The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 9:20 a.m., on Monday, May 3, 1999. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Ms. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Ms. Gene Segerblom

Mr. Kelly Thomas

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mr. John Jay Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Joseph M. Neal Jr., Clark County Senatorial District #4

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Senator Joe Neal, Clark County Senatorial District 4, presented testimony on the bill. S.B. 25 was the result of an incident that developed in an area of southern Nevada relating to the Fourth of July sales of fireworks. Certain companies had franchises with Phantom and Red Devil Fireworks, but were only selling to various customers who had preordered. The language that passed from the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor would allow the issuing of licenses by the licensing authority to sell fireworks to individuals if the fireworks had been declared safe by existing law, and met the requirements of the fire department.

Mr. Mortenson queried how receiving a license would be an incentive for the individuals who owned the franchises to sell to the small vendors. Senator Neal explained under the present ordinance in Clark County, there wasn’t a requirement for a license or a permit to be issued. The bill would require the issuance of a license or permit if the qualifications were met.

Senator Neal commented previously, the franchisees would park semi-trailers in a designed location and would sell the fireworks to their friends and the individuals who had preordered. According to Senator Neal, the small vendors had been captured by the franchisees. If the vendors had not preordered, they were unable to obtain the fireworks.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 25.

Lisa Gianoli, representing Washoe County, introduced Rick Bareuther, a member of the E-911 Advisory Committee. The purpose of the bill was to extend a surcharge of 25 cents on landline and wireless phone lines that originated from legislation in the 1995 session. Ms. Gianoli pointed out the legislation from 1995 was scheduled to sunset on December 31, 1999. However, over the four-year period, additional needs for equipment, as well as new technology for locator services on wireless, referred to as "Phase I" had surfaced. In the amended form, the bill clarified the surcharge would be extended for two years through December 31, 2001 (Exhibit C).

Ms. Gianoli explained if the phase I wireless program was completed prior to December 31, 2001, the surcharge would be dropped for wireless phone service.

Rick Bareuther, Manager, Information Services, City of Sparks, indicated there were two specific enhancements in the bill he would address. Currently 911 calls with a specific prefix were transmitted to dispatch center A or B. Unfortunately, phone prefixes did not follow jurisdictional boundaries. The new enhancement would be placed in selective routing and would have the ability to be very exact as to how the emergency calls were routed. Therefore, certain residences would be routed to the proper location in a timely manner.

Regarding the wireless phase I program, Mr. Bareuther noted many 911 services had been focused on traditional fixed phones, residences, businesses, etc. When a 911 call was placed from a cellular phone, the dispatch center only saw the first three digits of the cell phone number. The dispatch operators were unable to identify the person or the location from which they were calling. With the phase I program, the entire phone number would appear at the dispatch center.

Mr. Bareuther concluded a future program, wireless phase II, would have the ability to determine the geographical location of a caller within 125 meters or 410 feet.

Mrs. Freeman questioned how the new system would change the identification problem with cellular phones. Mr. Bareuther responded the phase I program would be capable of identifying the entire number, along with the location of the person calling. Currently, similar programs were being tested in different states throughout the United States that were being closely monitored.

Ms. Berman asked how much money had been spent to date, and how much more would be required to complete the project. According to Mr. Bareuther, currently the one-quarter cent surcharge raised approximately $1 million in revenue per year. At the close of a fiscal year, if $500,000 or more remained in the fund, the county commission would have to reduce the surcharge. Mr. Bareuther pointed out the cost of the project for the 4-year period had been around $3 million, and the projected cost for the upcoming two years would be roughly $1 million per year. Ms. Berman queried if anyone had realized the completed project would cost $5 million.

Ms. Gianoli explained the new technology relating to the wireless phase I had not been available when the project begun. Since the agreement was a joint effort in the Senate, a permanent funding source needed to be established in the future. Ms. Berman asked if the permanent funding source would be a franchise fee appearing on individual telephone bills.

Mary Henderson, representing the City of Reno, pointed out the bill was not a Washoe County bill; it was a regional bill that would affect all three local governments. Responding to Ms. Berman’s question, she referred to the budget for the project that was implemented 4 years ago. The budget had been clearly laid out and was understood by all involved that there would be ongoing costs not related to equipment. Those costs would be carried into the future. Ms. Henderson reiterated the permanent-funding source would relate to the ongoing costs and any future upgrades involving technological changes that could not currently be projected.

Ms. Berman again questioned if the funding source would be a new tax on telephones. Ms. Henderson replied it was not a new tax; it was put in place 4 years ago with a sunset provision. The proposed bill related to extending the sunset for 2 additional years. In southern Nevada, the same system existed and was completely funded on property taxes.

Ms. Berman asked how much the customers would be charged in conjunction with the permanent funding source. Ms. Henderson responded since the surcharge would not sunset until December 31, 1999, an extension of the surcharge for 2 years would allow the work to be completed. It was not a franchise fee or new tax; it was a surcharge on telephone bills.

Mr. Mortenson queried if the new technologies would use the first repeater station receiving the call or the Global Posting System (GPS) built into the phone to radio the coordinates to the 911 station. Mr. Bareuther explained one would incorporate a GPS device in each cell phone; however, the drawback was it was very expensive. The other technology being utilized was the triangulation technique among multiple cell sites. Both methods had been successful, but the cost effectiveness would be a major factor in determining which one to use.

Mrs. Freeman asked if the county put the surcharge monies in a special fund, and if there was any possibility of another division within the system accessing these dollars to become a part of the general fund. Ms. Gianoli responded it was separate by statute and belonged to the enhanced 911 fund, and it could not be accessed for any other purpose.

Chairman Bache noted if the bill were not approved, the various enhancements for 911 would probably not occur and lives could be lost.

Barbara McKenzie, representing herself as a private citizen and taxpayer of Washoe County, testified in support of the bill. Ms. McKenzie called attention to the fact she had a family member with serious heart problems and had used 911 when an emergency occurred due to these problems. She emphasized the expediency in which the sheriff’s office arrived and pointed out the last thing on her mind was the cost of 25 cents per month.

Brian Herr, representing Nevada Bell, presented testimony in support of S.B. 366. Mr. Herr remarked the work on the surcharge had begun approximately 5 years ago. A survey had been conducted with the customers to determine if they wanted the enhanced 911 and whether they were willing to pay for it with a surcharge on their telephone bill. The survey indicated over 95 percent were in favor of the enhanced 911 service, and over 75 percent were willing to pay for it.

Mr. Herr explained the initial project was to develop the enhanced service in Washoe County to include location identification for wireline services. Currently, the same location identification enhancement project was being analyzed for the wireless services including all the local governments in the entire state. In conclusion, Mr. Herr noted both industry and local governments would draw from the permanent funding source to make the changes in technology for the consumers.

Chairman Bache questioned if that would apply to competitors or strictly Nevada Bell since they controlled the lines. Mr. Herr responded it would uniformly apply to all the providers of telephone services in the market place.

Chairman Bache referred to the proposed amendment to the bill (Exhibit C) and indicated it basically deleted the bill and extended the sunset for 2 years.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 366.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Marilyn Jayne,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: