Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/22/2001 08:09 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 22, 2001
8:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Gretchen Guess
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Morgan, Co-Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 186
"An Act relating to a municipal enhanced 911 surcharge on
wireless telephones."
- MOVED HB 186 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 186
SHORT TITLE:911 SURCHARGE ON MOBILE TELEPHONES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MEYER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/15/01 0609 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/15/01 0609 (H) CRA, L&C
03/22/01 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
MARK MEW, Deputy Chief
Anchorage Police Department
4501 S Bragaw
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 186.
DOUG ROBINSON, Communications Manager
Municipality of Anchorage
3650 E Tudor Rd Bldg C
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 186.
DAN YOUMANS, Director
External Affairs, Washington & Alaska
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.
617 Eastlake Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98109
POSITION STATEMENT: Mr. Youmans' letter to Co-Chair Meyer was
read into the record by Mr. Gillespie.
RAY GILLESPIE, Lobbyist
AT&T Wireless
PO Box 589
Seward, Alaska 99664
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions.
RAY MILLER, Lieutenant
Fairbanks Police Department
656 7th Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Informed the committee of the situation in
Fairbanks.
TIM BIGGANE, Director
Emergency Operations
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Peger Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the Fairbanks North Star
Borough is in support of HB 186.
SCOOTER WELCH, Chief
Fairbanks Police Department
656 7th Ave.
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 186.
TIM ROGERS, Legislative Coordinator
Municipality of Anchorage
(No address provided.)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the intent of HB 186.
GINA WEYMILLER, Supervisor
Wheeler University Dispatcher Center
611 N. Chandalar
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the need for a wireless
surcharge.
MARK JOHNSON, Chief
Community Health & Emergency Medical Services
Division of Public Health
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110616
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0616
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 186.
JULIE KRAFFT
Alaska Municipal League
217 Second Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 186.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-15, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR KEVIN MEYER called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:09 a.m.
Representatives Meyer, Scalzi, Guess, and Kerttula were present
at the call to order. Representative Murkowski arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 186-911 SURCHARGE ON MOBILE TELEPHONES
CO-CHAIR MEYER announced that the only order of business before
the committee today would be HOUSE BILL NO. 186, "An Act
relating to a municipal enhanced 911 surcharge on wireless
telephones."
Number 0115
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS declared a conflict of interest because she
is currently on paid leave from the Alaska Communications
Systems (ACS). There was objection, and therefore
Representative Guess was required to participate.
Number 0157
CO-CHAIR MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, testified as sponsor
of HB 186. Co-Chair Meyer informed the committee that the
Enhanced 911 (E911) system provides a visual location and
telephone number of the person calling 911. Therefore, the E911
system provides faster response time and automatic routing to
the appropriate emergency response unit. Currently, 25 percent
of the [911] calls in Anchorage are from wireless telephones,
however "we" don't have the technology or the capability for the
E911 system [with wireless calls]. Therefore, wireless 911
calls are not automatically routed nor do they provide a visual
location both of which result in inefficiency. Currently,
Anchorage imposes a surcharge of up to $.50 for wireline 911
calls. This surcharge was made possible by the enactment of a
state law in 1994. Therefore, HB 186 would amend the current
state law to allow municipalities to impose a [911] surcharge on
wireless telephones, which many cities across the nation already
do. Co-Chair Meyer directed the committee to the bill packet
that includes his sponsor statement, letters of support, a
sectional analysis by Legislative Legal and Research Services, a
legislative priority list from the City of Anchorage, and
letters from the industry.
Number 0488
MARK MEW, Deputy Chief, Anchorage Police Department (APD),
testified via teleconference. He pointed out that although
[APD] has been collecting a surcharge for a communications
center and 911 capability, the revenue collected does not cover
the entire cost of the operation. With the increase in wireless
communication, wireless calls are making up a larger portion of
the call load. Therefore, one consideration is just handling
all the incoming calls, many of which are duplicate. In the
past although many people might see an accident, only a few
people would actually have access to a phone. However, it is
now customary for the entire center to receive 20-30 calls
reporting the same event. This possibility requires the
communications center to be staffed so that all calls can be
answered, even though they may be duplicate calls. Sometimes
there are so many calls that the 911 capacity is overloaded,
which means that there are more incoming calls than there are
incoming lines. Therefore, some of the people calling 911
receive a busy signal and there is no way to know what those
people are calling about. Therefore, the need to expand the 911
system, at some point, is apparent.
