SB 335-EMERGENCY SERVICES DISPATCH/911 SURCHARGE  CHAIR STEDMAN announced SB 335 to be up for consideration and he would like a motion to adopt the committee substitute (CS). SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER made a motion to adopt CSSB 335(CRA) for discussion purposes. There being no objection, it was so ordered. JOE MICHEL, legislative aide to Senator Ralph Seekins, told members the CS addresses the questions raised by the committee during the March 10 hearing. He said the bill reflects hard work on the part of a number of people. He read: This committee substitute addresses the major concerns this committee had regarding multiple lines in a residential home. There is concern of this committee that the Legislature would have to deal with this issue again and again as technology advanced and new surcharge limits would need to be set as Alaska was able to move on to Phase II, E-911 technology. This bill is about enabling municipalities to have the means to support a 911 system. Every citizen needs 911 services and the adjustments made by this CS will make great strides towards the goal of local control for city and borough governments. SENATOR GARY STEVENS recalled there was considerable concern about cell phones and wondered whether cell phones would work through the 911 system. MR. MICHEL replied they would. "It would be per billing statement; it would be where the billing statement is located," he said. SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER asked for expanded discussion about multiple lines into a residence and how would be handled. MR. MICHEL said, "The multiple phone lines now will be per billing address per statement. It won't be if you have a fax line, you're children have a line. All those go to whatever the one statement is per billing address. There will be one surcharge placed on that." He clarified that businesses are not included. SENATOR WAGONER questioned what would happen if he had two lines into his house from ACS and one line from GCI. MR. MICHEL replied, "If you had two different phone companies coming into one address, I would say you would probably get the surcharge twice because the individual companies are responsible for collecting the surcharge on the phone bill." SENATOR WAGONER commented that it's not really true that one resident gets one surcharge. MR. MICHEL agreed. SENATOR WAGONER asked what he said about cell phones. MR. MICHEL repeated that they're charged per billing statement. SENATOR WAGONER remarked that he could receive two billings at his residence for the service from two companies and one billing for his cell phone. MR. MICHEL agreed. SENATOR KIM ELTON asked for a discussion on the rationale for doing away with the caps. MR. MICHEL said it's the result of discussion on a companion House bill. The limits were lifted so that individual municipalities could do what they saw fit to run their 911 services. SENATOR ELTON asked if the state would be exempted from the surcharge. MR. MICHEL didn't know the answer, but said he'd find out. SENATOR ELTON asked if there was discussion about how market dynamics could change so there was shifting from one provider to another to consolidate billings. MR. MICHEL said there was discussion and opined that market dynamics might be affected in an effort to avoid surcharges, but he didn't think it would amount to much. "People would either accept the phone charge or move on and try to consolidate their companies," he said. SENATOR ELTON remarked that cell phones are the tethers by which families stay in contact with their teenagers. If cell phones are billed by the number, then some families will pay the fee a number of times. MR. MICHEL thought the surcharge was per billing address, but if different companies provided service to the same address, then the fee would be paid more than once. The main rationale is to assess a user fee for 911 service and not place the burden on property tax owners. SENATOR GARY STEVENS asked about municipalities receiving reimbursement for providing 911 service to people that are living outside the city borders but inside the service district. MR. MICHEL said that areas get billed wherever the emergency services are provided. SENATOR GARY STEVENS noted that someone was shaking their head so the question needs further exploration. SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER remarked that in years past when PTI had the phone system on the Kenai Peninsula, he was billed for local service by PTI and then AT&T billed him for long distance service. That would be two billings for 911 service for one residence. MR. MICHEL pointed to Section 5 and said it speaks to local exchanges so the long distance providers wouldn't collect the service charge. CHAIR STEDMAN asked for verification that there is no longer a cap and that businesses would be charged per line. MR. MICHEL said that is correct. SENATOR ELTON asked if the bill has any provisions to allow municipalities to make local accommodations so that they could configure local 911 charges to their liking. MR. MICHEL said the purpose of the bill is to allow municipalities local control over funding their 911 systems. SENATOR ELTON narrowed his question and asked whether a municipality would have the ability to charge a residence just one service fee regardless of the fact that the residence may have more than one cell phone and more than one land line MR. MICHEL said, "Yes