MINUTES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session April 5, 1995 The Subcommittee on Government Affairs was called to order at 10:00 a.m., on Wednesday, April 5, 1995, Chairman Dennis Nolan presiding in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting, originally scheduled to be heard in Room 330, was transferred to Room 331 due to a scheduling conflict. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Ms. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams Mr. Dennis Nolan, Chairman GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman David Goldwater, District 10 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Brian Herr, Nevada Bell; Ms. Margaret McMillan, Sprint/Centel Telephone - Nevada; Ms. Marcia Cobian, Nevada Telephone Association; Assemblyman David Goldwater, District 10; Mr. Pat Coward, Nevada Bell; Mr. Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; Captain Terry Mayo, Commander, Communications Bureau, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (see also Exhibit A attached hereto). 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. Chairman Nolan expressed the intent of A.B. 276 and summarized the conclusion to be drawn from testimony heard before the full Committee on Government Affairs at its hearing on A.B. 276. Chairman Nolan indicated he wished to hear more testimony regarding "lifeline" service. Mr. Brian Herr, Nevada Bell, testified. He indicated, when he testified before the full Committee on Government Affairs, he outlined two service options available to customers of Nevada Bell. He advised one of those options was lifeline service and indicated criteria regarding age and income must be met to qualify for lifeline service. He said customers of Nevada Bell who met those criteria could receive lifeline service for $9.58 per month, which amount was slightly more than $3 per month less than the amount Nevada Bell charged for normal residential service. Mr. Herr said the second service option offered by Nevada Bell was low use, measured service. He explained there were no criteria regarding age or income which must be met to receive low use, measured service but subscribers to that service were required to pay for each and every telephone call they made. He advised Nevada Bell's charge for low use measured service was $5.00 per month. He suggested that option would allow someone in a serious financial situation to have telephone service and access to 911. He said charges for telephone calls made by customers with this service were made in a manner similar to charges made for long distance telephone calls but the dollar amount charged would not be the same as that charged for long distance calls. Mr. Herr stated both service options which he had described were options Nevada Bell would use to attempt to retain customers and to prevent those customers from losing access to 911. Chairman Nolan asked whether Nevada Bell gave customers whose service was to be disconnected for nonpayment of their telephone bills any notice of the availability of the service options Mr. Herr had described. Mr. Herr replied he understood, if a customer was having financial difficulty and might be unable to pay his telephone bill, representatives of Nevada Bell would discuss alternative service options with that customer. He indicated representatives of Nevada Bell would also discuss payment arrangements with such a customer. He pointed out the Consumer Bill of Rights provided a consumer was entitled to have one payment arrangement per year. Assemblyman Segerblom asked how much notice of its intention to disconnect a customer's telephone service Nevada Bell gave before it disconnected the service. Mr. Herr indicated he did not have the answer to Mrs. Segerblom's question but could obtain the answer. He advised that information was set forth in the Consumer Bill of Rights contained in the Nevada Bell telephone directory. Ms. Margaret McMillan, Sprint/Centel Telephone - Nevada (hereinafter referred to as Sprint/Centel), testified. Ms. McMillan advised Sprint/Centel offered a lifeline service similar to the one described by Mr. Herr but did not have a measured service for local calls. She said Sprint/Centel's charge for basic telephone service was approximately $10.00 (per month). Ms. McMillan referred to Mrs. Segerblom's question regarding notice and advised Sprint/Centel sent a written notice to a customer who was delinquent in his telephone payment and in addition a service representative would speak with the customer, personally. She said, if a customer indicated he was having difficulty in paying his bill, he would be offered the opportunity to make payment arrangements. She stated Sprint/Centel offered senior citizens, who might have difficulty remembering to pay their telephone bills, the option of having a third party notified of any problem regarding their payments. Mrs. Segerblom asked if the notification process might take as long as 30 days (prior to a telephone being disconnected). Ms. McMillan replied she was uncertain but thought the period between the time Sprint/Centel gave notice of its intent to disconnect telephone service and the time service was actually disconnected was approximately two weeks. Assemblyman Tripple asked whether it was technically possible to allow a telephone customer whose service was disconnected to retain access to 911. Ms. McMillan replied it was technically possible to do so but it would be an expensive process. She explained it would necessitate telephone switches being reprogrammed to allow access to 911 while restricting both incoming calls and outgoing calls to numbers other than 911. She pointed out the process which would allow continued access to 911 would not address the problem raised at the meeting of the full committee, to-wit although a customer whose phone had been disconnected would be able to call 911, his call could not be returned. Ms. Tripple asked if