April 20. 1987

lionorable

Jack Skeen,Jr. CriminalDistrictAttorney Smith CountyCourthouse Tyler,Texas 75702 OpinionNo. JM-681

Re: Determination of emergency service fee for a 9-l-l comunication districtunder article 1432e, V.T.C.S.

DearMr. Skeen:

You seek our opinion concerning the determination of the 9-l-l emergency service fee for an emergency communicationdistrict created pursuant to article 1432e.V,.T.C.S. The districtwas approvedby the voters of SmithCounty in 1986. You ask threequestions:

1. If the principal service supplier charges different base rates for the same category of service in different participating jurisdictions within the district, then which base rate is determinative .for the purpose of applying the emergency serrrice fee uniformly within all participating jurisdictionswithin thedistrict?

2. If the principal service supplier charges different base rates for single party aad multiparty residential service, thenwhich base rate is determinative for the purpose of applying the emergency service fee uniformly within all participating jurisdictionswithin thedistrict?

3. Does article 1432e require that each service user within a participating jurisdiction be provided with 9-l-l emergency service regardless of the cost or ocher impracticality of providing such service to the particular service user (assuming that the emergency service fee is not charged to the particular service user until such service is actually available)?
Article 1432e was enacted for the purposes of establishing the number 9-l-l as the primary emergency telephone number for certain local government units and encouraging these units of government to

p. 3137Honorable Jack Skeen,Jr. - Page 2 (JM-681)

develop and improve emergeucy comnmication procedures and facilities. V.T.C.S. art. 1432e, 02. Xc authorizes the creation of an emergency communication district to carry out the provisions of the act. Id. 55. Voter approvalmust be secured at a confirmationand fee elect= before thedistrictmay exercise its public and essentialgovernmental functions. Id. SPll, 12.

- Section 11 of the act describes the procedures for creating the district. The board of managers of au emergency communication district is required to call an election for the purposes of securiug voter approval of the creation of the district and to authorize the district to charge and collect a 9-l-l emergency service fee. Id. Sll(c). The section also provides the method by which the emerge= service fee is calculated:

The board may charge a 9-l-l emergency service fee at a rate not to exceed three percent of the base rate of the principal service supplier per serviceyear permonth in theparticipating jurisdictions. The jurisdiction of a county is the unincorporated.area of the county. The 9-l-l emergency service fee must have uniform applicacion and must be imposedwithin all participating jurisdictions. (Emphasisadded).

Id. 911(b). The underscored phrase "per service year" will be discussed later iu this opinion. The final sentence of section 11(b) is the source of your first two inquiries.

The first question concerns a situation in which the telephone cowpauy which is designated the principal service supplier to the district charges different base rates to residential customers in different participating jurisdictions in the districtwho receive the same level of service. The second question concerns a situation in which the principal service supplier charges different base rates to single-party aud multiple-party residential customers within the district. Bothmay be treated together.

Your first two questions essentially ask the same question -- specifically, whether the 9-l-l emergency service fee is intended tobe (1) a fixed dollar amount to be charged to all residential telephone customers in the district regardless of the base rate they are charged. or (2) a uniform percentage rate applied to the various base rates charged by the principal service supplier to residential telephone customers. We believe the second alternative accurately reflects the intent of the legislature.

In our opinion. the language of section 11(b) requiring uniform application of the emergency service fee throughout thedistrictweans

p. 3138EonorableJack Skeen,Jr. - Page 3 (JM-681)

that the percentage rate adopted by the board of managers must be uniformly applied to whateverbase rate is charged co the serviceuser by the principal service supplier. Article 1432e does not require a uniformbase rate for all residentialsubscribersto telephone service within thedistrict. Rather, it requires the emergencyservice fee to have uniform application. The only componentof the emergency service fee overwhich theboard is expressly granted the authority to fix is thepercentagerateuponwhich the fee is calculated. It follows that the object of the language in section 11(b) is thispercentagerace.

It is apparent from the language of article 1432e that the legislature anticipated the possibility that different base rates would be charged to subscribers in different jurisdictions of the district for the same level of service. The act defines "base rate" in the followingterms:

'Base rate' means the rate or rates billed by a service supplier, as stated in the service
regulatory authority?~ede~~es% I%%%~ supplier's charges supplier's recurring charges for local exchange .accesslines/trunksor their equivalent,exclusive of all taxes. fees, license costs, or similar charges. (Emphasisadded).