sir, the whole goal is for the municipality to run their show as they see fit. We used the word may many times just to provide them with plenty of wiggle room, depending on what they feel their municipality needs to fund this service." SENATOR GEORGIANNA LINCOLN noted that the committee aide distributed an amendment that she wanted to offer. CHAIR STEDMAN asked whether she wanted to discuss it informally or make a formal motion. SENATOR LINCOLN made a motion to adopt amendment 1, which adds a new section on page 8. SENATOR WAGONER objected for discussion purposes. SENATOR LINCOLN continued to explain that the new section is the exact verbage that was offered on a companion bill in the House. It reads: AS 42.05 is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec. 42.05.295. Routing 911 calls. Notwithstanding AS 42.05.711, to ensure statewide access by all residents to 911 wireline services, traditional or enhanced, for areas where there is no local or regional public safety answering point, the state shall provide a toll-free, statewide default public safety answering point to which each local exchange telephone company must route all 911 calls originating from within its customer service base. She noted that AT&T supports the amendment fully. The amendment would allow the rural areas of Alaska to have access to 911 service. Currently the rural areas aren't able to access 911 service and with the decrease in public safety officers in the small communities, this access can be critically important. SENATOR GARY STEVENS said he wasn't familiar with the term "wireline services" and mused that it might be the opposite of "wireless services." SENATOR LINCOLN wasn't altogether sure, but took the lead from some nodding heads and agreed that was probably correct. SENATOR GARY STEVENS said he understood the reasoning, but he wasn't sure how that would work because there wouldn't necessarily be any anyone close enough to respond. SENATOR LINCOLN said: There was an example used when a village member in Aniak was able to get a hold of a person to be able to call the dispatcher - has to call Bethel to get an okay to respond. In this manner they would have the hubs and the hubs would be able to respond to those 911 calls without having to go through different phases of getting to the next larger community. SENATOR GARY STEVENS asked if that meant that she wasn't suggesting a trooper dispatch service, but that every community would have a hub for calls to come into. SENATOR LINCOLN said that's correct and she didn't think it would cost the state. SENATOR WAGONER asked who would pay for the service. SENATOR LINCOLN said she didn't want to put anyone on the spot, but she hoped that someone from AT&T could answer those questions. She understood that it isn't a cost to the state. It's an option for the communities so the villages would have access. She said, "I would imagine that it would be through the communities if there's any expense." SENATOR WAGONER questioned, "If you're in Nightmute and you want to call in a 911 call - it originates in a residence - and the state then has a line that calls it into a 911 center?" SENATOR LINCOLN understood that the 911 call would go in to the closest hub and that person would then contact the needed service. SENATOR WAGONER asked if the people in the hub community would pay for all the 911 calls and the individuals making the emergency calls from the remote areas would pay nothing under the proposed amendment. SENATOR LINCOLN said it was her understanding that there was no charge to the state and she didn't know how the rest of the costs would be distributed. SENATOR WAGONER understood that the state wouldn't get the fiscal note, but it would cost whoever was supporting the hub. CHAIR STEDMAN asked if the state currently has any calling centers. SENATOR LINCOLN couldn't put her finger on one in her district of 127 communities. CHAIR STEDMAN pointed out that the verbage is that the state shall provide. SENATOR GARY STEVENS said he wouldn't feel comfortable voting for the amendment until he heard from the communities that would subsidize the service to areas outside their boundaries. CHAIR STEDMAN asked if anyone would like to speak to the amendment and received no response. SENATOR GARY STEVENS asked to hear from the Alaska Municipal League. KEVIN RICHIE, Alaska Municipal League, noted that Tim Rogers was on-line to help, but his quick answer is that: "Given the ability to adjust your calling area, I believe that this provision would allow PSAP, Public Safety Answering Points, which is a calling center - whatever calling center was taking the calls would have the ability to collect the surcharge on the telephones within that area." He understands that, "by expanding those calling areas it would be possible - if this bill were to go though as it is allowing a municipality to essentially recover the costs that it actually expends - to not have some area subsidizing others because you would be collecting enough to run the system potentially within the larger calling area." SENATOR GARY STEVENS asked if it's his feeling that these centers could be funded at no cost to the local community. They would receive the money needed to run the centers without subsidizing them from the local tax base. MR. RICHIE replied that is his understanding, but he would defer to Mr. Rogers to make sure that's the case. TIM ROGERS, Alaska Municipal League, spoke via teleconference