Ms. McMillan believed it would be technically possible in the future. Ms. McMillan replied affirmatively but indicated it might be 10 years or longer before telephone companies could provide the desired service. Ms. Tripple asked if Ms. McMillan believed telephone companies were as interested as the legislature was in ensuring telephone customers retained access to 911. Ms. McMillan replied telephone companies wished to keep as many customers as possible on their telephone networks. She said, "...we, of course, provide service, so the more people who have access to the service, the better it is for us." Chairman Nolan asked whether it was possible for telephone companies to develop a separate mail insert, which would be brightly colored or in some other way made very noticeable and which would specifically notify a customer, not only that his telephone service was going to be disconnected, but also that, when his service was disconnected, he would lose his ability to access 911. He also asked whether, together with such an insert, information regarding service options, such as lifeline service and low use measured service could be provided to the customer. Mr. Herr responded. He said Nevada Bell could provide inserts in its billings. He advised Nevada Bell presently, on an annual basis, included inserts in its billings which provided information regarding some of its service options. He suggested Nevada Bell could add emphasis to such inserts and attempt to make customers aware what their options might be in the event they had difficulty paying their telephone bills. Mr. Herr also suggested telephone companies might provide information regarding telephone service options to social service agencies who could then counsel their clients regarding payment arrangements and service options. Assemblyman Williams suggested telephone customers be given the option, prior to any disconnection of their telephone service, to pay a fee to ensure their access to 911, for a period of time, in the event their telephones were disconnected for nonpayment of telephone bills. He also suggested, if that option could be provided, computer data, to the effect a customer had paid for that option, might be maintained so, if the customer called 911, police would know the call was probably not a crank call. Ms. McMillan said, although such a feature had not been developed, it was a concept which telephone companies should explore. Mr. Nolan asked which telephone company service areas did not provide low use measured service. Mr. Herr responded. He said he believed lifeline service was available state-wide but low use measured service was a service provided only by Nevada Bell. Ms. Marcia Cobian, Nevada Telephone Association, testified. She said the four largest telephone companies provided lifeline service. She advised of the eight smaller telephone companies, which served approximately two percent of "...the excess lines within the state...", some did not provide lifeline service. She stated regulations were pending before the Public Service Commission and, if those regulations were approved, all the telephone companies would offer or would work toward offering lifeline and "link up" services, both of which were federal programs which provided for lower monthly telephone rates and lower installation charges. Ms. Tripple indicated it was her understanding, from the testimony, that A.B. 276 was not feasible at this time but telephone companies could provide consumer education programs to cause customers to be more aware of the options available to them. Ms. Tipple suggested, if the goal was to assist people whose telephones were disconnected to be aware of their options, information regarding those options should be provided to a telephone customer concurrently with the notice of the telephone company's intent to disconnect his telephone. Chairman Nolan stated, for technological reasons, the intent of A.B. 276 could not be addressed by providing access to only 911 to those whose telephones were disconnected but the committee would attempt to generate a bill which would address that intent as closely as possible. Assemblyman David Goldwater, District 10, testified. He advised there were several rental establishments in his district which provided weekly rentals or short- term tenancies. He explained such establishments operated their telephone services through switchboards or PBX operators. He said one of his constituents, who lived in a weekly rental establishment, informed him she was unable to call 911. He indicated he was in the process of conducting research to determine whether his constituent could or could not call 911. He contended there was a need to provide access to 911 (to tenants of weekly rental or short-term tenancy establishments). He said he wished to express his concern to the committee so that, should he determine 911 service was not being provided to occupants of weekly rentals or short-term tenancy establishments, the committee could consider his concern if it determined to move forward on A.B. 276. Chairman Nolan asked Mr. Pat Coward to come forward and testify regarding the reasons why a situation such as Mr. Goldwater described could occur and what could be done to prevent such a situation. Mr. Pat Coward, Nevada Bell, testified. He indicated telephone service in short- term tenancy establishments was a tariffed item. He explained the term "tariff" referred to regulations, approved by the Public Service Commission, by which telephone companies operated. He said, "...and that is an issue, that they will provide emergency service to the share tenants, and we're in the process of researching that right now." He advised it was possible telephone service in a short-term tenancy establishment was provided through a PBX. He explained, when service was provided through a PBX, it was sometimes necessary to dial "9" in order to gain access to an outside line (prior to dialing