MR. MEW noted that he isn't complaining about cell phone calls
because those calls result in more accurate and timely
information. Mr. Mew said, "I think we owe it to the community
to respond to that [wireless calls] and be able to provide
timely response. But I also think that the people using the
technology should support ... our growth and our efforts to
provide that service." He predicted that wireless
communications will eventually replace wireline communications
and thus the revenue [for the communication center] would shrink
at some point in the future. This situation is occurring across
the nation. Soon the industry will change and Automatic
Location Identification (ALI) and Automatic Number
Identification (ANI) data will be available through cellular
communications. Therefore, the collection of a surcharge could
help fund whatever [APD] has to do in order to meet the
technological changes.
MR. MEW, in response to Representative Scalzi, reiterated that a
couple of years ago, there was a study that showed that 25
percent of the 911 calls were wireless. Mr. Mew was certain
that the percentage had risen since then.
Number 0991
DOUG ROBINSON, Communications Manager, Municipality of
Anchorage, testified via teleconference. He began by informing
the committee that currently 30 states have passed legislation
for the collection of a wireless 911 surcharge, which ranges
from $.35 to $2.00 per wireless phone. The revenue that is
collected would be used to assist in financing equipment and
software upgrades for the E911 public safety answering points
(PSAP). The revenues would also be used to modify existing
mapping software that would be in the dispatch center in order
to display and track the wireless location information within
the dispatch center. The revenues from the wireless surcharge
would also be used to develop required data interfaces for the
computer aided dispatch and to perform network upgrades to
current E911 systems. If revenue was obtained from the
surcharge, then the upgrades would be performed in order to pass
the wireless ANI and ALI information to the dispatch center.
MR. ROBINSON informed the committee that a wireless surcharge as
a cost recovery mechanism is endorsed by several national
professional organizations, such as the Association of Public
Safety Communication Officials (APSCO) and the National
Emergency Number Association (NENA). He pointed out that NENA
works with Project Locate whose mandate is to have a model city
in [each] state so that there is Phase II wireless technology
within their dispatch centers. Therefore, that PSAP would be
used as the model for other PSAPs [as they work] to become Phase
II compliant. He explained that Phase II compliance means that
the ANI and ALI information could be obtained from a wireless
phone. Anchorage has been selected as the [model city] that
will receive [the Phase II wireless technology]. Therefore,
Anchorage is required to send letters to the wireless carriers
that request their support in providing [the PSAP] with the ANI
and ALI information for wireless phones. In turn, the necessary
upgrades to receive the wireless information within the PSAP
would be done.
MR. ROBINSON outlined the timing of this. He said that between
April and this summer, PSAPs that are interested in Phase II
technology should write letters requesting such to the wireless
carriers. By October 2001 the wireless carriers that are
choosing the handset-based solution, that is a global
positioning satellite (GPS) chip, must begin selling and
activating the handsets with the location capability. By
December 31, 2002, 100 percent of all new wireless handsets must
be location capable. By December 31, 2005, 95 percent of all
wireless handsets and the carriers total subscriber base must
have the location capability. In summary, Mr. Robinson pointed
out that Alaska is in the bottom third of the states that
haven't put in place a 911 surcharge. He felt that now is an
appropriate time for Alaska to become involved in this.
Number 1383
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said he was encouraged that the GPS chip
would be used. He asked if a 911 call [on a wireless phone]
would trigger the GPS. He also asked if there would be an added
cost in retrieving that GPS information.
MR. ROBINSON explained that the wireless carriers will be
required to provide the tracking equipment. Once the GPS chip
is in the cellular phone, that cellular phone will be tracked by
the wireless carrier. The dispatch center has to have the
mapping capability and the ability to receive the GPS signal in
order to have the information display on a mapping screen.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI related his understanding that this will
not be a direct link between the cellular phone and the dispatch
center.
MR. ROBINSON explained that the [information] will pass through
a controller of the wireless carrier to the dispatch center
through the network.
