MINUTES OF THE
	ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

	Sixty-eighth Session
	March 15, 1995


The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on 
Wednesday, March 15, 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
Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple
Mr. Wendell P. Williams

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Chris Guinchigliani
Assemblyman Mike Schneider

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst

OTHERS PRESENT:


Gary Herron, Nevada Division of Wildlife; Christy Tews, Citizen; Terry 
	Murphy, Clark County; Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association; Irene 
	Porter, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association; Phil Herrington, Council 
	of American Building Officials, Joe Johnson, Sierra Club; DeeAnn Parsons, 
	State Energy Office.

ASSEMBLY BILL 139 - Revises provisions governing expenditure of money by 
certain counties to encourage preservation of certain species of wildlife. (BDR 20-
202)

Terry Murphy, Assistant Director of Administrative Services for Clark County, 
spoke first in favor of A.B. 139.  She said in 1991 they came before the legislature 
and asked permission to charge fees on land development for the conservation of 
threatened or endangered species.  The reason for this was the federal endangered 
species act had major impact on Clark County and its economic ability to 
accommodate growth.  She stated they were asking for the ability to take those 
funds which were already being collected and expend them on candidate species 
(Exhibit C).  This will hopefully enable them to prevent any future listings under the 
endangered species act in Clark County.  

Assemblyman Bennett pointed out in the newspaper there was an article stating 
the federal government has put a moratorium on any more endangered species.

Assemblyman Nolan questioned what species other than the tortoise were 
endangered in Clark County.  Ms. Murphy mentioned the list of candidate species 
provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which was quite extensive (Exhibit 
C).  There are approximately 35 species of plants and animals currently on the list. 
 In the law, if a species is listed as a candidate species, it is one that is being 
considered for listing as endangered but does not have any protection.  This bill 
would enable them to take measures to ensure that these are not subsequently 
placed on the threatened or endangered list.  Mr. Nolan inquired how many of these 
species are indigenous to the Clark County area.  Ms. Murphy guessed they were 
all indigenous to the Mojave Desert which included all of southern Nevada.  
Assemblyman Harrington wondered if all the land included under the county's 
supervision was public or did it include private land as well.  Ms. Murphy said it 
was currently public land but there was a possibility the city of Boulder City would 
be purchasing some acreage in the El Dorado Valley from the Bureau of Land 
Management which would be private land and it will be up to the city of Boulder 
City to work with Clark County to maintain that area as a conservation zone.

Assemblyman Segerblom wore her tortoise pin to show that Boulder City would do 
that.


Ms. Murphy provided stickers and cards (Exhibit D) for the committee that are part 
of the public information program which the federal government has asked them 
to engage in as part of their conservation program.  This was the result of a long-
term process of all parties involved working together to arrive at a solution for 
conservative desert use.  Their slogan has become "respect, protect and enjoy our 
desert."

Gary Herron, Nevada Division of Wildlife, spoke in support of this bill.  He said 
when a species is listed as threatened or endangered under the endangered species 
act, the state loses a lot of its management authority.  They have to move quickly 
to save the species as fast as possible.  This bill will allow for management of 
candidate species and would give them the ability to prevent listing them as 
threatened or endangered.  It would also give the county the opportunity to 
mitigate for habitat loss.  This has worked very well with the Desert Tortoise.  
There are management areas set aside for the tortoise to ensure it does not become 
an endangered species.  Currently it is listed as threatened.  

Chairman Bache surmised this provided an excellent management tool.  Mr. Herron 
agreed.

Irene Porter, Executive Director of the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, 
indicated they have supported the whole process and think it is a very good plan 
for the future of Clark County.

Mr. Nolan pointed out in section two, line 19, a charge for disturbing the land of 
$1,000 per acre.  Ms. Murphy answered by explaining there is a $550 charge for 
each acre of disturbed land and it is pro-rated.  Although they are authorized to 
charge up to $1,000 by law, they only charge $550 at the present time.  At the 
time of the original drafting of this bill, they did not know how much to charge for 
the fee so they had asked for the $1,000 limit in case it was needed.  Some states 
charge upwards of $5,000 per acre for the same thing.  The state of Nevada would 
like to hold the line at $550.

