Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/07/1999 08:01 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 7, 1999
8:01 AM
TAPES
SFC-99 #80, Side A & Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair John Torgerson convened the meeting at
approximately 8:01 A.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Torgerson, Senators Dave Donley, Loren Leman, Al
Adams and Lyda Green were present when the meeting was
convened. Senators Gary Wilken, Randy Phillips, Pete Kelly
and Co-Chair Sean Parnell arrived shortly thereafter.
Also Attending:
DWIGHT PERKINS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Labor;
JIM ROW, Director, Alaska Telephone Association (ATA),
Anchorage; ALLISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner, Department
of Administration.
Teleconferenced:
JUDY WARWICK, Regional Manager for External Affairs, GCI,
Anchorage; TOM MEADE, Vice President of Regulatory
Affaires, TEL ALASKA, Anchorage; JIMMY JACKSON, Regulatory
Attorney, GCI, Anchorage; GREG BERBERICH, Vice President of
Corporate Services, Matanuska Telephone Association (MTA),
Mat-Su; KAY BURROWS, Director, Division of Senior Services,
Department of Administration, Anchorage.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 8-SEXUAL PARITY IN PLUMBING FACILITIES
SB 8 was heard and rescheduled for Committee hearing for
the evening of 4/07/99. The bill was HELD in Committee.
SB 52-LOCAL EXCHANGE TELEPHONE SERVICE
SB 52 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
discussion.
SB 57-CARE FOR VULNERABLE ADULTS
CS SB 57(FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the
Department of Administration dated 4/02/99.
SENATE BILL NO. 8
"An Act relating to the number of toilets in women's
restrooms in certain facilities."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 8(STA)
"An Act relating to the minimum plumbing fixtures
required for females and males in the state plumbing
code; and providing for an effective date."
Senator Donley explained SB 8 would amend the existing
plumbing code in AS 18.60.705 to more closely resemble the
national standard and increase the minimum number of
women's and men's bathroom facilities in assembly places.
He noted that SB 8 would allow women to attend large public
events in buildings constructed after January, 2000 without
enduring the line they have inevitable had to face, thus
unfairly impacting their enjoyment of the event they are
attending. Through the bill, the ratio of women's to men's
facilities would be increased, bringing fairness to the
situation.
The current statute adopts the entire most recent Uniform
Building Code, except table A-29-A, which is an older
version of the code that provides fewer plumbing facilities
for women. The bill would also amend current statute and
specifically address the number of facilities provided for
men and women in "assembly places". The current table in
statute does provide a slightly elevated number of
facilities for women in comparison to those provided for
men, but the ratio does not meet the demand. He stated
that SB 8 would amend table A-29-A currently in statute
relating to females and include Table 4.1 from the 1997
Uniform Building Code for men.
Senator Donley concluded that SB 8 would correct a
situation that has plagued women since indoor events have
been held in the State of Alaska. He believed that it
would be a step in the right direction and would give women
the opportunity to enjoy the event they are attending
rather than spending the majority of their time in line for
the bathroom.
Senator Green asked if Senator Donley would consider using
the numbers in the Uniform Building Code. Senator Donley
agreed that would be a better than the current number of
the facilities, however, pointed out that the need is even
greater. He stated that within current code, at an event
with over four hundred participants, the difference would
be that in current Uniform Building Code would provide for
twelve facilities, whereas, SB 8 would provide for sixteen.
Co-Chair Torgerson questioned Page 1, Line 6. "unless the
department adopts by regulation a later edition of the
following publication". He suggested that a "later
edition" might not include the intention of the bill.
Senator Donley responded that he had been working with the
Department on the legislation and never considered that the
Department would go "backwards". The Department does
support increasing the number of the facilities. The way
the law is written provides that type of flexibility to
either increase or decrease the number of facilities. He
reiterated that the Department is committed to increasing
the facilities.
Senator Green recommended that the Department could adopt
the Uniform Code or make the changes through statute.
Senator Donley understood that the State had adopted only a
portion of the code.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked for clarification of the exempted
assembly areas. Senator Donley said the older code
required fewer facilities. A drafting was necessary to
place the older system within the new law and still
maintain the simplicity desired by the public.
DWIGHT PERKINS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Labor,
explained that the 1997 plumbing code Table 4.1 was
included. [Copy on File]. Last year, the Labor and
Commerce Committee changed the language by deleting table
4.1. and inserting the A-29 Code. That table is less
complex and easier to use. Any future codes being adopted
by regulation would still remain in statute and that the
Legislature would have authority to change it.