Number 1528
RAY GILLESPIE, Lobbyist, AT&T Wireless, read a letter from Dan
Youmans, Director, External Affairs, Washington & Alaska, AT&T
Wireless Services, Inc., which is included in the committee
packet. Mr. Gillespie read the letter as follows:
Dear Representative Meyer:
On behalf of AT&T Wireless [Services (AWS)], I would
like to thank you for your interest in public safety
and the 911 emergency communication system. [AT&T
Wireless Services] is a strong supporter of 911. We
believe wireless phones are making a significant
contribution to the safety of wireless customers and
the overall community by providing immediate emergency
communication through the 911 system.
Because wireless phones are often used to call 911,
AT&T Wireless supports a reasonable surcharge on
wireless customers to help cover the costs incurred by
the Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs). House
Bill 186 would create a monthly surcharge of up to 50
cents for municipalities with a population of 100,000
or greater, and a monthly surcharge of up to 75 cents
for municipalities with a population of less than
100,000. [AT&T Wireless Services] can support the
legislation if amended to create a surcharge level at
50 cents for all municipalities statewide.
[AT&T Wireless Services] feels a consistent rate
across the state would be a more equitable way to levy
the 911 surcharge, especially since wireless phones
are used by customers in multiple jurisdictions. For
example, a customer who lives in Anchorage may be
visiting Fairbanks where he or she may witness a car
accident. A call to 911 on a wireless phone would go
to the Fairbanks PSAP. The opposite may be true of a
visitor from Fairbanks calling an Anchorage PSAP.
Since wireless phones can be used in many
jurisdictions across the state to make emergency phone
calls, it seems only fair that the surcharge be the
same no matter where the customer lives.
[AT&T Wireless Services] would also like to thank you
for including "cost recovery" language in the
legislation, recognizing the [Federal Communication
Commission's] mandate that carrier costs associated
with Enhanced 911 be reimbursed in jurisdictions where
cost recovery mechanisms, like the one contemplated by
this legislation, exist.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on
House Bill 186. Please feel free to contact me if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Dan Youmans
Number 1700
CO-CHAIR MEYER related his understanding of the letter to be
that AT&T would like an amendment that would require a flat $.50
fee no matter the location.
MR. GILLESPIE answered in the affirmative.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said he imagined that the difference in the fee
was because of the population differences. For instance, he
imagined that Anchorage would experience more calls than Bethel.
Therefore, he surmised that the thought was that in Bethel the
charge would be higher in order to have the same technology and
equipment that is in Anchorage. That same cost differential
would exist with the cell phone, he thought.
MR. GILLESPIE clarified the position of the company, "They will
support the bill, the surcharge for wireless and landlines.
They are reluctant, however, to go out and support increasing
the cost to their customers above 50 cents. It doesn't mean
they're going to oppose the bill."
CO-CHAIR MEYER pointed out that [with the wireline calls] the
$.50/$.75 split already exists.
MR. GILLESPIE noted that he wasn't around when the landline
surcharge was enacted and thus he didn't know the rationale
behind the differential. Mr. Gillespie said, "In the case of
the wireless, I think, as the Municipality of Anchorage
indicated earlier, that the percentage of overall calls to the
system may be 25 percent. It could be up to 50 percent now.
And a 50 percent [cent] statewide rate, I think would reflect
probably more equitably that ... proportion of calls coming from
landline and wireless."
CO-CHAIR MEYER referred to the flat fee desired by AT&T Wireless
Services and asked whether it would be better for areas that can
get by with charging less to do so rather than have a flat rate.
MR. GILLESPIE said that Co-Chair Meyer has a good point and that
is why he didn't read the sentence from Mr. Youmans' letter that
read, "We [AT&T Wireless Services] also suggest the rate be set
at 50 cents as opposed to 'may not exceed' 50 cents to simplify
the rate structure for all wireless carriers and customers."
Number 1903
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS pointed out that if a flat fee of $.50 is
imposed, then those communities that are currently charging $.75
may not be able to pay for this [enhanced 911] system in that
local community. Therefore, Representative Guess expressed the
need to keep the differential.
MR. GILLESPIE said that is a decision for the legislative body
to make. However, he reiterated the corporate reluctance to go
on record [as supporting] a surcharge above $.50.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA posed a situation in which an Anchorage
cellular phone is used to make a call in Bethel. She inquired
as to the rate the individual would pay. She assumed that the
Anchorage rate would be paid.
MR. GILLESPIE answered that he believes that would be the case.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS said that the surcharge would be derived
from the location that bills. Therefore, there would be some
cost transfers between municipalities "that will never happen,"
she said.
