Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/16/2018 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB215 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 215 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 16, 2018
9:08 a.m.
9:08:15 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator John Coghill, Sponsor; Jordan Shilling, Staff,
Senator John Coghill.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
David Gibbs, EMS Manager, Fairbanks North Star Borough;
Jill Dolan, Attorney, Fairbanks North Star Borough.
SUMMARY
HB 260 FISH & GAME LICENSES;ELECTRONIC FORM
HB 260 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CSSB 92(FIN)am
VESSELS: REGISTRATION/TITLES; DERELICTS
CSSB 92(FIN)am was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
SB 215 ENHANCED 911:MULTI-LINE TELEPHONE SYSTEMS
SB 215 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
SENATE BILL NO. 215
"An Act relating to multi-line telephone systems."
9:09:05 AM
Co-Chair Foster reviewed his intent for the bill hearing.
He reported that the bill was the companion bill to HB 385
sponsored by Representative Grenn.
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, shared that the bill had
been brought to him by his municipality and dealt with
multi-line telephone systems. He used the University as an
example in the Interior where someone calling 911 may be in
a different building than the emergency location. The bill
directed that the information would travel with the phone;
it was a requirement, but also permissive. He elaborated
that the bill would require the automatic location
information be installed when phones were replaced, or new
installations were put in. He explained the bill was one
way to ensure dispatchers would receive the right
information, which could save lives. He expounded there
were many buildings in the state with multi-line telephone
systems. The two things a person expected when calling 911
was that the responders would show up and would show up to
the right location. The bill provided a way to ensure those
things happened with a multi-line telephone system with an
attached automatic location information system.
Senator Coghill elaborated that the bill also implemented a
requirement for places with multi-line telephone systems to
put a notice on their phone that dialing "9" or anything
else was required before dialing out.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON GRENN elaborated that the bill was
about public safety. The bill aimed to save time when
responders were sent out to emergency situations.
Co-Chair Foster noted individuals available for questions.
Representative Wilson stated that multi-lines were not only
for big buildings. She asked how far down into the private
business world the bill requirement would go to force
businesses to comply when making an upgrade or change. She
initially thought the bill applied to hotels; however, many
small businesses also had multi-line phones. She wondered
whether the size of the business or the number of phones
mattered and whether it included businesses with one multi-
line phone. She questioned whether businesses would be
forced into something more expensive.
Senator Coghill deferred the question to his staff.
JORDAN SHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, replied that
the bill did not stipulate the size; the size could be a
small or large multi-line telephone system. He reported
that most residences and small businesses had one line and
multiple telephones, which would not be considered a multi-
line telephone system. The bill language was broad enough
that would allow a municipality to limit the application of
the ordinance to a certain number of lines if the
municipality chose to adopt an ordinance. He believed there
had been committee discussion on the topic the last time
the bill had been heard.
9:14:48 AM
Representative Wilson asked whether it was even possible to
get a new system that did not include a 911 enhancement.
Mr. Shilling replied that most systems sold currently did
conform with the requirements the bill sought to achieve.
By 2020, all the phones would have capability to eliminate
dialing any prefix "9" when dialing 911. He deferred to Mr.
David Gibbs [EMS Manager, Fairbanks North Star Borough] for
any future technical phone questions.
Representative Wilson had a problem with the bill because
she had an antique business with multi-lines (two phone
numbers). She did not know what it would cost to change
phone carriers. She noted that some carriers required the
customer to get new phones. She wondered why another power
was being given to the boroughs if technology was going to
get there anyway. She lamented the unknown possible cost to
private businesses.
Representative Grenn deferred to Mr. Gibbs.
DAVID GIBBS, EMS MANAGER, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH (via
teleconference), answered that generally small businesses
utilized key telephone systems, which would be affected by
the legislation. He described a key telephone system as a
system with a series of buttons showing numerous outbound
lines. Each of the phones was connected directly to the
telephone company's switch. Typically, a business
subscribed to the service. He detailed that the address
information and changes were maintained by the phone
company. The maintenance costs were already bundled into
the cost of the telephone system. There should be no
additional cost; the only cost would be the time spent by a
customer working with their phone service provider to
ensure the correct location information was associated with
the phone number.
9:18:26 AM
Representative Wilson believed Mr. Gibbs had described that
the work was already done. She wondered about the purpose
of the bill.
Mr. Gibbs answered that the work was not already done. He
explained that part of the problem was the number of
erroneous addresses. The bill would ensure the work was
done.