the desired telephone number). He suggested a tenant of a short-term tenancy establishment who wished to dial 911 might forget it was necessary, first, to dial "9," and indicated it might be necessary to educate such tenants regarding the necessity to dial "9911" when attempting to reach 911. He said Ms. McMillan of Sprint/Centel was causing an investigation to be conducted with respect to two establishments about which Assemblyman Goldwater was concerned to determine whether or not there was access to 911 in those establishments. He indicated, when that investigation was completed, it might be possible for telephone companies to work with "...the apartment association group..." to ensure tenants were properly educated regarding access to 911. Mr. Goldwater commented, "If this bill moves forward, that sort of notification in the statute would be something that I would feel good about...because there are several lower income people, older people, who have a difficult time sometimes understanding everything that's going on, particularly the problem that Mr. Coward pointed out." Chairman Nolan suggested A.B. 276 had evolved from a service bill into a public information bill and indicated it was likely the committee would ask for the language of the bill to be redrafted. He summarized what he believed the committee would look for in the new bill. He stated he believed it was also the committee's intent that, at such point in time as it became technologically feasible to allow access to 911 from a telephone which had been disconnected, telephone companies would provide such access. Mr. Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, introduced Captain Terry Mayo, Commander, Communications Bureau, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Captain Mayo testified. He declared it was essential to the police department, as an operator of a "...public safety answer point...", to have the capability to return calls to individuals who called for emergency service. He explained, if the police department was unable to contact an individual who called 911 and then hung up, in order to gain further information from the caller, the police department was obligated to send at least two police officers to investigate the situation. He provided records for the month of February, 1995, which reflected 1,449 instances in which the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department received calls made to 911 in which the caller hung up (Exhibit C). He suggested 1,449 such calls in the month of February would translate into 18,000 such calls per year in Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department's service area, which encompassed Las Vegas and the unincorporated areas of Clark County. He said he was asked to speak on behalf of Boulder City, Henderson and North Las Vegas regarding similar situations in their jurisdictions. He stated, although the volume handled by the police departments of those cities was not as great as that handled by Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, their procedures were the same and their being required to send police officers to investigate, under inappropriate circumstances, caused a great drain on public resources. He contended, when police officers were involved in "...servicing an inappropriate call...", they could not be available to provide service in appropriate situations. Captain Mayo suggested, if some individuals were able to use their telephones only to call 911, those individuals would do so and police departments would experience a large increase in inappropriate telephone calls, which would create a drain on public resources and preclude individuals who needed to make appropriate calls from accessing emergency telephone service. He declared, "Additionally, if there's any change that the public safety answer points might be the recipient of the bills for this...that would, again, be a severe problem for us." He explained Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department's funding for 911 calls paid for approximately 14 percent of the salaries of those employees who answered the telephones, while 911 calls constituted 30 percent "...of our service." He advised the ability to make return calls to those who placed calls to 911 was essential. Chairman Nolan indicated he agreed with Captain Mayo (regarding the necessity of being able to return calls made to 911) and said it could be included as part of the legislative intent that "...when the technology becomes available to be able to take a disconnected phone and dial 911 that the intent also is that the technology is available to do a call back to that phone from the 911 communications center." Mr. Nolan commented he believed it was also necessary to have the capability to return a call made to 911 in order to convey emergency instructions before those responding to an emergency arrived at the scene. Chairman Nolan indicated the subcommittee would request A.B. 276 be redrafted, in the form of a public information bill, to request telephone companies both to provide information to individuals whose phones were to be disconnected and to educate owners of apartment complexes with tariff-type services to make their customers aware of the necessity of dialing "9" prior to dialing 911. Discussions were held between Ms. Tripple and Chairman Nolan as to whether the intent of the committee should be expressed in the form of a bill or the form of a resolution. Chairman Nolan advised a copy of the redrafted legislation, in whatever form it might take, would be provided to those who had signed the attendance roster (Exhibit B). There being no further business to come before the subcommittee, Chairman Nolan adjourned the meeting at 10:45 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Sara Kaufman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Dennis Nolan, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs April 5, 1995 Page