V.T.C.S. art. 1432e. 53(21). This definition acknowledges that the authority to regulatebase rates is granted to agenciesother than the emergency cowauuication district. It also recognizes that the appropriate regulatory authority 'may approve a number of different rates for localexchangeaccess linesor trunkswithin thedistrict.

Our constructionof section 11(b) is supportedby the legislative histories of article 1432e and two virtually identical statutes. articles 1432~and 1432d.V.T.C.S. See Jessen Associatesv. Bullock, 531 S.W.Zd 593 (Tex. 1975) (in conszing statutes. it is proper to look to constructiongivenother actspertaining to the same subject).
Article 1432~.V.T.C.S.. was enacted in 1983 and authorizes the creation of a 9-l-l comunication district in counties having a populationofmore than 2million according to themost recent federal census. See Acts 1983, 68th Leg.. ch. 97. at 465; V.T.C.S. art. 1432~. 14(a). Section 10(b) of article 1432~ grants the board of managers of the district the authority 'to impose a fee for 9-l-l emergency service:

The board, when so authorizedby amajority of the votes cast in the election and by a majority vote of the governing body of each public agency to become a participating jurisdiction,may charge a

p. 313,9Honorable Jack Skeen,Jr. - Page 4 (JM-681)

9-l-l emergency service feeat a ratenot to exceed two percent of the base rate of the principal service supplierper serviceuser per month in the participating jurisdictions. For the purposes of this vote of the governing body of each public agency, the jurisdictionof the county includesall unincorporated areas of the county. The 9-l-l emergency semice fee must have uniform applicstion andmust be imposedwithin all participating jurisdictions. (Emphasisadded).
Article 1432d. V.T.C.S.. was enacted during the second called session of the 68thLegislature in 1984and authorizes the creation of
an emergency comaunicationdistrict in counties with a population of more than 860,000 according to the last federal census. Acts 1984, 68th Leg., 2nd C.S., ch. 7. at 22; V.T.C.S. art. 1432d. 04. On its enactment, section 11(b)of thatact contained the following language:

The boardmay chargea 9-l-l emergency service fee at a rate not to exceed three percent of the base rate of theprincipal service supplierPer service year permonth in theparticipating jurisdictions. The 9-l-l emergency service fee must have uniform application and must be imposed within all participating jurisdictions. (Emphasisadded).
The underscored phrase "per service year" was corrected in 1985 co read "per service user." Acts 1985. 69th Leg., ch. 820, 16. at 2878 (effective June 15. 1985). Before the erroneous language was corrected by the legislature, however, the bill which contained article 1432ewas passed by both houses of the legislatureand signed by the governor containing the same defect. Acts 1985. 69thLeg., ch. 288. at 1331 (effectiveJune 6, 1985).

We note the parallel provisions of articles 1432~ and 1432d because the legislativehistories of the two earlier-enactedstatutes are relevant to our construction of article 1432e. See Jessen Associates v. Bullock, aupta. With the exception of theprovisions concerning the appointment of board members, article 1432e was intended to be virtually identical in language and effect to article 1432d, which in turnwas intended tomirror article 1432~withminor changes. SeeTestimony ofMr. Russell S. Rau onTex. S.B. No. 750before House G. on Urban Affairs, 68th Leg., publichearing (May 8, 1985) (tape recordingavailable fromHouse Staff Services);Testimony of Sen. Sugh Parmer on Tex. S.B. No. 17 before Senate Come. on Intergovernmental Affairs, 68th Leg., 2nd C-S.. public hearing (June 25, 1984) (tape recording available from SenateReproduction).

p. 3140HonorableJack Skeen.Jr. - Page 5 (JM-681)

Testifying before the committees of the Senate and House of Representatives which considered the legislation which eventually became article 1432~. the sponsors of the legislation and representatives of telephone service suppliers said that the emergency service fee percentagerate adoptedby theboard ofmanagers would be imposed equally on all subscribers of telephone services in the district. Testimony of Son.Chet BrooksandHr. ClarkB. Payne onTex. S. B. No. 606 before SeuateCowm. on IntergovernmentalAffairs, 68th Leg., public hearing (March 17. 1983) (tape recording available from Senate Reproduction);Testimony of Rep. Gene Green andMr. Ken Queureaux on Tex. S. B. No. 606 before Eouse Cowa. on Urban Affairs, 68th Leg., public hearing (April 19, 1983) (tape recording available from House Staff Services).

