MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session March 21, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Tuesday, March 21, 1995, Chairman Joan A. Lambert presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Mrs. Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Mrs. Deanna Braunlin, Vice Chairman Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors, Vice Chairman Mr. Max Bennett Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Pete Ernaut Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Morse Arberry, Jr., District 7 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Thomas Grayson, Las Vegas Fire Department; Ms. Marcia Cobian, Executive Director, Nevada Telephone Association; Mr. Brian Herr, Nevada Bell; Ms. Margaret McMillan, Sprint/Central Telephone - Nevada; Mr. Clay Johnson, Contel; Lieutenant Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department; Ms. Gayle Bowen, Civilian Director of Communications, Reno Police Department; Mr. Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; Mr. Pat Coward; (See also Exhibit B attached hereto). ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 282 - Authorizes preference for disadvantaged businesses in public works and in state and local government purchasing. Assemblyman Morse Arberry, Jr., District 7, requested the committee to postpone its hearing on A.B. 282. He advised he was still gathering information concerning A.B. 282 and had not expected the hearing to be held this soon. Chairman Lambert said the committee would accommodate Mr. Arberry. She indicated, if anyone was present who had traveled a long distance to testify on A.B. 282, their testimony would be heard at this meeting and considered together with any testimony given at the future hearing. ASSEMBLY BILL NO 276 - Prohibits public utility which furnishes telephone service from terminating access to 911 emergency telephone number or other emergency telephone service after service is terminated for nonpayment. Assemblyman Morse Arberry, Jr., District 7, testified. Mr. Arberry advised A.B. 276 addressed an extremely important public safety issue. He stated individuals who had difficulty in paying their telephone bills should not be punished by being deprived of telephone access to emergency services. He contended people on fixed incomes, such as senior citizens receiving social security, were most vulnerable and needed immediate access to 911. He indicated such people were also those who might have the most difficulty in paying their telephone bills. He contended A.B. 276 provided a significant legislative statement of policy, that people should be able to call for emergency assistance regardless of their economic status. He urged the committee to support A.B. 276. Mr. Arberry stated telephone companies had an obligation to their customers. He said telephone companies might contend it would cost a lot of money (to comply with A.B. 276) but suggested a person's life could not be equated to money. He indicated he hoped, at the least, telephone companies would agree to extend telephone access to emergency services to those whose telephones were disconnected for nonpayment of their telephone bills for a minimum of 10 to 15 days. Mr. Arberry advised, "...there are phone companies that are doing this." Assemblyman de Braga suggested, if any areas of Nevada did not have access to 911 emergency service, Mr. Arberry might wish A.B. 276 to include provisions which would prohibit telephone companies in those areas from disconnecting telephone service with respect to outgoing calls. Mr. Arberry responded he was aware A.B. 276 was not a perfect piece of legislation. He expressed confidence the committee and the legislature could create a good piece of legislation which would provide the general public with the service it deserved but which would not cost a lot of money. Mr. Thomas Grayson, Las Vegas Fire Department, testified. He stated he supported A.B. 276. He advised the Las Vegas Fire Department had experienced situations in which people had died because their telephones had been disconnected and they were unable to call 911 for assistance. Mr. Grayson suggested cost was the main concern about A.B. 276 and said he was opposed to an issue of community safety being "...shot down..." because of cost. He declared access to 911 emergency services should never be interrupted for any reason. He said many people in the area he served, some of whom had children, had difficulty making their telephone payments on time. He described a situation in which five children were trapped in a second story apartment by fire. He said one of the children was burned because the family's telephone had been disconnected and the children had to pass through the fire to leave the apartment and use a neighbor's telephone. He indicated, if one or two more minutes had passed, the children could have died. Assemblyman Williams asked whether an individual could reach 911 on a pay telephone without having to put money in the telephone. Mr. Grayson responded it was possible to dial 911 on nearly any pay telephone without having to put money in the telephone. Mr. Williams asked how time affected the ability of emergency personnel to save lives. Mr. Grayson stated the fire department generally arrived at the scene of an emergency within three minutes of the time it was called. He said, in the situation he described in which five children were trapped by fire, the fire department's response time was approximately seven minutes and contended the family involved was fortunate there was no fatality. Mr. Williams asked what determined whether fire department paramedics or a professional ambulance service responded to an emergency call to 911. Mr. Grayson said, in Las Vegas, 911 calls were received by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department which transferred calls for emergency medical service to the fire department. He advised the fire department's dispatcher then contacted "...Mercy dispatch." He said, sometimes, people called an ambulance service directly and the ambulance service then contacted the fire department. He indicated fire department personnel and an ambulance service were dispatched concurrently because, generally, the fire department could reach the scene more quickly than an ambulance, however, the fire department did not transport victims. Mr. Williams commented it was less costly to individuals to have the fire department respond to their emergency calls than to have an ambulance service respond. He suggested, without 911, the costs to individuals for emergency services would increase tremendously. Mr. Grayson concurred. Assemblyman Bennett asked whether or not causing access to 911 to continue, when other telephone service had been disconnected, was simply a matter of programming the telephone system. Mr. Grayson said he understood computer software was available to accomplish that. Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Arberry if he would provide the committee with information regarding what telephone companies could do to accomplish the provisions of A.B. 276 and as to which states were considering similar legislation. Mr. Arberry replied he would provide that information. Assemblyman Nolan advised he had worked for an emergency service provider for 15 years, first as a dispatcher, then as a paramedic and finally as an administrator. He said he truly believed the provisions of A.B. 276 were needed. He stated he recalled several instances in which people died because they did not have access to 911. He suggested, in some neighborhoods, if a person pounded on his neighbor's door at 2:00 a.m., in an attempt to get help in an emergency, his neighbor would not answer the door. He advised, if a person used a telephone at a location other than the scene of an emergency to call 911, the dispatcher who answered the call would receive the address associated with the telephone being used and the caller might be too distraught to provide the address of the scene of the emergency. He indicated, in such a situation, emergency medical services would be dispatched to the address where the telephone which was used was located and, by the time they arrived, the caller might no longer be at that location. He said he, personally, recalled instances where people had died as a result of such a situation. He stated his personal experience caused him to be in favor of A.B. 276. Assemblyman Harrington referred to the language "or other emergency telephone service," on line 6 of A.B. 276, and asked to what emergency telephone service that language referred. Mr. Grayson advised that service would include direct numbers to Mercy Ambulance or to Las Vegas Fire Department's dispatch operator. Mr. Harrington asked if maintaining access to numbers other than 911 would cause technical problems for telephone companies. Mr. Grayson replied he did not know. Chairman Lambert asked if other emergency service would include the Metropolitan Police Department's dispatch operator. Mr. Grayson replied he was unfamiliar with the Metropolitan Police Department's system and what emergency numbers it had. Mr. Grayson referred to Mr. Nolan's comments regarding people attempting to obtain assistance by calling from pay telephones. He said, frequently, people dialed 911 from a pay telephone and when emergency service personnel arrived at the location of the pay telephone, no one was there. He advised, when this happened, the call was recorded as a prank call but might subsequently be discovered to be a legitimate call. He said a record was kept of prank calls and malicious calls but suggested many of the calls so recorded were in fact legitimate calls. He indicated, often, a person who called from a pay telephone had to return to the location where the individual for whom they were attempting to get assistance was located (prior to arrival of emergency service personnel). Ms. Marcia Cobian, Executive Director, Nevada Telephone Association, testified. She advised the Nevada Telephone Association opposed A.B. 276. She provided a packet of information concerning the telephone industry in Nevada (Exhibit C). She pointed out there was great disparity in the sizes of telephone companies in Nevada. She advised those companies ranged in size from one which had 86 lines and two employees to one which had 612,000 lines and 1,789 employees. She stated Churchill County Telephone System was unique because it was the only county owned and operated telephone company in the United States. She said the telephone industry (in Nevada) had approximately 2,900 employees, provided a total of 961,000 telephone lines to customers, and had invested in excess of $1.3 billion. She advised, just as Nevada was growing, its telephone industry was growing and it was expected, sometime later in 1995, the industry would provide in excess of 1 million telephone lines to customers. Ms. Cobian explained most telephone companies in Nevada provided 911 service to communities in their areas. She stated 96 percent of the telephone lines in Nevada had