CO-CHAIR MEYER clarified that in the situation posed by
Representative Kerttula, the money would go to Anchorage, even
though the call was made to Bethel. He said, "Hopefully, in the
long run, that all works out."
Number 2049
RAY MILLER, Lieutenant, Fairbanks Police Department (FPD),
testified via teleconference. He informed the committee that
Fairbanks did a survey last month, from which it determined that
44 percent of its [911] calls were wireless. He also informed
the committee that [FPD] is trying to put together a new
dispatch center. The new equipment that would allow receipt of
the ANI and ALI information from wireless technology has been
estimated to cost about $600,000. This legislation would help
fund the purchase and maintenance of this equipment.
LIEUTENANT MILLER said that the [Fairbanks] dispatch center
receives virtually all the 911 calls from the northern half of
Alaska. With such a large area to serve, the ability to
pinpoint the location is important in order to determine the
appropriate response mechanism.
Number 2181
TIM BIGGANE, Director, Emergency Operations, Fairbanks North
Star Borough, testified via teleconference. He informed the
committee that the Fairbanks North Star Borough is in support of
HB 186. Emergency Operations is the agency that manages the
E911 system in Fairbanks. Since 1997 a surcharge on the
landline system has been collected. The surcharge of $.65 pays
for the maintenance, the operational database costs, and a long-
term capital replacement program. Mr. Biggane noted that
although they do receive ANI information, it is [only a small
amount] and is only received by one dispatch center. Fairbanks
is [considering] building a regional dispatch center that will
bring dispatch centers together. Mr. Biggane said, "This
technology ... enhances the ability for us to take a E911 call
(indisc.) dispatch center and provide a higher level of
service."
MR. BIGGANE turned to AT&T's suggestion of a flat rate. He
encouraged the committee to maintain the current language in the
bill in order to allow the local government entity to set the
surcharge necessary to be able to maintain the cost [of the E911
system]. Mr. Biggane mentioned that Fairbanks has a capital
replacement fund that was started in 1997 to replace the entire
system within ten years. However, technology has moved faster
than that, which means Fairbanks is behind in that aspect. Add
to that the possibility of lowering the surcharge [if the flat
fee suggestion is adopted] and this will create a different
surcharge between the landline surcharge and the wireless
surcharge, which will make for an interesting battle.
Therefore, Mr. Biggane encouraged allowing the local community
to set the necessary surcharge in order to maintain the
operation of long-term capital. He remarked that the Denali
location is necessary. In conclusion, he reiterated that the
Fairbanks North Star Borough does support the bill.
MR. BIGGANE, in response to Co-Chair Meyer, explained that
Fairbanks began with a surcharge of $.75 that was reduced to
$.65 after the first year.
CO-CHAIR MEYER expressed his encouragement in hearing that
scenario because he hoped that communities would only charge the
amount needed.
Number 2390
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA mentioned that if tourists are dialing
911, their phone is probably from out-of-state. Therefore, she
pondered whether, at some point, there would be technology that
would allow the surcharge to be placed on the phone. Perhaps,
that would be a disincentive for people to call 911.
Number 2461
SCOOTER WELCH, Chief, Fairbanks Police Department, testified via
teleconference. He noted his support of HB 186. He recalled
when the community of Fairbanks and the North Star Borough
didn't have the technology available to provide public safety,
police, fire, and Emergency Medical Service (EMS) providers on
scene when a call was disconnected. The ability to have an E911
system has made the police department's job much simpler and
provides an additional level of safety to the community.
Furthermore, the ability to have cellular technology in Alaska
has been a great asset, but it has technologically impacted us
in many ways. In conclusion, Mr. Welch reiterated his support
of the bill.
Number 2560
TIM ROGERS, Legislative Coordinator, Municipality of Anchorage,
explained that the original intent with this legislation was to
mirror the language that is already in place for landlines. He
noted that "we" worked closely with AT&T Wireless and ACS in
order to ensure their concerns were addressed in the bill. Mr.
Rogers turned to the question of how much money is currently
collected from the surcharge. Currently, the Municipality of
Anchorage receives almost $900,000 a year [from the surcharge],
which is a fraction of the cost of running the dispatch center
or the cost to upgrade the system. Currently, a multi-million
dollar upgrade to the E911 system is occurring in Anchorage.
The current surcharge helps offset a portion of that and thus it
is hoped that the wireless surcharge will also help.