Vice-Chair Gara supported the bill. He referenced
Representative Wilson's question and spoke about phones
that were not compatible. He surmised that the fact some
phones lines would not be compatible did not mean
improvement would not be made with phones that were
compatible at the outset.
Mr. Shilling answered that the bill did not require
existing multi-line telephone systems to upgrade. The bill
only applied to upgrades and new-builds beginning January
1, 2019.
Vice-Chair Gara surmised that the bill would work for
buildings with phone lines.
Mr. Shilling asked for clarification.
Vice-Chair Gara withdrew his question.
9:20:05 AM
Representative Guttenberg asked for verification that the
bill did not apply to situations where a person bought a
box of six phones. He wondered whether the bill applied to
situations where a phone system was installed by a
professional versus phones purchased off the shelf. He
believed part of the professional installation process
would be putting in each phone number and location at the
phone company or a central location. He used the University
of Alaska (University) and the Anchorage Legislative
Information Office as examples and considered where the
phone numbers were registered.
Mr. Shilling pointed out a document in members' packets
that included FAQs on what constituted a multi-line
telephone system [provided by the Fairbanks North Star
Borough] (copy on file). He deferred to Mr. Gibbs for
further detail.
Mr. Gibbs answered that it was not the type of phone, but
the nature of the class of service being employed. He cited
the University as an example of a large PBX [Private Branch
Exchange Telephone System] operator. He elaborated that the
University owned the switch and much of the functionality
of its phone system such as station to station dialing on
campus was hosted by the University. For example, there
were 6,900 telephone numbers for a single street address
(1054 University Avenue) - no additional location
information was associated with the numbers. He referenced
the small "mom and pop" telephone system signed up for
service with six lines - it ensured the address information
provided to the provider was accurate and reflected the
granularity of the location information required by the
legislation. He stated that there was no additional cost -
the maintenance and address information cost was bundled in
the cost of the service. The idea was to ensure the correct
information was passed along to the telephone service
provider and that the provider updated address information
as part of their daily automated updates. He relayed that
the borough conducted daily updates with its two local
exchange carriers.
9:23:44 AM
Representative Guttenberg stated that the bill would give a
municipality the ability to require the enhancement by
ordinance. He asked how it related to the university system
or other state buildings. He asked whether the municipality
had telecommunication power. He asked whether the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) had the ability to
regulate telephone systems. He noted he was supportive of
the bill.
Mr. Shilling answered that the bill applied to all multi-
line telephone system operators in the municipality;
therefore, it would apply to the University. He deferred to
the Jill Dolan to address powers of a second-class borough
such as Fairbanks.
JILL DOLAN, ATTORNEY, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH (via
teleconference), answered that it was not a
telecommunications power the borough would be exercising,
but the E-911 power granted through Title 29. She explained
the regulation would apply to E-911 system users, not
carriers. She clarified it was the distinction between the
RCA authority (over the system providers) and the E-911
system that the borough had been granted statutory
authority over.
Representative Guttenberg restated that they had authority
over 911. Ms. Dolan answered in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson asked whether the legislation
impacted [military] bases in Alaska. Alternatively, she
asked whether the federal government was exempt from the
legislation.
Ms. Dolan answered that military bases had their own public
safety answering points for their system. She detailed that
the residential commercial customers on the base were part
of the borough's E-911 system.
Representative Wilson asked whether the bases would fall
under the bill requirements if the military made [phone
system] upgrades.
Ms. Dolan answered that the military facilities would not
fall under the bill requirements. She deferred to Mr. Gibbs
for further detail pertaining to the system technology.
Representative Wilson clarified that she was not asking
about the technology. She wanted to know who would be
impacted by the bill requirements. She surmised that
private housing [on bases] did not have multi-lines and
would not be impacted by the bill. She wondered whether an
ordinance made by the borough would apply to the buildings
on the Fort Wainwright Military Base and Eielson Air Force
Base.
9:27:05 AM
Ms. Dolan answered that Eielson was not part of the
borough's E-911 service area, but Fort Wainwright was. She
detailed that the Fort Wainwright buildings were not routed
through the borough's public safety answering point. The
borough worked with Fort Wainwright, but the calls were
answered on the base; therefore, the base would not be
impacted by the bill.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
9:28:24 AM
Representative Tilton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-
LS1455\D.1 (Nauman, 4/11/18) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 1, following "systems":
Insert 11; and relating to the use of the enhanced 911
surcharge revenue"
Page 1. following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 29.35.13 l(i) is amended to read:
(i) A municipality may only use the enhanced 911
surcharge revenue for those costs of the enhanced 911
system that are authorized in this subsection. The
surcharge revenue may not be used for any capital or
operational costs for emergency responses that occur
after the call is dispatched to the emergency
responder. The surcharge revenue may not be used for
constructing buildings, leasing buildings, maintaining
buildings, or renovating buildings, except for the
modification of an existing building to the extent
that is necessary to maintain the security and
environmental integrity of the public safety answering
point and equipment rooms. The surcharge revenue may
be used for the following costs to the extent the
costs are directly attributable to the establishment,
maintenance, and operation of an enhanced 911 system:
(1) the acquisition, implementation, and maintenance
of public safety answering point equipment and 911
service features;
(2) the acquisition, installation, and maintenance of
other equipment, including call answering equipment,
call transfer equipment, automatic number
identification controllers and displays, automatic
location identification controllers and displays.