access to 911 service. She explained the remaining four percent did not have access to 911 service because the county or city governments of the communities where those lines were located had not chosen to order that service. She explained 911 service was subject to tariff and was regulated by the Public Service Commission, and advised local governments provided 911 service as a public safety service for their communities. Ms. Cobian said the thrust of A.B. 276 was to continue 911 access after a telephone customer's service was disconnected for nonpayment of his bill. She contended telephone companies shared the concerns expressed by Assemblyman Arberry and by Mr. Grayson and would like to be able to provide the service proposed by A.B. 276. She stated, however, there were technological and economic considerations in doing so. She said a service with access only to 911 could be provided by means of sophisticated digital switches, which most telephone companies used, however, additional programming and program maintenance would be required which would generate additional costs. She advised although providing 911 only service would generate no revenue for a telephone company, because the service would be provided for a telephone line which had been disconnected and for which the company was not billing, the company would incur costs in providing the service. She suggested providing such a service would require a telephone company to add "...new facilities, in the street, which is cable and wire..." or to augment its central office with additional programming and additional facilities which would incur additional costs to the company. She explained some telephone companies' central offices could provide a basic 911 service but did not utilize programmable switches and, therefore, could not provide access only to 911 and could not comply with the provisions of A.B. 276. Ms. Cobian advised telephone companies were also concerned about telephone directory listings, intercept recordings and their 911 databases. She said, at the present time, a telephone customer could dial 911 from his home and hang up and the customer would be called back to ascertain the nature of the emergency and what services were needed. She explained a telephone service which provided access only to 911 would be a one way service and while a caller could access 911, if the caller hung up, 911 personnel would have no way to call him back. Ms. Cobian said, as written, A.B. 276 applied to telephone customers at both businesses and residences. She stated most residence customers (whose telephone service had been disconnected), eventually, had their service reconnected but businesses, usually, did not. She suggested, when a business had its telephone service disconnected for nonpayment of its bill, it was going out-of- business and would have no need for a service which provided access only to 911. Ms. Cobian stated A.B. 276 would allow telephone customers to retain access to 911 service indefinitely. She suggested this would tie up telephone facilities for a long time. She indicated a telephone company would have no way of knowing if an individual with 911 only access moved, because the telephone company no longer had contact with that individual. She suggested the telephone company might be providing service to a vacant residence and said doing so would tie up facilities which could be used for other customers. She indicated this might cause the telephone company to be unable to provide services for new, paying customers because all its available facilities were being used to maintain 911 only services. Ms. Cobian said, in time, telephone companies could probably overcome the technological barriers to providing a service to allow access only to 911 but stated costs would have to be quantified and appropriate rates developed. She explained the rate for such a service would be submitted to the Public Service Commission and, subsequently, would be charged to local governments which ordered the 911 service. Ms. Cobian advised the telephone companies were willing to work toward creating "...a mutually supportable bill that can provide this kind of service..." but did not believe A.B. 276 should be passed by the legislature. Mr. Harrington referred to the language "other emergency telephone service," in line 6 of A.B. 276, and asked if it was possible to provide such service. Ms. Cobian replied, usually, telephone numbers for emergency services other than 911 were seven digit numbers and said, at the present time, there was no way to program telephone services to provide access to such numbers while blocking access to other numbers. Mr. Harrington asked the cost of providing such a service. Mr. Brian Herr, Nevada Bell, testified. He replied to Mr. Harrington's last question, indicating the total cost for the service had not been determined. He said, however, the cost to set up such a service within telephone companies' networks had been determined. He advised with respect to Nevada Bell and Contel the cost of processing a service order for such a service would be approximately $20. He indicated "...we have..." approximately 5,000 to 6,000 service disconnections per month and, therefore, the cost of processing service orders to maintain 911 access would be $100,000 to $120,000 per month. Mr. Herr advised a consumer bill of rights had been created for telephone service customers. He pointed out, on pages A43 and A44 of Nevada Bell's telephone directory, some very specific protections for telephone customers