CO-CHAIR MEYER related his understanding that (E911) calls that
come in to the dispatch center are automatically answered by the
police department and then routed to the [appropriate]
department.
MR. ROGERS answered that is the current situation, although
there are efforts to consolidate the dispatch centers.
Currently, an upgrade is occurring in order to make that a more
efficient system. In further response to Co-Chair Meyer, Mr.
Rogers affirmed that a wireless surcharge would help with that.
CO-CHAIR MEYER inquired as to how much money is necessary for
the [dispatch center].
MR. ROGERS related his belief that the operating budget for the
dispatch center is well over $2 million a year. Mr. Rogers
shared Co-Chair Meyer's understanding that this is a priority
and is important to other cities besides Anchorage. He pointed
out that the committee packet should contain a letter of support
from the Alaska Municipal League (AML) Public Works &
Infrastructure Legislative Subcommittee.
Number 2726
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI recalled Mr. Rogers' earlier testimony
that this legislation was intended to mirror what is already in
statute for wirelines and apply it to wireless. From the
sponsor statement, Representative Murkowski understood that the
reason to add the wireless calls is because of the current lack
of automatic tracking with wireless calls. She suggested that
there is a greater cost associated with a wireless call versus a
wireline call. Therefore, she asked if there has been any
discussion regarding having a surcharge for wireless calls that
is greater than the surcharge for wireline calls.
MR. ROGERS answered that there was some discussion on that
matter. However, it was thought to be more palatable to the
industry and the legislature if the wireless surcharge was equal
to that of the current wireline surcharge. He agreed with
Representative Murkowski that currently it is more labor-
intensive to handle a wireless call than a wireline call. He
reiterated earlier testimony regarding the fact that an incident
will frequently bring in multiple [wireless] calls, which clogs
the system.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska (RCA) is involved in setting the surcharge or ensuring
that the surcharge is reasonable.
MR. ROGERS replied no and noted that this is exempt from RCA.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI remarked that it would seem reasonable
for wireless calls, if wireless calls are a greater source of
the problem, to [pay a greater portion]. However, she
appreciated the politics of the situation and recognized that
perhaps this is a compromise.
CO-CHAIR MEYER recalled his days on the Anchorage Assembly and
the telephone wars, during which it was difficult to get all the
telephone companies to agree. However, the carriers don't have
a problem with this. Co-Chair Meyer then asked whether GCI has
been contacted.
MR. ROGERS said that he has spoken with GCI, who is supposed to
send a letter [to the committee].
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS restated Representative Murkowski's
question regarding allowing the flexibility to have a higher
surcharge.
MR. ROGERS restated his earlier answer that those discussions
have occurred, but it was felt best politically to maintain [the
current surcharge].
Number 2909
GINA WEYMILLER, Supervisor, Wheeler University Dispatcher
Center, testified via teleconference. Ms. Weymiller remarked
that one of the tangible benefits of the wireless surcharge
would be the resource allocation. Currently, when cellular
calls come in and the individual doesn't know their location,
then resources are sent out to search for these locations. She
said that she is speaking strictly from the fire and EMS
perspective, although she imagined there to be the same case
with the police. She pointed out that all the money collected
from the current surcharge is going towards equipment with no
cost recovery for training. Therefore, with wireline calls, the
technology affords the location of the caller, but there are not
adequate [resources] ...
TAPE 01-15, SIDE B
MS. WEYMILLER continued, "[to increase funding] coming in to the
PSAPs." She informed the committee that [Fairbanks] is also
looking at a consolidated dispatch center, which would bring all
the resources together and thus the standard of training could
be brought up to a higher level. In the Wheeler University
Dispatch Center the volume of cellular calls is about 14
percent. In conclusion, Ms. Weymiller remarked that HB 186 is
overdue.
Number 2889
MARK JOHNSON, Chief, Community Health & Emergency Medical
Services, Division of Public Health, Department of Health &
Social Services, testified in support of HB 186. He agreed that
receiving [wireless] calls from people who don't know their
location is a growing problem. He pointed out that delays in
emergency situations can be life-threatening. Although he said
that he was pleased to see the section dealing with the
extraterritorial jurisdiction, Mr. Johnson mentioned that there
is a continuing problem in not having enhanced [911] service in
some of the rural areas in the state. From discussions with
various people, Mr. Johnson does believe there to be an issue
regarding the volumes of phones and the cost of putting in the
equipment, which he believes to be one of the justifications of
a $.75 surcharge for smaller communities. In regard to the
future, Mr. Johnson encouraged someone to develop a solution for
the rural areas outside the municipalities. However, for now
this is a good piece of legislation that [DHSS] supports.