station instruments, 911 telecommunications systems,
teleprinters, logging recorders, instant playback
recorders, telephone devices for the deaf. public
safety answering point backup power systems, consoles,
automatic call distributors, and hardware and software
interfaces for computer-aided dispatch systems;
(3) the salaries and associated expenses for 911 call
takers [FOR THAT PORTION OF TIME SPENT TAKING AND
TRANSFERRING 911 CALLS];
(4) training costs for public safety answering point
call takers in the proper methods and techniques used
in taking and transferring 911 calls;
(5) expenses required to develop and maintain all
information necessary to properly inform call takers
as to location address, type of emergency, and other
information directly relevant to the 911 call-taking
and transferring function, including automatic
location identification and automatic number
identification databases."
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec.2"
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tilton explained the amendment. She noted
that in the previous session she had brought forward an E-
911 bill at the request of the Mat-Su Borough; however,
after the bill's introduction the borough's attorney
thought they had come up with a way to work the situation
out. She appreciated the willingness of the sponsors for
her to offer the amendment. She referenced Page 2, lines 3
through 5, that would allow municipalities to use E-911
revenue for any portion of the salaries of the call taker.
She explained that the Mat-Su Borough had contracted with
the City of Wasilla for E-911 services and unlike the other
municipalities they were in a unique situation where the
person answering the phone was also the dispatcher. She
expounded that typically an incoming call was transferred
to a dispatcher; however, in Mat-Su the person taking the
call and acting as dispatcher meant they could be required
to remain on the phone longer while responders reached the
destination. The amendment would allow the cost for the
entire call to go to E-911 charges. She had no intent to
alter what E-911 funds were used for. She noted she had
discussed the bill with service providers.
9:30:54 AM
Representative Guttenberg pointed to the numbered
subsections in the amendment and asked for verification
they were not listed in priority order [in terms of what
surcharge revenue may be used for].
Representative Tilton answered that the list mirrored
existing statute. She explained that the only change was to
number 3.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether existing statute
included any restrictions or limitations on how E-911
surcharges could be spent.
Ms. Dolan answered that the amendment would broaden one of
the restrictions. She clarified that the list [shown in the
amendment taken from current statute] showed what revenue
could be used for and was not in priority order.
Representative Kawasaki noted that the City of Fairbanks
had a 911 dispatch center used by the entire borough, and
beyond. He stated that a person residing outside of the
city limits would have the E-911 surcharge paid. He asked
for verification that the staff would be city staff even
when the caller lived outside of the city.
Representative Tilton answered that the amendment did not
look to increase surcharges. She clarified that the
amendment would mean E-911 would cover the cost of the
salaries of workers functioning as operators and
dispatchers for the service.
Representative Kawasaki noted that the E-911 surcharge may
be used to pay for city staff, even though the E-911
surcharge may be associated with a person residing outside
city limits.
Representative Tilton replied that Mat-Su contracted with
Wasilla, Palmer, and the state. She detailed that in
typical dispatch centers a call was transferred to the
appropriate public safety agency. However, in Mat-Su the
operator answering the call was also the dispatcher and may
stay on the line until the public safety officer reached
the emergency destination. The amendment would allow the
service to be covered under E-911 surcharges.
9:34:49 AM
Representative Kawasaki clarified his question. He
explained that the amendment [item 3] pertained to salaries
and associated expenses. He elaborated that approximately a
dozen dispatchers in the City of Fairbanks were city
employees. He wondered whether the E-911 surcharges would
go to pay a city employee when the caller utilizing the
service lived outside the city limits.
Representative Tilton noted that the call was also going
through the dispatch center, so the individual would be
receiving the service.
Representative Kawasaki stated that the existing wording
specified the associated expenses for the portion of time
spent for the E-911 person. Whereas, the amendment meant
the taxes received outside of a borough could be used to
pay for a city employee. He asked if his understanding was
accurate.