were set forth and payments, billing arrangements and payment arrangements were discussed. He said the intent was to advise customers of their rights with respect to paying their telephone bills. He explained, if customers had difficulty paying their bills, Nevada Bell would allow them to make payment arrangements. He said Nevada Bell had life line services for elderly individuals with low incomes and had a service called "low use measured service" which cost $5.00 per month. He explained a customer who had low use measured service did not pay for calls made to 911. He contended the telephone industry had made a great effort to avoid losing telephone customers. Mr. Nolan asked how many of the 5,000 to 6,000 telephone service disconnections to which Mr. Herr had referred resulted from nonpayment of telephone bills. Mr. Herr replied all of them resulted from nonpayment of telephone bills. Mr. Nolan asked whether a distinction was made between disconnections which occurred because telephone customers were moving and those which occurred because customers had not paid their bills. Mr. Herr responded, with respect to Nevada Bell, approximately 30 to 40 percent of customers whose telephone service was disconnected would re-establish service. He suggested some customers whose service was disconnected might be unable to afford telephone service while others might have moved and not paid their telephone bills. Ms. Margaret McMillan, Sprint/Central Telephone - Nevada, testified. She advised Sprint/Central Telephone - Nevada, disconnected telephone service to approximately 5,000 customers per month because of nonpayment of telephone bills. She said such customers were given written notice advising them their service was to be disconnected. She explained, as soon as such a customer received the written notice, he was placed on a call management system and his telephone number was repeatedly dialed, by computer, until the telephone was answered, at which time the customer was told, either personally or by means of a message left on his telephone answering machine, that his service was going to be disconnected. She indicated the customer then had 10 days, during which nothing was physically removed from his telephone line, in which to pay his bill and have his service reconnected. She advised of the 5,000 customers whose service Sprint/Central Telephone - Nevada disconnected in January, 2,900 customers paid their bills within the 10 day period and 2,100 did not. She advised an average of 1,500 customers had their service disconnected for nonpayment of their telephone bills and did not have their service reconnected. Mr. Bennett referred to Mr. Herr's testimony that it would cost $20 to process each service order to maintain access only to 911. He asked Mr. Herr if 911 service was not system-wide but, rather, was provided on an individual basis and suggested a system-wide service would be less costly. Mr. Herr replied the $20 cost was related to special programming required to provide for a nonworking telephone number to continue to have access to 911. He said, currently, system- wide, all telephones had access to 911 but, when a telephone was removed from "...a working arrangement...", a special program had to be set up in the telephone company's switching system to permit that telephone to have access only to 911. Mr. Bennett suggested such programming could be done system-wide. Mr. Herr said he would attempt to get further information for Mr. Bennett. Mrs. de Braga asked whether, in Churchill County, when a telephone was disconnected for nonpayment of the telephone bill and provision was made for outgoing calls to be made from that telephone, the user of that telephone would be unable to call 911. Ms. McMillan responded. She said she was uncertain what occurred in Churchill County, but stated Sprint/Central - Nevada completely disconnected telephone service and the customer could neither make nor receive any calls. Mrs. de Braga asked if Sprint/Central - Nevada had the capability of prohibiting only outgoing telephone calls. Ms. McMillan replied Sprint/Central - Nevada had that capability but it would require special programming to do so. Assemblyman Segerblom referred to the information contained on the last page of Exhibit C that the communities of Jean, Mt. Charleston, Nelson and Searchlight did not have access to 911 and asked "What about the big hotels in Jean." Ms. McMillan said she could not say why but, apparently, they did not have access to 911. Mr. Harrington asked how many of the 5,000 to 6,000 telephone customers whose telephone service was disconnected each month were businesses. Ms. McMillan advised, in January, 400 of the 5,000 customers whose service was disconnected were businesses. Mr. Harrington asked if the $20 cost to process a service order to provide access only to 911 was a one time cost in addition to which costs would be incurred based upon the length of time such service was maintained. Ms. McMillan replied affirmatively. Mr. Harrington asked how the cost to provide access only to 911 compared to Sprint/Central - Nevada's total revenues. Ms. McMillan replied she did not have those figures. She explained 911 service was provided to communities by their local governments and those local governments would absorb the cost of providing access to only that service. Mr. Harrington asked if Ms. McMillan was saying A.B. 276 would create a significant fiscal impact on local governments. Ms. McMillan replied affirmatively. Mr. Clay Johnson, Contel, testified. He