CO CHAIR MEYER inquired as to how the rural areas could be
helped.
MR. JOHNSON answered that Senator Pearce, the sponsor of the
1994 legislation, should be contacted in reference to the
history of the [wireline surcharge]. However, Mr. Johnson
related his belief that initial discussions involved the state
collecting the fee, which was problematic [due to the inability
to have] a dedicated fund. The legislation was then drafted so
that the fee would be collected at the local level, which
apparently solved the dedicated fund problem. Still, there are
situations that occur outside of municipalities in which an
individual doesn't know their location and that causes problems.
Mr. Johnson said that for those areas the solution has to be
completely different and thus, for now, HB 186 is appropriate.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked Mr. Johnson to review the difference
between the $.50 and $.75 [wireline] surcharge.
MR. JOHNSON related his understanding that there is a certain
cost involved with obtaining the equipment to do this at the
PSAP. In the smaller communities, there wouldn't be enough
volume, which was the justification for having the higher $.75
surcharge.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if anyone that the committee has
heard from today is opposed to HB 186.
CO-CHAIR MEYER replied no.
Number 2662
JULIE KRAFFT, Alaska Municipal League, testified in support of
HB 186. She noted AML's letter of support in the committee
packet that, in part, said the following:
In 1994 the state adopted a bill, supported by the
[Alaska] Municipal League, allowing municipalities to
place a 50 cents to 75 cents per month surcharge on
hard-wired telephones to help offset the costs for the
critical life-saving services of the 911 emergency
telephone system. With the dramatic increase in the
use of cellular phones, especially for emergency
calls, it is equitable and appropriate to extend the
same charge to cellular phones.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked if this is a priority of the Municipal
League of Cities.
MS. KRAFFT said that although this issue hasn't made it to the
top of the list, "we very much support this."
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked if there was anyone else who wished to
testify. There being no one, the public testimony portion of HB
186 was closed. He noted that he had received a request to
offer an amendment that would establish the wireless surcharge
at $.50 regardless of the size of the location.
Number 2536
CO-CHAIR MEYER moved that the committee adopt the following
amendment:
Page 2, lines 7 - 13:
Delete "For a municipality with a population of
100,000 or more, an enhanced 911 [THE] surcharge may
not exceed 50 cents per month for each wireless
telephone number or 50 cents per month for each [PER]
local exchange access line for wireline telephones.
For a municipality with fewer than 100,000 people, an
enhanced 911 [THE] surcharge may not exceed 75 cents
per month for each wireless telephone number or 75
cents per month for each [PER] local exchange access
line for wireline telephones."
Insert "For a municipality with a population of
100,000 or more, an enhanced 911 [THE] surcharge may
not exceed 50 cents per month per local exchange
access line for wireline telephones. For a
municipality with fewer than 100,000 people, an
enhanced 911 [THE] surcharge may not exceed 75 cents
per month per local exchange access line for wireline
telephones. An enhanced 911 surcharge may not exceed
50 cents per month for each wireless telephone
number."
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI objected because there is the need to be
flexible in the face of not knowing the costs for the wireless
services, which seem to cost more per today's testimony.
CO-CHAIR MEYER noted his agreement with Representative Scalzi.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI related her understanding that under
the amendment an area could have a $.75 landline surcharge and a
$.50 wireless surcharge. Therefore, she inquired as to the
rationale behind that.
CO-CHAIR MEYER mentioned the letter from AT&T, which seemed to
relate that it would be easier to collect a flat fee throughout
the entire state.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she understood, but noted [AT&T's]
"incredibly impressive billing techniques."
Number 2398
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Murkowski,
Kerttula, Scalzi, and Meyer voted against the amendment.
Therefore, the amendment failed to be adopted by a vote of 0-4.
CO-CHAIR MEYER explained that there is a zero fiscal note with
the understanding that there could be a cost to the state if the
local municipalities decide to enact an ordinance. This
legislation is merely an enabling statute.
Number 2364
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI moved to report HB 186 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 186 was reported from the
House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:12 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|