Ms. Dolan answered that the concern was probably valid in
the Fairbanks Borough. She explained that most of the E-911
service area was the borough outside the city. They
contracted with the City of Fairbanks for the 911 call
taking portion. A workload analysis was conducted, and the
work equated to approximately four positions at the
Fairbanks Emergency Communications Center answering 911
calls and paid with surcharge revenue. The analysis
pertained to the scenario provided by Representative
Kawasaki. She elaborated that after the 911 call was
complete, for example, once the dispatch was made to the
fire department, the fire department had its own contract
for the dispatch services that continued. She explained
that if they paid for all the dispatch positions at the
city, the E-911 surcharge revenue would be used to dispatch
police or fire calls, which was not a service provided to
every user paying E-911 surcharge revenue.
9:37:26 AM
Representative Kawasaki stated that the amendment would use
the surcharge to pay for more of the dispatcher's time. He
explained that if he resided in the borough as opposed to
the City of Fairbanks he would be upset. He reiterated the
amendment was a policy call.
Vice-Chair Gara stated that the amendment would broaden the
cost the surcharge could be used for to all the work done
by individuals taking 911 calls instead of the portion of
the work related to taking and transferring 911 calls. He
stated that more money from the surcharge would be
available for 911 call takers under the amendment. He
wondered whether it would spread the surcharge funds too
thin or have any other negative impacts.
Senator Coghill answered that he had been generally
supportive of the amendment, primarily pertaining to the
situation in Mat-Su. However, he did not know the answer to
some of the questions that had arisen. He had been
supportive of the amendment because the 911 service call
providers generally were using a broad area anyway and were
needed when it came to cell phone issues where they were
typically the provider of the service. For example, North
Pole contracted with Fairbanks. He reiterated that he did
not know the answer to some of the questions that had
arisen, but generally, he had communicated to the sponsor
that he was amenable to the amendment.
9:39:49 AM
Representative Ortiz spoke about a concern he had received
via email from a public utility constituent who dealt with
911 services. He quoted from the email: "it appears to
allow various entities in the state to begin drawing down
additional funds from an already limited 911 funding pool."
He asked whether this interpretation of the amendment was
accurate.
Representative Tilton addressed the unique situation in
Mat-Su where the operator was acting as a dispatcher and
call taker. The amendment allowed the [dispatch] portion to
be covered but did not require it. She elaborated it was
not about who was making the call, it was about who was
taking the call. The system was boroughwide but operated by
cities.
9:41:30 AM
AT EASE
9:44:38 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Tilton explained that the money was already
coming into the Mat-Su Borough and was held in a separate
pot. The borough contracted with the City of Wasilla and
had the money but was unable to use the funds without the
expansion.
Representative Kawasaki understood the situation was
similar in the City of Fairbanks. He explained that the
City of Fairbanks had a dispatch center, which the borough
used via contract for areawide dispatch services. He
explained that currently the cost coverage had been limited
to the work dealing with the 911 issue. Whereas, the
amendment proposed the salaries for the 911 call takers
(dispatch center employees) could be reimbursed under the
E-911 fund. He was concerned about other things the fund
was used for and if the amendment would result in cuts
elsewhere.
Mr. Gibbs asked Representative Kawasaki to repeat the
question.
Representative Kawasaki complied. He asked how the borough
utilized E-911 surcharge funds.
Mr. Gibbs responded that the borough provided the 911 work
stations, the network connecting the public safety
answering points, street addressing for 911 purposes,
support for GIS [geographic information system] work that
went into 911 mapping, and labor to answer the 911 calls
(the borough had a services agreement with the city to
provide labor).
9:47:22 AM
Representative Kawasaki stated that the question pertained
to the amendment. He noted that currently a portion of E-
911 funds went to support call takers. He explained that
the amendment proposed to delete that portion and specified
that the fund would pay for the salaries and associated
expenses of 911 call takers. The amendment would mean a
dispatcher working for the City of Fairbanks who was partly
using the E-911 surcharge for transferring calls would be
allowed to request E-911 surcharge funds to be taken. He
wanted to know if there was enough E-911 money to go
around.
Mr. Gibbs responded that the negotiation with the city
could be contentious when the borough went to renew the
services agreement depending on how much labor costs were
attributed to the 911 program. The issue would depend on
whether there was enough funding. He explained there was a
little reserve in the surcharge assessed to residents. He
stated that the surcharge could be increased, but it would
result in a tax increase. He elaborated that a lengthy
negotiation and time study had been conducted to determine
the level of effort to support 911 call taking. He reported
that the borough had been fairly satisfied with the
resulting agreement.