said of greater concern to telephone companies than the $20 cost per service order were the cable pairs which would be dedicated solely to providing access to only 911. He explained there was a pair of telephone wires which connected each telephone to the central office of the telephone company servicing that telephone. He said, when service to a telephone was disconnected, the telephone company could then use the pair of wires which had connected it to that telephone to service another customer. He advised Contel was a small company but was experiencing tremendous growth and said he could not imagine the cost to Contel of being deprived of the ability to "...move these pairs around as service is required..." He indicated another concern had to do with a telephone company's data base. He suggested entering information into such a data base (concerning telephones with service to provide access to 911 only) and retaining that information could result in a data base becoming polluted and providing incorrect information to emergency service providers. Ms. McMillan indicated she wished to respond to a previous question asked by Mrs. Segerblom. She advised, in Clark County, the cost for 911 service was added to property tax bills. She said, "Certain areas do not pay that because the municipality has not chosen to provide 911.." She indicated the communities of Jean, Nelson and Searchlight did not have access to 911 because their local governments had not chosen to provide that service. Lieutenant Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department, testified. He advised present with him was Ms. Gayle Bowen who was the civilian director of communications for the Reno Police Department and as such was responsible for all 911 service in the greater Reno area. Lieutenant Galeoto said the Reno Police Department agreed with the concept of A.B. 276 but was concerned it represented an unfunded mandate which would increase the burden on the already overburdened 911 system and create a long- term fiscal impact on local governments. He stated the Reno Police Department opposed A.B. 276 as it was presently written. Chairman Lambert said Washoe County was considering providing an enhanced 911 service and asked if it would be possible to provide the service proposed by A.B. 276 or another service which would accomplish the same purpose "...through that effort." Ms. Gayle Bowen, Civilian Director of Communications, Reno Police Department, testified. She responded to Chairman Lambert's last question. She advised, "Currently, northern Nevada is looking at legislative change to 911 access for our consumers, other than the property tax base that Clark County is using, for obvious reasons." She indicated, when the budget needed to provide Automatic Location Indicator to Washoe County residents was considered, one subject which arose was the programming required for the telephone company to bill for that service through a surcharge. She stated she knew, from considering that subject and from working closely with Nevada Bell, that any programming change to Nevada Bell's equipment and billing processes was very expensive. Ms. Bowen advised local governments in northern Nevada presently paid for 911 access for telephone customers in their communities when such service was provided. She indicated 911 service was not provided in many areas. She said she was concerned about peoples' expectation that 911 service was always available no matter where one was when, in fact, that was not the case. Ms. Bowen stated Washoe County did not have address display for calls placed to 911 which caused concern that, if a caller disconnected his call before voice contact was established and the nature and location of the emergency were determined, contact could not be reestablished with the caller and necessary services could not be provided. She contended Washoe County could not afford to provide enhanced 911 service and said she did not believe enough money would be generated by a surcharge to pay for such a service. Mr. Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, testified. He said the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department opposed A.B. 276 in its present form. Mr. Olsen advised, for areas which had no 911 service, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department had an 800 number which was treated as though it was 911 and the police department absorbed the cost of maintaining that number. Mr. Olsen explained what occurred when the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department received a call to 911. He indicated the first step was to determine whether or not the call was truly an emergency call. He stated an enormous number of calls placed to 911 were not emergency calls. He gave examples of what constituted an emergency and what did not. He advised, if the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department received a call to 911 and determined the call was not an emergency call, the caller would be advised to call back on a non-emergency line and would be disconnected. Mr. Olsen said, of the calls to 911 which the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department received annually, 18,000 were what the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department referred to as "disconnects," which were calls in which the caller hung up. He indicated the police department had no way to determine whether or not such a call was truly an emergency call unless the police department was able to contact the