Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/10/2018 01:30 PM 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 | |
| HB385 | |
| HB316 | |
| SB97 | |
| SB107 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 397 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 385 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 107 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 306 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 385
"An Act relating to multi-line telephone systems."
1:38:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JASON GRENN, SPONSOR, proudly served
District 32.
SHEA SIEGERT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JASON GRENN, introduced
himself.
Representative Grenn reviewed the legislation. He read from
a prepared statement:
Alaskan residents have relied on dialing 911 to reach
local emergency services for decades. Enhanced 911
(E911) is a service that automatically displays the
telephone number and physical location of the 911
caller on the emergency operator's screen. This is
unlike Basic 911 service, where the distressed caller
must tell the operator where he or she is calling
from. E911 is crucial in circumstances where the
caller cannot communicate their whereabouts, as it
ensures the operator is still able to send emergency
response services to the correct location. With the
advancement of technology, E911 has significantly
improved the effective delivery of critical public
safety and emergency response services across the
State.
There is a large segment of E911 end-users in Alaska
using Multi-Line Telephone Systems (MLTS). These
systems do not have the same level of E911 safety
protections as small business and residential systems.
MLTS connects dozens, hundreds, or thousands of
"extension" phones to a central, computerized
telephone "switchboard". MLTS are frequently used by
government agencies, banks, hotels, health care
facilities, and schools.
When individuals call 911 from a phone in Multi-Line
Telephone System, that system may only relay the
physical street address of the facility's main
building or the address of the building in which the
MLTS is located. However, it may not provide more
specific information about where the distressed
individual is physically located, such as a building
number, floor number, or room number. When callers are
also unable to provide their specific location,
because they are either unaware of their exact
location or are physically unable to convey the
information, emergency responders face avoidable
delays that can result in tragedies.
House Bill 385 will help ensure 911 dispatchers
receive accurate location information so emergency
responders will not be delayed while trying to find
the emergency caller in need. HB 385 gives
municipalities the option to require MLTS operators in
their region to provide an Automatic Location
Information (ALI) record for every telephone capable
of dialing 911. By automatically providing specific
location information through the 911 system, emergency
operators can immediately dispatch fire, police, or
EMS responders to the caller's location, even when
that person is incapacitated. This requirement would
apply only to new MLTS installations or upgrades to an
existing MLTS.
Alaskans depend on fast and reliable access to public
safety resources when faced with emergency situations.
I urge your support for House Bill 385.
Representative Grenn indicated his staff, Mr. Siegert,
would review the sectional analysis.
1:41:15 PM
Mr. Siegert read the sectional analysis from a prepared
statement:
Section 1:
This section provides a municipality the ability to
opt-in to requiring a multi-line telephone system
operator to comply with the provisions in this bill.
The first section also states that the operators must
comply with the provisions when they install a new
multi-line telephone system or make upgrades to an
existing multi-line telephone system.
Section 2:
• Paragraph (b) Subpoint (1): requires a multiline
telephone system have direct dial access to a
public safety answering point.
• Paragraph (b) Subpoint (2): requires the
multiline telephone system to provide automatic
number and location information for the call
being placed to the public safety access point.
• Paragraph (c): provides that any information in
the location database is owned by the MLTS
operator and may not be shared unless required by
law and may not be used by a public safety
answering point for any purpose except to
facilitate an emergency response to a 911 call.
• Paragraph (d): provides for systems that are
exempt under section one of this bill to have
signage which gives clear and readable directions
on:
• How to dial a public safety answering point
that includes the pertinent location
information of the caller.
• Paragraph (e): defines the pertinent terms
Representative Grenn was available for questions. He
conveyed that Emily Nauman was available from Legislative
Legal Services was available to testify.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the list of testifiers online.
1:44:41 PM
Representative Kawasaki mentioned that the bill talked
about the municipalities having to opt-in. He asked about
the conditions in which they wound not have to opt-in.
Representative Grenn deferred to his staff.
Mr. Siegert indicated that municipalities opted in on a
voluntary basis. A municipality would not opt-in if it was
going to incur an extreme cost, did not have access to 911
operations, or if they were an unorganized borough without
access to 911 service. If they found that their private
businesses would incur an abnormally large cost to
implement the system, they might not opt-in. For all other
purposes he did not foresee a municipality turning down an
ordinance to opt-in if they had the capabilities to do so.
Representative Kawasaki asked if a municipality would be
impacted if they wanted to upgrade but not to a multi-line
system. Mr. Siegert responded in the negative. He reminded
members that Carrie's Law, HR 582, was signed into law by
President Trump in February 2018. The law provided that
after 2020 all multi-line telephone systems sold and
manufactured in the United States would be required to have
911 capabilities. He suggested that most multi-line systems
had the capability.
Representative Kawasaki asked about the potential costs for
a multi-line system upgrade. He wondered who would be
responsible. Representative Grenn responded that one of the
best things about the bill was that the costs were minimal.
For some, it would not cost anything - especially if it was
a matter of a software update. For others it could cost $25
per phone.
Representative Wilson asked if the bill was limited to
municipalities. Mr. Siegert responded in the affirmative.
He indicated that most unorganized boroughs did not have
access to 911 or 911 enhanced services and would not opt-
in. If an unorganized borough needed to opt-in, they would
have to go to the state. He deferred to Ms. Nauman to
elaborate.