Representative Kawasaki asked what percentage of time was
used by E-911 services in the current contract. He asked
for details on the contract.
Mr. Gibbs replied that the borough estimated about 19
percent of the time went to receiving and handling 911
calls. The time had been converted to four or five full-
time [positions] and the borough agreed to fund five
positions as needed to answer and transfer 911 calls.
9:50:08 AM
Representative Kawasaki spoke to his concern that the
amendment would mean paying for much more out of the E-911
funds. He surmised that it could mean paying up to 100
percent of the time as opposed to 19 percent.
Mr. Gibbs understood and reported that every few months the
issue arose where the city communicated it wanted more
funds from the borough to support dispatch operations.
Representative Wilson asked whether Mr. Gibbs had the
amendment.
Mr. Gibbs answered in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson asked whether it would make a
difference to narrow the amendment language to "salaries
and associated expenses during the 911 call." She believed
that was the goal of the amendment.
Mr. Gibbs answered that when the borough had done the
workload calculation analysis the consideration had been
that the time was credited to handling 911 calls. He
believed the existing statute was clear about what time was
eligible for the surcharge funding. He could not really
help with the additional language.
Representative Wilson asked whether call takers in
Fairbanks were ever required to remain on the phone until
the police or responders arrived at the emergency
destination.
9:52:43 AM
Mr. Gibbs answered that there were regulars who stayed on
the line with a caller when needed. He explained that the
Alaska State Troopers were also on the 911 network and if a
call taker could not transfer the call to the troopers they
remained on the line with the caller and complete the call
until they could reach the troopers. Similar action was
taken when the borough received wireless calls needing to
be transferred to Fort Wainwright. He elaborated that
sometimes the call takers at Fort Wainwright were busy. The
borough considered it time handling 911 calls and covered
by the surcharge.
Representative Thompson surmised that the Fairbanks North
Star Borough and the City of Fairbanks had worked out the
situation well by determining the amount of time the city's
dispatchers spent on 911 calls that were spread across the
borough. He thought it meant they had figured out the need
for four employees' salaries and expenses. He thought the
Mat-Su Borough needed to work out a similar contract. He
understood where the issue came from if Mat-Su agreed to
pay a flat fee for each 911 call, it would restrict the
amount of money they could get from the borough. He thought
many of the calls required the call takers to remain on the
line and he believed there should be some way to compensate
for the time a dispatcher was on the phone. He reasoned
that a person could be on the phone for 45 minutes to
ensure an emergency had been handled. He understood that a
flat fee for each call did not cover the problem where call
takers were faced with remaining on the phone for longer
periods of time. He was in favor of the amendment.
9:55:14 AM
Representative Guttenberg thought part of the problem was
that one size did not fit all. He thought that the
situation had worked out in Fairbanks. He did not know
whether it was a negotiation problem between the entities
in Mat-Su or that the 911 fees collected were too high,
which resulted in extra money to transfer over. He
discussed existing statute and reasoned that with living in
the city and the borough the problem would be the same if
more than the cost of the system was transferred into
another political entity. He elaborated that the recipient
would be paying for more services they were not eligible to
get, which he found problematic. He asked whether Ms. Dolan
had any perspective on the Mat-Su problem.
Ms. Dolan did not want to speculate. She explained that a
similar request had been made in Fairbanks - other agencies
with limited resources were looking at the E-911 surcharge
revenue as a possibility to make up some of those deficits.
She stated that if Mat-Su had a fund balance in its E-911
surcharge revenue it may be stranded in the sense that it
was not needed for equipment replacement or current
expenses for 911 call taking, the borough may have a
resource it could not spend without a statutory change.
Whereas, Fairbanks was not in a similar situation. She knew
there was at least one other borough that was at the
maximum surcharge revenue it could collect, and it did not
have excess revenue to spend. She believed the situation
was likely a result of Mat-Su's fund balance and not a
result of its negotiations.
Representative Guttenberg stated that the issue was someone
paying taxes for services they were not eligible for. He
detailed that if someone in the borough was paying the full
salary for someone in the city, all the 911 service charges
were covered, yet they were also paying for city police,
sewer and water, or fire, which they were not eligible for.
He believed it seemed like a problem.
Co-Chair Foster relayed the committee would recess [note:
the meeting never reconvened].
SB 215 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
[Note: discussion on CSSB 215(FIN)am continued during the
afternoon meeting. See April 16, 2018 1:30 p.m. minutes for
detail.]
ADJOURNMENT
9:58:42 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:58 a.m.