The parallel provisions of articles 1432~ and 1432d (as amended in 1985) also reveal the erroneous transcription of the phrase "per serviceyeat" in section 11(b)of article 1432e. Section 11(b) should read "per serviceuser." 838 (Tex.Civ. App. See Pattersonv. City of Dallas, 355 S.W.2d

- Dallas 1961,writ ref'd n.r.e.). appeal dism'd, 372 U.S. 251 (1963) (words or phrases in a statutemay be supplied, omitted, or transposed in order to arrive at legislative intentj: Rogers v. Dallas Railway and Terminal Co., 214 S.WT2d 160 (Tex.Civ; APP. - Da:

llas 1948). aff'd. 218 S.W.

iiate,. ,2d456 (Tex. 1949) (same). See also Chambers v. 25 Tex. 307 (1860) (phrase in statute vision substituted to carry out legislative intent); Davis v. =, 225 S.W. 532 (Tex.Grim. App. 1920) (wordsway be disregarded or eliminated to give effect to legislative intent)..The defiuition of "serviceuser" ic all three statutes is "any person or entitywho is provided local exchange access lines/trunks in the district." V.T.C.S. arts. 1432~. 63(17); 1432d. 53(17); 1432e. §3(17). The distinctionbetweenpersons and entities in thedefinitionof "service user" would be meaningless if the legislature intended thebase rates for all telephone subscribers to be the same. Section 11(b) of article 1432e. then, mandates that the emergency service fee percentage rate be applied uniformly to all service users. individuals and entities alike. It requires the emergency service fee to be charged and collected on an individual basis according to the base rate charged to each customer.

It is also clear that the legislature did not intend the emergency service fee to be a fixed dollar amount for all service
users. Section 14(a) scaresthat the "9-l-l emergency service feemay be imposed only on the base rate charges or their equivalent," and "may not be imposed on more than 100 local exchange access lines/ trunks or their equivalent per entity per location." V.T.C.S. art. 1432e. 514(a). Thus. the sum owed by multiple-line customers to the district for the emergency service fee is dependentupon thenumber of access lines or trunks the customer receives, up co 100 access lines or trunks.

p. 3141Honorable Jack Skeen. Jr. - Page 6 (~~-681)

Accordingly, we conclude that article 1432e. section 11(b), authorizes the board of managers of an emergency comunicarion district to impose a 9-l-l emergency service fee of up to three percent of the base rate charged to each customer of the principal service supplier, even where the principal service supplier charges different base rates .tocustomers of different participating jurisdictions of the district for the same level of service or where different base rates are charged to single-party and multiple-party customers. The percentage rate adopted by the board from which the emergency service fee is calculated must be unifonely applied throughout the district, regardless of the base rate charged by the service supplier.
Rephrased, your thirdquestion iswhether 9-l-l emergency service may be denied to a telephone service customer in the district when providing such service is deemed too costly or burdensome to the district and the customer isnot charged themonthly emergency service fee. In view of the terms and purpose of article 1432e.we believe the answer to thisquestion is "no."
Section 8(a) of article 1432edecrees that the emergency communication district "shall provide 9-l-l service to all participating jurisdictions.

. . ." Participating jurisdictions are "those public agencies thatvote to be a part of a district." V.T.C.S. art. 1432e, 53(3). A public agency is "any city or county that provides or has authority co provide fire-fighting, law enforcemenr. ambulance, medical. or other emergency services." Id. 13(2). The term "9-l-l service" isdefined as a "telecommnicatio~service thatwill allow a user of thepublic telephone system to reach a public safetyanswering point by dialing thedigits 9-l-l." Id. 93(l) (emphasisadded). - The purpose of article 1432e isprovided in section 2 of the act:

It is the purpose of thisAct to establish the number 9-l-l as the primary emergency telephone number for use by certain local governmoots in this state and co encourageunits of local government and combinations of those units of local govermont to develop and improve emergency communication procedures and facilities in a manner thatwill make possible the quick response to any person calling the telephonenumber 9-l-l seeking police, fire,medical, rescue, and other emergency services. To this purpose the legislature finds and declares:
(1) it is in the public interest to shorten the time required for a citizen to request and receive emergency aid;

p. 3142HonorableJack Skeen.Jr. - Page 7 (JM-681)