Senator Leman asked about new construction, expansion and
remodels. He inquired if the new code would apply to
increasing all facilities. Mr. Perkins responded,
providing two scenarios. If color schemes needed to be
changed, there would be no increase in the number of
restroom facilities. However, if there were a change in
the size of the assembly area, there would then have to be
an increased number of facilities. He advised that at
present, the law addresses only the new facilities.
Senator Wilken commented that the proposed bill was
different from the one presented in the State Affairs
Committee. He requested to receive testimony from an
architect regarding the increased costs.
Senator Donley commented that he had not seen any studies
regarding that concern. From personal experience and feed
back, he sensed that the addition of forty toilets to a new
arena would not "make or break" costs.
Senator Wilken pointed out that the new law would add one
hundred twenty-eight (128) toilets to a ten thousand-seat
facility. Senator Donley agreed that there were ways in
which the matter could be resolved and that those options
could be discussed later.
Senator Leman commented, checking a quick calculation, it
would cost approximately $500 thousand dollars more for the
additional toilets.
Senator Green explained that she did not understand the
need to establish a higher standard than the one
established in the current building codes. She noted that
she would not support the bill as written. She proposed an
amendment which would adopt the Uniform Building Codes.
Senator Green MOVED to adopt Table 4.1 of the Uniform
Building Code as a guideline for the number of water
closets necessary per the number by occupancy. Senator
Donley OBJECTED.
Senator Donley noted that the advantage would be lost with
this simpler approach and that the motion would
significantly reduce the number of facilities provided. He
suggested a "better" alternative would be to modify Page 2,
Line 16, to lower the standard. He believed that action
could modify having two additional water closets for each
125 females.
Senator Green pointed out that for every four hundred
women, presently, there are built eight water closets. The
bill would increase that number by six. She questioned why
Alaska was more unique than the rest of the states and
needed to have more facilities.
Senator Leman explained that he did not understand the
proposed amendment. He agreed that table 4.1 was not
necessary and that A-29A should be kept in place. Senator
Green clarified that the intent of her motion was to adopt
Table 4.1. She pointed out that Table 4.1 had already been
adopted regarding men's restroom concerns. Therefore, she
recommended that in order to make it consistent, Table 4.1
should be adopted for both men and women.
Senator Donley reiterated that he proposed reducing the
numbers on Page 2, Line 16, as the alternative.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Leman, P. Kelly, Green, Phillips
OPPOSED: Donley, Torgerson, Parnell, Wilken, Adams
The MOTION FAILED (4-5).
Senator Donley MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. He explained
on Page 2, Line 16, delete "two" and insert "one" and
delete "125" and insert "100".
Senator Wilken recommended that the Committee seek further
help and assistance regarding the ramifications of the
bill. Senator Wilken and Senator Green OBJECTED to
Amendment #2.
Senator Wilken calculated that in a five thousand-seat
arena, eighty-two water closets would be added. He noted
that Amendment #2 would add forty-one more. That would be
a significant change.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
IN FAVOR: Torgerson, Parnell, Donley, Leman, Adams, P.
Kelly, Phillips
OPPOSED: Wilken, Green
The MOTION PASSED (7-2).
Co-Chair Torgerson questioned if the Department could
answer technical questions of the Committee. Mr. Perkins
offered that the Department could have testimony available
at a time specified. Co-Chair Torgerson noted that the
bill would be revisited at the evening meeting.
SB 8 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 52
"An Act relating to competition in the provision of
local exchange telephone service; and providing for an
effective date."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 52(L&C)
"An Act relating to competition in the provision of
local exchange telephone service; and providing for an
effective date."
Senator P. Kelly explained that SB 52 would require the
Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC) to adopt
regulations permitting the local telephone competition in
areas having 5,000 or more lines by July 1, 1999. History
has proven competition gives consumers lower costs,
increased technology and more choices.
He continued, in 1996, Congress passed the
Telecommunications Act allowing and promoting local
telephone competition nationwide. The APUC exempted
Fairbanks and Juneau from full local competition because of
fears that competition might harm the existing phone
monopoly (PTI). PTI was purchased in 1997 by Century
Telephone which has its headquarters in Louisiana. The
purchased of PTI made Century the 10th largest phone company
in the United States. Century has since sold its local
telephone services to Alaska Communication Systems and
affiliated companies (pending regulatory approval).