1:49:49 PM
EMILY NAUMAN, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES,
understood Representative Wilson's question to be whether
the bill applied or how the bill applied to an unorganized
borough. She informed members that an unorganized borough
was technically governed by the state legislature. The
unorganized borough had no authority by itself to enact
ordinances that required an enhanced multi-line telephone
system. She suggested that if the legislature wished the
requirement to apply to an unorganized borough, it would
have to enact a law.
Representative Wilson asked if the legislature would be
giving boroughs and cities a power they did not have. Ms.
Nauman directed attention to the bill. The bill showed some
of the powers that they already had related to an enhanced
911 system. The bill amended those powers.
Representative Wilson asked if they currently had the
powers. Ms. Nauman thought the sponsor would be able to
better detail the specific changes made in the bill. The
municipalities had the ability to elect an ordinance
related to an enhanced 911 system. She was not as familiar
with all the details of the current law.
Mr. Siegert responded that Representative Hawker introduced
legislation that passed in 2005, HB 249 [Short Title:
Enhanced 911 Surcharges and Systems], that was supposed to
give the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) the ability
to implement and regulate the 911 system. The problem that
came from the 10-year docket open from 2005 to 2015 was
that (cited in R-05-005 order no. 7) the RCA did not have
the requisite authority to do so. He provided a quote from
the former Attorney General, "Since the specific delegation
in AS 29.035 only authorizes the agency to define generally
accepted industry standards for E911, we lack the requisite
authority to enforce those standards by resolving
disputes." House Bill 249 did not give the RCA the
requisite authority to enforce and implement the generally
accepted standards they agreed upon. Another conflict the
RCA had during the 10-year open docket was finding a waiver
system that would not be overly burdensome on certain
borough versus others. The basis of passing legislation to
provide an opt-in municipal ordinance was to give every
borough local control of the provisions in the bill to
avoid becoming overly burdensome on one borough over
another.
Representative Wilson asked if the legislature was giving a
borough power that they did not currently have. She
wondered if she was correct. Mr. Siegert thought she was
correct.
1:53:38 PM
Representative Wilson figured it was up to the city or
borough to determine the strictness of the ordinance. She
wondered if the municipality would determine the number of
lines in a multi-line system that would be required. She
wondered how far the bill would reach into small
businesses. Representative Grenn thought Ms. Nauman could
respond best to Representative Wilson's question.
Emily Nauman explained that the bill was a take-it or
leave-it bill. The municipality did not have the authority
to adopt something slightly different than what was in the
bill. They had to adopt their ordinance in accordance with
the rules set out in the bill. She suggested that anything
shy of it or anything that directly conflicted with what
was in the bill would likely cause a preemption problem;
the state law would directly conflict with the municipal
ordinance. She noted that the municipal ordinance would
likely be thrown out by a court. In terms of the number of
telephone lines, she referred to the definition of
multi-line systems on page 4 of the bill, starting on line
20. It did not specify a number of telephone lines. she
reported that in the past the Alaska Supreme court upheld a
"narrow, but reasonable" interpretation of this type of
law. There was some room for a municipality to determine
how many lines constituted a multi-line system.
Representative Wilson suggested that if an entity had a
multi-line system like the one she had at her own business,
they would end up bearing the cost depending on how the
ordinance was written. Ms. Nauman did not have a comment
except to reiterate her earlier response that the bill was
silent on how many phones constituted a multi-line phone.
There might be some flexibility for a municipality to flush
it out in its ordinance.
Representative Wilson originally thought the bill was only
for places such as major hotels that would upgrade. She
wondered if an impact study had been conducted for smaller
businesses. She asked the sponsor to distinguish between
large and small businesses. Representative Grenn replied
that he did not have any information regarding a study on
the impacts of the bill. He had previously spoken about the
cost of upgrading a line. There was no difference between
any 911 software in the multi-line telephone system or $15
to $20 per line. He reported that Mr. Gibbs was online and
could comment.
1:58:02 PM
DAVID GIBBS, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, DIRECTOR OF
EMERGENCY, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), introduced
himself.
Representative Grenn repeated his question concerning the
cost of upgrading a small business with a smaller
multi-line system. Mr. Gibbs responded that the cost would
likely be nothing. It would simply be the cost of the labor
to provide the information to the 911 authority for
inclusion in the automatic location information database.
Representative Wilson asked about costs associated with new
upgrades. She thought businesses might be forced to
purchase new phones and software. She wondered how many
places would be affected in the North Star Borough. Mr.
Gibbs was unsure how many small businesses would be
affected by the legislation. He clarified that there were a
number of services for small businesses. He thought a cost
of $20 to $25 cost per handset per month might apply when a
business wanted to subscribe to a phone system on the
Cloud. He had done some research on the internet and found
a cost between $10 and $30. The cost included the handsets,
the switching, and the database maintenance. The bill did
not require a business to upgrade their systems.
2:00:21 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
2:00:44 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Wilson asked if the bill included the
military. Mr. Siegert deferred to Ms. Nauman. Ms. Nauman
responded that she would be skeptical if a municipal
ordinance could affect the telephone requirements on
federal property, particularly a military base. However,
she was not certain. Representative Wilson asked Ms. Nauman
to find out the answer to her question.
HB 385 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.