caller at the telephone number from which he placed the call. He advised, when the police department was unable to verify whether or not a disconnected call pertained to an actual emergency, it was necessary to dispatch at least one police unit which tied up a police officer or officers for approximately 20 to 30 minutes. He stated, of the 18,000 "disconnects" per year, 90 percent were not emergencies. He said the cost to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department of the 18,000 "disconnects" was approximately $205,000. Mr. Olsen stated, because of Clark County's growth, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, as well as all other emergency services in Clark County, was struggling to deal with an increase in calls for emergency service. He advised, if A.B. 276 was passed by the legislature, it was anticipated there would be a 20 percent increase in "..911 disconnects..." and a corresponding 20 percent increase in the cost to respond to those calls. Mr. Olsen indicated the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department was willing to assist in modifying the wording of A.B. 276 to make it more palatable but opposed the bill in its present form. Mr. Nolan asked why Mr. Olsen anticipated there would a 20 percent increase in "disconnects" because of calls from people whose telephone service had been disconnected (and who were provided access only to 911). Mr. Olsen suggested, if someone lost telephone service to his residence and the only person he could talk to on his telephone was whoever answered when he dialed 911, he would call that number even when his call was not an emergency. Mr. Nolan asked what the penalty was for dialing 911 as a prank. Mr. Olsen replied it depended on the situation. He indicated the majority of such prank calls were perpetrated by children and said the police would not arrest those children. He advised neither would the police arrest an elderly person who called 911 to complain about something which was not a police matter. Mrs. Segerblom asked, "When you call back, does it show 911 or the police number?" Mr. Olsen said he did not have caller identification on his telephone and did not know the answer to Mrs. Segerblom's question. He advised, when police returned a call made to 911, they immediately identified themselves. Mr. Pat Coward testified. He advised the representatives for the Nevada League of Cities and for the Nevada Association of Counties had to leave the meeting and asked him to advise the committee "...if this bill is to be processed that, with no fiscal impact indicated to local government, that since the local government does have the responsibility for the 911 services that the committee would request that type of notation for the bill - what the impact would be to local government." Chairman Lambert asked if Mr. Coward was asking the committee to request a fiscal note on A.B. 276. Mr. Coward replied local governments would like to know what the financial impact of A.B. 276 would be on local governments. Chairman Lambert indicated it was the responsibility of local governments to advise the legislature of such financial impact. Chairman Lambert invited Mr. Nolan to make a comment he had indicated earlier he wished to make. Mr. Nolan said he wished to point out a consideration which had not been mentioned. He advised emergency medical dispatchers were the individuals who could provide medical information and instruction, such as how to administer CPR or mouth to mouth resuscitation or how to control bleeding, to those who called 911 for emergency assistance. He suggested, if an individual had to leave his residence and proceed to a pay telephone in order to call 911, he would be unable to avail himself of the assistance of emergency medical dispatchers. Mr. Harrington said he would like one of the telephone companies's representatives to clarify whether or not it was possible to provide for a telephone to receive incoming calls from 911 but to receive no other incoming calls. Ms. Cobian responded it would be difficult to block incoming calls from all telephone numbers except one. She indicated the telephone companies did not believe they could do so but would explore the possibility. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 276. Chairman Lambert distributed copies of a letter from Mr. Daniel A. Levar, Citizens Against Incorporation (Exhibit D). Discussions were held among committee members with respect to the possible incorporation of Pahrump. BILL DRAFT REQUEST NO. 21-706 - Revises provisions governing alternative procedure for creation of local improvement district. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 21-706. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BILL DRAFT REQUEST NO. 22-757 - Authorizes governing body to direct hearing examiner to take final action on zoning matters. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 22-757. ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 282 - Authorizes preference for disadvantaged businesses in public works and in state and local government purchasing. Chairman Lambert inquired if anyone was present to testify on A.B. 282 to whom it would cause a hardship to return when the hearing on A.B. 282 was rescheduled. There was no response to Chairman Lambert's inquiry. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Lambert adjourned the meeting at 9:17 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Sara Kaufman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs March 21, 1995 Page