Senator Kelly continued, the fears that promoted the APUC
to delay full competition in Fairbanks and Juneau are the
same fears that cause the APUC to delay long distance
competition in Alaska for many years. As we have all seen,
those fears were unfounded and long distance competition
produced better quality, new services and lower prices for
consumers throughout the State.
Co-Chair Torgerson questioned the use of "should" on Page
2, Line #6. He recommended it be changed to "shall".
Senator P. Kelly replied that concern had been addressed in
the intent language.
Co-Chair Torgerson inquired if study areas would be
established. Senator P. Kelly noted that Mr. Jackson from
GCI was available on teleconference to answer those
questions.
Senator Adams stated that even without the present
legislation, APUC would still be able to provide full focus
on this matter. He questioned the need for the
legislation. Senator P. Kelly explained that APUC had not
been able to make regulatory decisions and receive
compensation until legislation had been passed in 1990.
Senator Adams reiterated that the proposed legislation was
not essential.
Senator Wilken referenced Page 2, Lines 13 through 16,
questioning which portions of the State would be affected.
Senator Kelly replied Juneau, Fairbanks, Mat-Su and a
portion of Kenai.
JUDY WARWICK, Regional Manager for External Affairs, GCI,
Anchorage, testified via teleconference. She noted that
Senator Steve Frank introduced the original legislation.
The State Regulatory Commission was assigned the
responsibility to promote instate competition. GCI applied
every year and in 1991, long distance in State became a
reality. Because of the success with in-State long
distance, GCI assumed that there would be no "hurdles" with
local competition. With the exception of Anchorage, all
local exchange carriers are designated rural exchange
carriers. The rural designation automatically exempts the
incumbent carriers. Congress and the FDC did find and
established the criteria for terminating the rural
exemption.
Ms. Warwick stated that on September 10, 1997, GCI
requested that APUC terminate the exemption for the local
exchange carriers serving Fairbanks and Juneau. On October
23, 1997, APUC denied the request of termination. They
denied the request even though they did not find that the
request was technically unfeasible or that it would result
in economic injury beyond that associated with competitive
entry.
TAPE SFC-99 #80, SIDE B
Ms. Warwick continued. She noted that the
Telecommunications Act was implemented to promote
competition. Only major markets have been available for
competition in the State of Alaska. Ms. Warwick stressed
that the bill does not mandate competition. She emphasized
that the consumer will choose what is in their best
interest. Ms. Warwick stated that Jimmy Jackson, Corporate
Council, GCI, was available in Anchorage via teleconference
to answer any questions of the Committee.
Senator Adams referenced Page 2, Lines 29 and 30, and asked
why GCI would want to change the timeline. Ms. Warwick
stated that nothing has occurred since the
Telecommunications Act was passed. She recommended that
the Committee speak with Mr. Jackson to better explain this
concern.
Co-Chair Torgerson noted that question would be held until
Mr. Jackson could testify.
TOM MEADE, Vice President of Regulatory Affaires, TEL
ALASKA, Anchorage, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. Mr. Meade testified in opposition to SB 52. He
noted that his company provides local exchange telephone
service in rural locations across the State. He commented
that Mr. Jackson, the attorney from GCI, would probably
disagree as to the legality of the bill.
Mr. Meade stated that the bill goes contrary to the
Telecommunications Act, in that it ignores the process that
is required by the Act for rural exemption. He suggested
that the legislation had been offered under false premises.
He emphasized that the propaganda has suggested that
service would be improved and that rates would be reduced.
He stressed that it is misleading information to believe
that toll rates will decrease.
Mr. Meade questioned how large would the market need to be
to support competition. The year before GCI went into
local competition in Anchorage, it had a net income of $7.5
million dollars. During local competition for two years,
the current financial statement indicates that it lost $6.8
million dollars. He acknowledged that after GCI came into
the market, toll rates did drop because most costs were
shifted to the local exchanges. He stated that if the bill
does pass, it would be subject to court challenges, which
would not be in the public's best interest. Mr. Meade
urged Committee members not to pass the legislation.
Senator P. Kelly commented to the time frame, noting that
most of the regulations were in place before the act was
implemented. He emphasized that there have been many
delays on the bill. Senator Adams stated that APUC does
not have a time line even with the functions of the bill.
He pointed out that APUC does not acknowledge that the bill
is necessary.