to say that the intent of the amendment is to establish an ability for the rural areas that currently don't have 911 service to have the local phone companies be able to switch back into a statewide 1-800 number that would allow them to reach an emergency services dispatcher. Currently there are a number of areas in the state that don't have 911 service and this would provide that access. SEANTOR WAGONER said the question was who would pay for the service. MR. ROGERS opined the state would have to pay for the cost of the 800 service and there would have to be an agreement made with each dispatch center. SENATOR GARY STEVENS asked if it's his understanding that if the system were developed with the regional service areas that local cities wouldn't have to subsidize a larger area. MR. ROGERS replied that his understanding of the amendment is that it would require the local telephone companies to have a switching mechanism so that any time a 911 call came in and it was not a local PSAP [Public Safety Answering Point], it would automatically switch to an 800 number that would go to some dispatch center within the state. SENATOR LINCOLN asked him to verify that the state wouldn't have to pay for this and that there had been some discussion about placing a 5-cent surcharge on all billings to ensure that this service was available statewide. MR. ROGERS told her he knew nothing about a 5-cent surcharge or any type of statewide surcharge. When he spoke with an AT&T representative he was told that the state could have a simple switch to an 800 number then to a dispatch center for little or no expense. SENATOR WAGONER disputed the previous comment saying that there is an expense. It comes from operating the 911 system and if individuals outside a service area use the system without paying a fair portion then that's an expense to the cities or municipalities. TAPE 04-12, SIDE B  2:23 pm  SENATOR ELTON said he could see an additional cost, but he viewed it as a good neighbor policy for larger areas to offer access to 911 service to outlying areas. For instance, if a 911 call was made to the Juneau center from Tenakee Springs, it would be a good neighbor policy to call the Coast Guard for a MediVac or whatever service was needed. He said, "I think the argument may be a good argument if in fact additional resources are needed, but I suspect that you're probably not going to need additional resources. You're just going to be using the existing resources." SENATOR WAGONER said his point is that when these systems are established you figure out the costs to run the system. "So if they want to participate at that level, I'll buy into that argument, but if they want to participate at that level after the system is set up, manned and put in place and the equipment purchased, I don't buy that." He questioned whether that 5-cent surcharge would be for everyone statewide or just those that don't currently participate in a 911 system. If it SENATOR LINCOLN said it's statewide. SENATOR WAGONER said that's inequitable. SENATOR GARY STEVENS agreed with Senator Wagoner's comments. SENATOR ELTON said those same types of subsidies are provided in public protection as well. "Those kind of subsidies are natural kind of subsidies. They're using our roads when they come to visit town and we're not trying to recapture those costs." SENATOR WAGONER said those who have been involved in municipal government clearly understand the burden that's created when areas outside the city or municipality borders use and don't pay for city services. He told an anecdotal story about the communities of Kenai and Soldotna that used to pay for fire protection services to areas beyond their borders and how that impacted property owners. "This 911 system looks to me like we're going down that same road and I don't think we should go there and I think we should have a lot of input from municipalities before we go this way because I know what my municipality would say I'm sure," he said. SENATOR LINCOLN asked who was on line to testify. CHAIR STEDMAN told her Mayor Thompson from Fairbanks, Linda Freed from the City of Kodiak, Lieutenant Storey with the troopers, and someone from the Department of Law were available. SENATOR LINCOLN apologized for not having the answers to the questions that were raised and then pointed out that the municipalities would have the option to charge the phone users through a surcharge. The amendment was intended to allow 911 access to all areas in the state and not just in the municipalities or boundaries of a borough. Rather than have the amendment go down in flames, she asked whether she could withdraw her amendment to provide the people waiting on line the opportunity to comment. CHAIR STEDMAN was agreeable and stated that testimony would be taken on the \D version and anyone who wanted to comment on the amendment was free to do so. He called on Lieutenant Storey. LIEUTENANT AL STOREY, Alaska State Trooper, Department of Public Safety, said he had several comments. First, Section 1 relates to actionable claims against the state and the department likes the provision, he said. He expressed concern with the proposed amendment that had a friendly withdrawal. The fiscal note would be indeterminate rather than zero. "Common sense would dictate that the troopers and Public Safety would probably be the primary call takers for any regional call centers that were set up." Currently they have a system