(2) there exist thousands uf different emergency telephonenumbers throughout the state, and telephone exchange boundaries and central office serviceareasdo not necessarilycorrespond topublic safetyandpoliticalboundaries;
(3) a dominant part of the state'spopulation is located in rapidlyexpabdingmetropolitan areas that generally cross the boundary lines of local jurisdictions and often extend into two or more counties;and
(4) provisionof a single,primary three-digit emergencynumber throughwhich emergency services can be quickly and efficiently obtained would provide a significantcoatributionto law enforcement and other public safety effortsby making it less difficult to notify public safety personnel guickly. (Emphasisadded).

It is clear from both the ‘statement of purpose and the language of article 14320 that 9-l-l service is intended to be available to any person using any telephone in the district in time of emergency. The availability of 9-l-l service is not limited to persons or entities that receive local exchange access lines from the principal service supplieror thatpay themonthly emergency service fee. It cannotbe seriously argued.-then, that persons who.are not charged themonthly feemay, in thediscretionof theboard ofmanagers,be excluded from the 9-l-l service system. See also Testimony on Tex. S. B. No. 606 before SenateComm. on IntergovernmentalAffairs,supra (9-l-lservice will be available to transientsand to persons calling from any phone in the district);Testimony on Tex. S. B. No. 606 before House Come. onUrbanAffairs,supta.

In any case, the district may not, under the circumstances, decline to charge the emergency service fee to persons living in the district who receive local exchange access lines from the principal service supplier. The emergency communicationdistricthas only that authority which is clearly granted by the legislature. SeeAttorney General Opinion JM-674 (1987)and authoritiescited thereK Section 11(b) of article 1432e states that the emergency service fee must be imposed in all jurisdictions. Section ,14(a) states that the fee "shall be added to and shall be stated separately in the billing by the service supplier to the service user." A service user is "any person or entity that is provided local exchange access lines/trunks in thedistrict." V.T.C.S. art. 1432e. §3(17). Finally,we believe thatany attempt to limit theavailabilityof 9-l-l service in the jurisdictionswhich voted to become part of the

p. 3143Eouorable Jack Skeen,Jr. - Page 8 (JM-681)

district would defeat the purpose for establishing an emergency coamnication district in the first place. The district is intended tobe used by persons requiring emergency assistance as a conduit for rapid communication to the participating jurisdictions. It is intended to assist these jurisdictions in providingmore efficient and timely emergency services, and to assist in coordinating the services of different emergency service units whose jurisdictionsmay conflict
or overlap. To permit*the district to select which persons (or telephones)will be provided access to the 9-l-l systemwould invite confusionand disorder, a resultwhich the legislatureclearly did not intend. Accordingly,you are advised that the emergency communication district may not deny 9-l-l emergency service to a person receiving local telephone exchange access lines in the district on the basis of excessivecost or burden to thedistrict.

SUMMARY
Article 1432e. section 11(b), V.T.C.S., authorizes the board of managers of an emergency communicationdistrict to impose a 9-l-l emergency service fee of up to three percent of the base rate charged to each customer of the principal service supplier,evenwhere theprincipal service suppliercharges differentbase rates torustomers of different participating jurisdictions of the district for the same level of service or where different base rates are charged to single-party andmultiple-party customers. The percentage rate adopted by the board from which the emergency service fee is calculated must be uniformly applied throughout the district, regardlessof the base rate chargedby the service supplier.

An emergency communication district may not deny 9-l-l emergency service to aperson receiving local telephone exchange access lines in the district on the basis of excessive cost or burden to thedistrict.
Very rulyyours, 

# J-b

I

JIM HATTOX Attorney General of Texas

JACKHIGHTOWER First AssiatantAttorney General

p. 3144

IEonorableJack Skeen,Jr. - Page 9 (JM-681)

MARY KELLER ExecutiveAssistantAttorneyGeneral

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLN SpecialAssistantAttorney General

RICK GILPIN Chairman,OpinionCommittee
Preparedby Rick Gilpin Assistant AttorneyGeneral

p. 3145