CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 249(RLS) "An Act relating to enhanced 911 systems and enhanced 911 surcharges imposed by a municipality, public municipal corporation, or village." This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, the bill's sponsor, noted that the Committee previously heard the Senate companion bill to this legislation. The House version of the bill before the Committee included some technical changes such as changing "telecommunication" to "telephone" and "E 911" to "Enhanced 911". In addition, the maximum tax amount allowable without voter approval was increased from $1.50 to $2.00. 10:37:57 AM TIM ROGERS, Alaska Municipal League, testified via teleconference from an offnet location in support of this bill. He would be available to answer questions. 10:38:28 AM Co-Chair Green remarked that this matter has had considerable attention, and that the majority of the Committee's language recommendations pertinent to the Senate companion bill were incorporated into this House bill. The three changes in this version of the bill, as communicated by Representative Hawker, would be "a great improvement". 10:38:54 AM Co-Chair Wilken stated that this legislation is a "big issue" to the Fairbanks North Star Borough and the City of Fairbanks. The $2.00 maximum tax limit would not sufficiently cover the costs of the Enhanced 911 system in Fairbanks. Therefore, the City would be required to make internal adjustments. Co-Chair Wilken stated that Fairbanks is primarily concerned with the fact that local voter approval would be required to increase the Enhanced 911 service assessment beyond the $2.00 limit that would be specified in Statute. The concern is that the public might not support the need. A forthcoming amendment would change the manner through which the local Enhanced 911 surcharge could be managed by allowing the local assembly rather than the public to decide the issue. Co-Chair Wilken informed the Committee that local assembly and mayoral elections are held every three years in Fairbanks. Campaigns for those seats could be intensive and expensive. The concern is that, even though the Enhanced 911 issue would be considered a worthy initiative, the issue would have to compete with the assembly and mayoral elections and "would be lost in the noise". It would be secondary to the focus on the candidate elections. Amendment #1: This amendment deletes "surcharge amount is approved by the voters of the enhanced 911 service area" in Sec. 2(a) page two lines 14 and 15 and replaces it with "municipality adopts a separate ordinance authorizing the increase". Co-Chair Wilken moved for adoption of Amendment #1. Co-Chair Wilken argued that the current language in the bill would shortchange the Enhanced 911 service. While the effort is to make the service more responsive and enhance public safety in the community, the opposite would be true. He opined that, were it put to a local vote, he, having used the service, would be one of a few who would vote for an increased Enhanced 911 surcharge. Nonetheless, while only one in ten people have used the service, it would be available for all ten. Co-Chair Green objected to the amendment. A tax limitation in this regard has "long been in Statute", and the proposal to increase the current 50-cent tax limit to $2.00 would quadruple the revenue to most large communities. It is interesting how the blame pertaining to this issue transitions from one entity to another: when the local phone utility, which has no control over the issue incorporates the Enhanced 911 surcharge into their subscribers' utility bills, the subscribers blame the utility; the utility would deflect that blame and explain that the charge was due to a city or borough decision; and the city would then deflect the criticism to the Legislature by intoning that the State allowed them to increase the charge. While she could accept the $2.00 tax limit, any charge imposed over that amount in a local community should be approved by that community's voters. 10:44:34 AM Senator Olson requested the sponsor's position of the amendment. 10:44:41 AM Representative Hawker replied that he had previously considered this issue. His determination was that arguments for both positions are "equally sound". He understood the argument of allowing those most closely affected by the issue to vote in its regard as well as the concern that voters might not support increasing fees upon themselves for a public issue. 10:45:36 AM Co-Chair Green commented on the neutrality of Representative Hawker's position. 10:45:48 AM Senator Dyson, noting that he had served for six years on a local municipal assembly, spoke in support of the amendment. Traditionally, in a western representative democracy, people are elected to positions and charged with studying an issue and making a decision in its regard. He agreed with Co-Chair Wilken that the elected body could best make the decision regarding a local Enhanced 911 surcharge. His Senate district seat predecessor, Senator Sam Cotton, was heard to say in response to whether he would vote in support of the will of his constituents that, "most of the issues are very complicated and take a lot of study … at the end of the day, I hope that I vote the way that you would have wanted to vote if you had had access to the information and the debate of the history of the issue like I have a chance to study." The hope is that the electorate would vote for mature and wise people who would make the right decision after they had had the time to study the issue and hear the debate. 10:47:32 AM Co-Chair Green viewed Senator Dyson's position as being "kind of interesting", as he has been "a proponent of sound budgeting" and watchful of elected officials' efforts to increase spending. "This flies directly in the face of the tax cap that the City of Anchorage" and other communities have. This would be "a mechanism by which they can get around the tax limit, and that bothers me." Therefore, "we shouldn't be providing them an avenue in which to go around that tax cap." Co-Chair Green observed that one of the problems with the Enhanced 911 system is that, were a poll taken, it would be determined that few people "know what that system consists of." Communicating the financial mechanics of the system to people would be a "huge education" effort, as attested by the discussions that transpired during Committee hearings. The language provided in this legislation would clearly define how this money could be utilized and would distinguish between "the needs verses the wants". Co-Chair Green maintained her objection to Amendment #1. 10:49:08 AM Senator Olson voiced concern that the amendment could make it easier for a municipality to increase the surcharge rate were funding short. 10:49:27 AM Co-Chair Green agreed. 10:49:30 AM Senator Dyson appreciated Co-Chair Green's comments about the "apparent hypocrisy" of his earlier position on the amendment. He has oftentimes encountered issues in conflict with his principles. He knew of many circumstances in which the Municipality of Anchorage Assembly has attempted to maneuver "around their tax cap rather than facing it honestly." He appreciated being "reminded" that this action might enable such action. Providing the ability "to end run their tax cap" would not be his desire. However, the significance of the issue and the principle of a representative government override that concern in this case. A roll call was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Senator Dyson and Co-Chair Wilken OPPOSED: Senator Olson, Senator Hoffman, Senator Stedman, and Co- Chair Green ABSENT: Senator Bunde The motion FAILED (2-4-1) The amendment FAILED to be adopted. 10:51:06 AM Co-Chair Wilken offered a motion to report the bill from Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, CS HB 249(RLS) was REPORTED from Committee with zero fiscal note #1 dated April 8, 2005 from the Department of Public Safety. 10:51:16 AM AT EASE 10:51:59 AM / 10:53:35 AM 10:53:36 AM