for networking with local emergency services, but it isn't a 911 system. They recognize that a 911 system is needed, but they don't want to jump in without a comprehensive and organized plan with identified funding sources and distribution of responsibility. It's important to provide the best 911 service possible, but routing an emergency call through a dispatch center in Anchorage when the emergency originates in Shaktoolik might not satisfy the caller's needs as quickly and efficiently as you might like. The bill does allow municipalities to collect surcharges, but there is no provision where the state could benefit from collection of any surcharge so any cost incurred would have to be covered by the state. SENATOR WAGONER asked for verification that more time is needed to study the impacts of proposed amendment 1. LIEUTENANT STOREY replied that is correct. He knew that AT&T association members have expressed concerns on the liability that might be extended to them in not being able to send calls to a PSAP. LINDA FREED, city manager for the City of Kodiak, testified via teleconference in support of the committee substitute, version \D. The City of Kodiak is the PSAP for the Kodiak road system representing about 15,000 people and they spend about $.5 million per year to operate their E 911 and dispatch systems. They take in about $45,000 under the system that is legislatively capped. It's important to pass the legislation this session so they can find a local funding source to help defray the large subsidy they now provide for their dispatch system. The E 911 and dispatch systems cover an area that stretches well beyond the city limits. They are very happy with language that would allow them to extend a levy to support their dispatch system, which is more costly than the E 911 portion. The E 911 part handles the emergency calls coming in and the dispatch system is the response calls out and the way they communicate when they have a disaster or an emergency response. That's where a lot of staff time is consumed. With regard to proposed Amendment 1, she said the House companion bill removed that portion because of the many unanswered questions. The House suggested a letter of intent speaking of the need to establish a coordinator position to review and come up with a workable system for communities that don't currently have E 911 service without burdening those that are already subsidizing the system with local tax dollars. STEVE THOMPSON, mayor of the City of Fairbanks, testified via teleconference in support of the committee substitute. He complimented Ms. Freed for covering most of the points they feel are important. The mayors of North Pole and Fairbanks North Star Borough also support the \D version CS for SB 335. He noted that utility providers want the cap, but the question arises over whether the cost to provide emergency dispatch services to Barrow compared to Fairbanks compared to Anchorage is the same. "With new technologies coming on line would both be going back to Juneau trying to get the cap changed in the next year or the year after because it doesn't provide enough money?" Having the dispatch area authority set the rate to cover the cost of the services is a good way to do it, he said. SENATOR WAGONER asked if the city or borough runs the 911 service in Fairbanks. MR. THOMPSON said they currently have five different dispatch answering services in the valley. They're trying to combine them into one. The borough operates the technical 911 switch that is used by the local phone exchange and that's the only way the borough is involved for dispatching. The combined cost for the five dispatch centers is about $4.7 million per year. They look for a considerable reduction in operating costs when they consolidate. SENATOR GARY STEVENS asked whether he had any comments on proposed Amendment 1 that would probably make the city responsible for a number of communities outside of the ones they currently deal with. MR. THOMPSON called it a good concept, but he couldn't see how they could foresee the cost or any of the other particulars. When they answer an E 911 call now they know exactly the address the call is coming from. If they were to receive out of area calls they would have no location data whatsoever. It's a good idea for sometime in the future after more study. "We're not really in favor of that at this time. In the future I can see it happening though," he said. SENATOR LINCOLN thanked him for saying the concept was good rather than saying it was a rotten idea. CHAIR STEDMAN noted there was no one else to give testimony. SENATOR LINCOLN said she heard the concerns expressed about the proposed amendment and she would like to withdraw Amendment 1 at that time. CHAIR STEDMAN announced Amendment 1 was withdrawn. SENATOR GARY STEVENS said he appreciated what he was doing, but it's an important principle and he wondered if he would favor a letter of intent to work toward developing a statewide coordinated system. SENATOR LINCOLN seconded the idea. CHAIR STEDMAN asked for a motion. SENATOR GARY STEVENS made a motion to draft a letter of intent stating support for a coordinated statewide system. There being no objection, it was so ordered. SENATOR WAGONER made a motion to move CSSB 335 from committee with individual recommendations. He added "and hopefully there will be a resolution to this in the near future." There being no objection, CSSB 335 \D moved from committee.