JIMMY JACKSON, Regulatory Attorney, GCI, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He stated the study area is
well defined by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC),
and that it is a construct of that Commission. In most
cases, the study area is the same as the local utility
service area. However, there are a few companies in Alaska
that have their service areas divided into more than one
study area. Mr. Jackson noted that the proposed bill would
not change the procedures under Federal law. In terms of
what the bill does, the Attorney General testified before
the Commission that there would not be a conflict. The
bill would bring in competition in order to keep prices
down. In those areas where there is only one carrier, that
carrier would continue to be subject to the regulations of
the APUC.
Senator Adams questioned if all telephone companies in
Alaska receive Federal subsidy to help with upgrading and
buying new equipment. Mr. Jackson explained that all local
phone companies in Alaska outside of Anchorage, receive
universal service funds, which are paid based on their
investment after the fact.
Senator Adams noted that he was familiar with the telephone
universal fund. He asked if GCI received a Federal subsidy
to help with competition. Mr. Jackson responded that GCI
did not get a subsidy from the Federal government. There
is a slight exception in the Life Line Program, where when
GCI provides service in Anchorage to a welfare recipient,
that request receives a monthly reduction to their phone
bill. He emphasized that is a very small program and that
GCI gets no other federal subsidies.
GREG BERBERICH, Vice President of Corporate Services,
Matanuska Telephone Association (MTA), Mat-Su, testified
via teleconference from Mat-Su. He said MTA was a member
owned cooperative serving over 32,000 customers. He spoke
in opposition to SB 52.
Mr. Berberich stated that the legislation was targeted at
specific companies and communities and is not in compliance
with the spirit or intent of the Telecommunications Act.
The legislation would apply to MTA even though they are
classified as rural. He concluded that all Alaskans should
have access to affordable telephone service which this bill
would circumvent. [Testimony on File]. He urged a no vote
on passage of the legislation.
JIM ROW, Director, Alaska Telephone Association (ATA),
Anchorage, spoke in opposition to the legislation. He
stated that the term "rural exemption" makes it sound like
any area conceived as rural is exempted from the
opportunity of telecommunications competition. Every area
in the United States has the opportunity for competition
under that Act. That competition should bring benefit to
the public.
Mr. Row noted that the concern is how competition works in
rural areas. He asked, would people in rural areas be able
to have affordable access to telecommunications. He
explained the rural exemption language. He warned that it
is important to be careful in making this decision.
Precautionary language should be added to make sure that
the public is going to benefit. Mr. Row stressed that the
intent is that individuals have access to affordable rates.
Mr. Row urged Committee members to vote against passage of
the proposed legislation.
Senator Wilken inquired why this bill would negatively
affect those living in rural Alaska. Mr. Row replied that
if an artificial number is added to the Federal Act, those
below that number will receive the benefits of competition.
If the APUC procedure is in place, the rates would still be
affordable. He spoke to the conflict within the Federal
Act.
Senator P. Kelly commented that if the bill should pass,
the APCU would continue to be involved. That Commission
would determine regulations and whether they work. They
will no longer be responsible for making a policy call.
The competition would be either "good" or "bad". Senator
P. Kelly reminded members that the bulk of the regulations
are already adopted and that the people of Alaska will
benefit from the competition.
Co-Chair Torgerson stated that SB 52 would be HELD in
Committee for further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 57
"An Act relating to vulnerable adults; and providing
for an effective date."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 57(JUD)
"An Act relating to vulnerable adults and to the
functions of the office of the state long term care
ombudsman on behalf of vulnerable adults and senior
citizens; and providing for an effective date."
Senator Green MOVED to adopt Amendment #2, 1-LS0135\G.2,
Lauterbach, 4/06/99. [Copy on File]. Co-Chair Torgerson
OBJECTED.
Senator Green explained that language had been added to the
bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee for the movement of
the long term care ombudsman. In looking more deeply at
that change, there is concern about that language. The
Ombudsman Office has requested that the change be reversed.
Co-Chair Torgerson WITHDREW his OBJECTION to adoption of
the amendment. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment
KAY BURROWS, Director, Division of Senior Services,
Department of Administration, Anchorage, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. She offered to answer
questions of the Committee and voiced her support of the
bill.
ALLISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Administration, advised that the Department supported the
legislation.
Senator Wilken MOVED to report SB 57 out of Committee with
individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CS SB 57 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the
Department of Administration dated 4/02/99.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Torgerson recessed the SFC Committee at
approximately 9:40 a.m.
SFC-99 (12) 4/07/99 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|