MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session June 23, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, June 23, 1995, Chairman Bache 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 Ms. Patricia A. Tripple COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Wendell Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Dina Titus STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller; Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Brian Herr; Pacific Bell, Pat Coward; Nevada Bell, Mary Henderson; Washoe County, Barbara McKenzie; City of Reno. SENATE BILL NO. 473- Authorizes imposition of surcharge on telephone service in counties for enhancement of telephone system for reporting emergencies. (BDR 20-734) Pat Coward, City of Reno, testified the bill enables the Washoe County area to implement enhanced 911 service. There is existing 911 service and this would enhance it to where not only would you have the telephone number of someone calling in, it would also provide the address. They have done some research on how to fund this. (Exhibit C) Brian Herr, Nevada Bell, testified they have had a long-standing policy against surcharges on the telephone bill. They have made a one time exception with S.B. 473. They have worked with Reno, Sparks, and Washoe County with respect to their 911 service today as well as the possibility of enhanced 911 service. Their concern was of the public acceptance of a surcharge on the telephone bill. He explained a year ago the City of Sparks, Reno, Washoe County and Nevada Bell hired an independent research firm to determine the opinion of the public with regards to both the enhanced as well as their willingness to pay for a surcharge on their bill. Ninety four percent of the residence customers surveyed said they wanted that type of service in their community. Ninety six percent of the business customers wanted the enhanced service in the community. The next question was whether the public would be willing to pay 10 cents, 20 cents, or 30 cents. The overall results were that seventy five percent of the customers were willing to pay a surcharge at a twenty five cent level. At a 20 cent surcharge level the willingness increased to eighty percent. With those figures, Nevada Bell made the exception to allow the surcharge to go on the telephone bill. Subsequently, the bill was introduced in the Senate and it was amended to sunset the surcharge in four years from implementation. This would be in 1999. At this point Nevada Bell is comfortable that the public wants this type of service and have a willingness to pay for it on their telephone bill. They urged the committee passage of S.B. 473. Pat Coward stated this allows the county commission to impose the twenty five cent surcharge. The county commission would be the deciding factor in this. There would be a technical board put in place that would advise the county commission as far as the installation and administration of the equipment. Mrs. Lambert asked what the capital costs were and what the ongoing operating costs were. Brian Herr replied in the first year the budget contains approximately 1.1 million dollars to implement the enhanced 911 service. The bulk of that particular budget comes from the actual establishment of the data base, which is used to identify the address and the telephone number. The reason it is so expensive, you cannot have any errors in that particular data base. After the first year the budget drops to approximately five to six hundred thousand dollars annually. Those costs are heavily related to the maintenance of the data base. Pat Coward stated there are safeguards in the bill and gave an example they cannot exceed 25 cents in a monthly surcharge, and also the fund balance cannot exceed five hundred thousand and can only be used for this type of service. Brian Herr interjected there is a forty four thousand dollar equipment upgrade in the first year. This is the only equipment associated with the implementation of enhanced 911. The budget does address the potential for further equipment upgrades as technology changes over time. There could be additional equipment installed in the future. It is not specifically lined out. Mrs. Lambert stated this will sunset in four years. If the ongoing costs are a half million dollars will they have to find another revenue source after the four years. Brian Herr replied "yes," there is a bill coming that will be the ongoing funding source for the enhanced 911. It is a bill they have been working on with the utilities, and local governments. This will revamp the business license, franchise fees, and right of way fees, that local governments currently charge those utilities. Those fee structures are antiquated and were put in place during the monopoly days. They no longer suit either the local governments or the utility industries. They believe it will present the opportunity for the long term funding source for the enhanced 911. Ms. Tripple asked if the enhanced 911 is attached to pay telephones as well as commercial and residential. Brian Herr replied "yes." Mrs. Segerblom asked if Clark County is thinking about doing this. Brian Herr replied Clark County currently has enhanced 911. That system was installed in a comprehensive way, and was funded by a special tax override in Clark County. Mary Henderson, Washoe County, testified this a very special issue to the three local governments in Washoe County. This has been a result of three years of study and work among the local governments and Nevada Bell. They feel this is the most appropriate means of funding this important safety need in the community. She read a letter of intent from the three local governments. She said she would provide a signed copy to the committee at a later date. Mrs. Lambert asked if the first year is over a million dollars and the surcharge brings in one half million a year, when is the enhanced 911 going to be implemented. Ms. Henderson replied it would be "phased" through a lease purchase arrangement or financing of the equipment. It will spread the up-front costs over a three year period. She said the surcharge will begin in January of 1996 and they will begin acquiring equipment immediately. Mrs. Lambert asked when the service would be on line. Ms. Henderson replied January 1997. Mrs. Freeman asked where the service would be started. Gale Bowen, Communications Director Washoe County, testified the system will go on line county wide, once it is implemented. The entire system will go on line county wide. Mrs. Freeman asked what the impact would be on the dispatching service. Ms. Bowen replied it would be very favorable. They will no longer have to go through the process of tracking addresses. Eric Cooper, Retired Sheriff of Las Vegas Metro Police Department, testified in Clark County countless lives have been saved through the E-911 system that Metro has in place in the metropolitan area. Many people cannot communicate over the telephone. With this system they know exactly where the call was based from. He then told a story of a break in on an elderly couple using the E-911 system. Because of this system, officers were able to arrive quickly, enter the house, and catch the criminal and who shot and killed. He pointed out E-911 is a vital law enforcement public safety tool and he urged the committee to support it. Barbara McKenzie, City of Reno, testified the City of Reno is in full support of the bill. ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 473 ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. A short recess was taken. SENATE BILL NO. 504- Prohibits restriction of use of system for obtaining solar energy by owner of real property. (BDR 22-1665) Senator Dina Titus, District 7 Clark County, testified S.B. 504 had its origin in the interim committee on developing an energy plan for the state of Nevada. A constituent testified before the committee, that in a number of planned communities, they are not allowed with CCR's to put solar panels on their homes. How can renewable energy be encouraged if they have things prohibiting them from using it. This provision says a governing body shall not adopt an ordinance, regulation, plan or take any action that prohibits or unreasonably restricts the owner from using any solar device. It goes further to say what unreasonable restricting is. They want to be able to leave it to the developers or to the planned community to allow rules to be put in place. They have the endorsement of the Southern Nevada Homebuilders, as long as some restrictions can be put in place. Mr. Nolan stated his question was answered. Mrs. Segerblom asked if the subdivider and the homeowners draw up a contract you sign, then you could not be excluded from doing that in the contract. Senator Titus replied "that is correct." The bill states an ordinance, regulation, plan or any other action would prohibit it. She felt a contract that prohibits it would not be allowed either. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 504. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. WORK SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 515- Authorizes preference for disadvantaged business enterprises in public contracting. (BDR 27-162) ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 515. MR. NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. George Cotton deferred A.B. 515 to A.B. 282. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 670- Provides for electronic access to local governmental records. (BDR 19-2011) ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 670. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Harrington stated he did like the intent of the bill, but understood it needed work. Hopefully they can bring it back next session. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN HARRINGTON AND BENNETT VOTING NO. SENATE BILL NO. 190- Requires establishment of program for rental by state agencies of surplus equipment and property. (BDR 27-1375) ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED DO PASS. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bennett stated the state can save money by sharing equipment interagency wise just on depreciation alone. This bill will save money for the state. Mr. Harrington asked if the issues had been resolved regarding which agencies would be liable and which agency would have to make repairs on damaged equipment. Mr. Bache replied it was not specifically addressed, but it was mentioned in testimony it was something that would be negotiated between the renter and the rentee. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. SENATE BILL NO. 503- Authorizes program of optional pricing for electricity derived from renewable energy resources. (BDR 58-126) ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 503. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bennett interjected it still does not guarantee that the risk is not shared by those who do not wish to participate in the long run. Mr. Bache pointed out to do this they would have to come before the Public Service Commission and they would have to provide documentation that they had not charged people who did not want the program. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT VOTING NO, AND ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE. SENATE BILL NO. 545- Prohibits local governments from adopting ordinances limiting rental rates for private residential property. (BDR 20-1819) ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 545. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE VOTING NO. Mr. Bennett asked what was happening on A.B. 726. Chairman Bache stated A.B. 726 is a good idea. He stated Mr. Seale is going to provide them with possible language and until then they do not want to take action. Mr. Bennett said he would like to see a four year sunset to the bill. SENATE BILL NO. 57- Prohibits member of state militia or his dependents from receiving workers' compensation under certain circumstances. (BDR 36-866) Chairman Bache stated this bill had already been voted on. He commented that Lt. Col. Pennington had submitted new language to the bill. (Exhibit D). Mrs. Krenzer stated they have amended out the pre-existing clause and redefined it in paragraph 3. She said this was a very responsible change. Denice Miller stated the committee had originally amended the bill in order to address situations when someone was receiving benefits for injuries that occurred while in federal service. The committee felt it needed to be made clear that if someone were injured subsequently, in state duty, that they would not be precluded from receiving state benefits because of their eligibility for federal benefits. She pointed out Lt. Col. Pennington was originally concerned that it would preclude them from receiving benefits for subsequent injuries. After reading it, he felt it could be confusing and misconstrued because the original language is formed negatively in the way it is worded. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Ernaut to take the amended language to bill drafting and have it put in. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ____________________________ Kelly Liston, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Government Affairs June 23, 1995 Page