
revenues received, and the current revenue shortfalls being
experienced in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Kenai, Juneau, and Kodiak,
depicts that Anchorage and Fairbanks, for instance, are each
currently experiencing an approximate four million dollar
shortfall; Kenai is experiencing an approximate $1.8 million
shortfall; Juneau has an approximate $900,000 shortfall; and Kodiak
has an approximate $550,000 shortfall. When the $1.50 surcharge
rate being proposed is applied to the number of telephone lines in
each community, Anchorage would experience a surplus of
approximately $2.4 million dollars. However, Fairbanks' would
continue to have a deficit of approximately $2.4 million; Kenai
would have a deficit of approximately one million dollars; and
Juneau would have an approximate $100,000 deficit, and Kodiak would
have an approximate $350,000. These figures would explain the
reason there had previously been a cut-off at the 100,000-
population level.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that this should be a consideration, as this
legislation would not assist "my town at all; and that's why
they're so upset about" it. In addition to the fact that a $1.50
surcharge would be insufficient, the community of Fairbanks would
also incur the expense of an election. He empathized with the
community's "distress" regarding the bill.
11:53:46 AM
Co-Chair Wilken remarked that the forthcoming October 2005 local
election in Fairbanks would already include "contested,
acrimonious, and expensive" mayoral and city council elections.
Furthermore, since local governments are prohibited from spending
money to further ballot issues, the charge of garnering support for
the E-911 surcharge ballot issue would fall on local citizen
volunteers. While the 911 emergency system is available to any
caller, only a small percentage have used it and know the value of
it; therefore, convincing people to approve such a surcharge on
each phone line could be a difficult task. To that point, he voiced
the preference that rather than a community vote occurring, any
decision regarding the local 911 service, including the surcharge
level, should be a determination made by the local assembly. While
he appreciated the intent of the legislation, he voiced having
"grave reservations about it".
11:55:54 AM
Co-Chair Green reiterated that Amendment #1 is a conceptual
amendment. The bill drafter would review both the language in the
amendment and the language identified earlier by Co-Chair Wilken.
[NOTE: While Co-Chair Green did not formally remove her objection
to Conceptual Amendment #1, its removal was implied.]
Amendment #1 was ADOPTED without further objection.
Senator Bunde moved to report the bill, as amended, from Committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CS SB 100(FIN) was REPORTED from
Committee with previous fiscal note #1, dated February 15, 2005
from the Department of Public Safety and previous fiscal note #2,
dated February 15, 2005 from the Department of Commerce, Community
and Economic Development.
AT EASE 11:56:59 AM / 11:57:58 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|