SENATE BILL 55 "An Act repealing the sunset of the enhanced 911 emergency reporting systems." SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON testified in support of SB 55. He explained the legislation would repeal the delayed Amendment provisions of the enhanced 911 emergency reporting systems, as enacted in 1993. Senator Torgerson indicated that there is a review of federal and/or state funding for enhanced 911 systems. He ascertained that a funding source for a statewide system would be remote. At the same time, there are enhanced 911 systems in the State which are operating, and the State must be assured of the ability to assess a surcharge to ensure operations. He added that those systems have proven to be a viable and critical service. The bill, SB 55, would remove the "sunset" provisions resulting from the 1993 legislation. He continued, the effect of the bill would allow municipalities to continue to impose a surcharge for 911 services after July 1, 1996, and which in turn would provide for the critical service of the enhanced 911. Senator Torgerson spoke in opposition to Amendment #1 provided by Representative Brown. [Copy on file]. Representative Brown provided the Committee with a brief history of the system. She stated that Alaska currently does not have a universal 911 system although communities are moving forward in developing a more sophisticated system of E911. At this time, ten percent of Alaska does not have any type of emergency response system. A number of other communities have a basic system, but not the enhanced service. 2 Representative Brown suggested the benefits in providing middle ground communities the opportunity to use the same mechanism that the larger communities have in place for taking advantage of the E911. That system would provide for an adequate public safety response system within the State. She suggested ways of funding the statewide response system which would not effect the revenue source to the existing municipalities. Amendment #1 would expand the definition of who could use the funds for a basic system. Representative Brown summarized that there would be no cost to the State associated with the proposed amendment. At this time, in order to have use of the E911 system, a charge to the users is attached at a rate of $.50 cents per month for the larger communities and $.75 cents per month for the smaller communities. Those fees are collected by the phone companies and then passed on to the local government. The local governments in turn use those fees to purchase equipment. Representative Brown pointed out that the sunset on the original legislation would have removed the authority to make the change next year. The effect of the amendment would allow those communities to use that fund for any aspect of their basic enhanced response system. Representative Brown pointed out that there has been no municipal opposition to the concept proposed by Amendment KEVIN KOECHLEIN, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR THE MATSU BOROUGH, MATSU, spoke in support of SB 55. He pointed out that the most important service that government can provide its citizens is emergency medical services and basic public safety reporting systems. SB 55 would allow local municipalities around Alaska to continue to provide enhanced 911 capabilities not only in the development and installation of the systems but also the yearly operational costs to the systems. He urged the Committee to implement the proposed legislation promptly. Representative Martin asked when the public would no longer be responsible for paying the service charge. Mr. Koechlein agreed that the municipalities should either reduce the surcharge or reduce the tax dollars. He guaranteed that at some point there would be a reduction to the public. Representative Brown disagreed stating that the municipalities would continue to use the surcharge in order to maintain the dispatch services. She added that currently Anchorage is spending over $5 million dollars per year for costs associated with the response. 3 Representative Parnell elaborated that when the surcharge was initially enacted, he understood that it would be discontinued when the systems had been paid for. He asked if the surcharge funded an entire communication system currently in place or just the enhanced 911 system. Mr. Koechlein replied that Matsu Borough understood that the cost of the E911 system would include the software and hardware for the mapping system and would also display a primary response for the police or fire station. Also included in that sum would be costs associated with the telephone line charges, costs to maintain the data base and the individual 911 tracking lines. BOB GRIFFITH, SGT., ANCHORAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT DISPATCH CENTER, ANCHORAGE, testified in support of SB 55. He added, the Municipality of Anchorage generates $883 thousand dollars revenue from the surcharge. Current expenditures to support the 911 related service is $5.1 million dollars. Representative Parnell asked what costs had been included in the expenditure total. Mr. Griffith pointed out that 50% of the dispatch operation costs amounted to over $5 million dollars and did not include the operator expenses to coordinate the response. Discussion followed between Representative Parnell and Mr. Griffith regarding the expenditures. Representative Martin voiced his concern that the people of Anchorage were paying for more than the E911 services. Mr. Griffith reiterated that the costs to man the 24 hour operation, which receives more than 12,000 calls per month, plus the cost of operating the fire department, creates a $5 million dollar budget expenditure. Representative Parnell agreed with Representative Martin that the surcharge had been passed only to fund the cost of the E911 acquisition. He asked if the acquisition costs had been met and pointed out that the surcharge had not been designed to pay for the personnel costs. Mr. Griffith responded that the acquisition costs had been amortized over a ten year period. In the meantime, the maintenance costs associated with the E911 amounted to $48 thousand dollars per year to maintain the municipal data base subscribers. Mr. Griffith added that the legislation would provide coverage of the associated telephone and personnel charges. Representative Martin recommended extending the sunset. Senator Torgerson stated that all municipalities were not like Anchorage, pointing out that the Kenai Borough collects $1000 dollars a month less than the cost of operation. He urged members not to remove the sunset. (Tape Change, HFC 95-57, Side 2). 4 STEVEN O'CONNOR, CHAIR, KPB 9-1-1 ADVISORY BOARD, SOLDOTNA, stated that the Advisory Council supports the legislation to repeal the sunset date, July, 1996. He added, following the review recommendations from the Alaska Division of Emergency Services, he encouraged Committee members not to adopt any amendments. Mr. O'Connor continued that the statewide E911 system as currently proposed would be inappropriate. If the State wants to develop an E911 system then they should do so with general funds, a statewide user fee, or make that system their priority as a capitol project to the Legislature. The fee that the Kenai Peninsula Borough currently collects is a user fee gathered to support the E911 system, not a tax. Mr. O'Connor suggested creating a working committee upon the passage of the legislation. That committee could consist of technical specialists and E911 users to address recommendations being made by the Alaska Division of Emergency Services. He added that a statewide system should come from the grassroots level and have input from local jurisdictions and agencies. CRAIG LEWIS, DIRECTOR, INTERIOR REGION, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, FAIRBANKS, encouraged the Committee to consider Amendment #1 offered by Representative Brown. He advised that the amendment would create a more fair situation for rural areas to receive basic 911 services. Co-Chair Hanley noted his concern that the amendment would guarantee that the initial surcharge never be repealed. He pointed out that the addition of the amendment would also require a resolution and title change which could delay passage of the legislation. Representative Brown argued that the initial request for the surcharge created conflicting intentions. She stated that it would be used to "acquire, operate and maintain the system". She pointed out that if a fee existed for larger communities, other municipalities should be included, adding that it would be appropriate for the local governments to use the system. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. Representative Mulder OBJECTED. A roll call was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Navarre, Brown, Grussendorf OPPOSED: Parnell, Therriault, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Hanley 5 Co-Chair Foster was not present for the vote. The MOTION FAILED (3-7). Co-Chair Hanley recommended the House Finance Committee introduce at a later date legislation which would address Representative Brown's concern as stated in the amendment. Representative Mulder MOVED to report SB 55 out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. SB 55 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with zero fiscal notes by the Department of Commerce and Economic Development dated 2/13/95, the Department of Public Safety dated 2/13/95, and the Department of Health and Social Services dated 2/13/95.