Mr. Joe Johnson of the Sierra Club advocated passing the bill and suggested the 
exclusion of other counties could be removed.

Assemblyman Tripple wondered if there were any other endangered species in 
Nevada or were they all in Clark County.  Mr. Johnson said there were a 
considerable number of species in other counties that were listed on the candidate, 
threatened and endangered species.  He mentioned it was a good management tool 
to anticipate the listing so that much of the economic impact could be mitigated 
beforehand.


Ms. Tripple questioned if the population stipulation of 400,000 was deleted, would 
that mandate other counties to comply.  Mr. Johnson agreed it would be in place 
if it was desired.

Mr. Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 139.

ASSEMBLY BILL 171 - Authorizes use of straw and solar energy under building 
codes. (BDR 22-382)

Assemblywoman Chris Guinchigliani, sponsor of A.B. 171, introduced the bill.  She 
said the intent of the bill was to amend NRS 278 by adding a section which directs 
local building officials to recognize energy sources such as solar and straw in the 
construction trade.  The 1994 Uniform Building Code (Exhibit E) has a section 
which says building officials can utilize alternative sources of energy in the area of 
construction.  However, there is no uniformity in that application.  The codes have 
not been accommodated to really look at and recognize passive solar, mechanical 
solar or straw built housing.  These are alternative energy sources, tools that allow 
for energy efficient housing.  This bill will ask the building officials for the uniform 
acceptance of blueprints, as long as codes are complied with, drawn up to utilize 
these alternative energy sources.

Assemblyman Ernaut asked Mrs. Guinchigliani if she has read "The Three Little 
Pigs".  She replied that is a misnomer as a straw house building is one of the 
strongest, most fireproof materials there is because it is compacted and it is also 
one of the most heat and cold resistant materials.  It has been used for many years. 
 

Assemblyman Harrington remarked this was an excellent bill.

Mrs. Guinchigliani introduced Assemblyman Mike Schneider who had a video on 
building a straw house.  He also passed around a simple booklet with directions for 
constructing a straw domicile.

Mr. Neighbors asked if a straw house would be safe on a cattle ranch.  Mrs. 
Guinchigliani said there would be a coating put on top of the straw.  He wondered 
about square foot costs compared with other types of homes.  Mrs. Guinchigliani 
replied her home was built in an expensive area so it was more than if it had been 
built somewhere else.  Any extra expense is made up for in energy cost savings. 
 Because this type of construction is not highly recognized, they had to change 
some of their plans which increased costs for them.  


Assemblyman Schneider told the committee he read an article on a company that 
offered classes on how to build straw bale houses.  He called them and took a 
seminar on how to build these houses.  He is always looking for new technologies, 
but this is an old one.  It is also a renewable resource.  Straw is a throw-away 
product.  It is the shafts of oats, wheat, barley and rice.  Only the tops of those are 
harvested.  The shafts are thrown away.  The fields where these crops are grown 
are burned after harvest and this practice is becoming outlawed.  This would make 
straw an economical opportunity for growers.  Mr. Schneider said straw is a 
forgiving material.  It is a material that can be used easily and does not require a 
lot of skill to achieve a fine result.  Regular people can build their own houses.  The 
walls are very thick and stuccoed on both sides.  The dwelling is similar to a cave. 
 The biggest adjustment one would have to make living in a straw bale house is 
that windows would have to be opened to hear the birds.  That is how soundproof 
these structures are.  

Many people have questions about mice and insects living in the straw.  Mr. 
Schneider stated the bales are highly compressed and completely covered with 
stucco.  There is no area for mice to get in and live.  It is much easier for them to 
get into a regular stick type house.  There is also no nutrient content in the straw 
so that appeal would not exist either.  This product has been tested in Canada, 
New Mexico, Arizona and Texas and has been found to be a very good product  
which is environmentally sound.  Earthquake studies have also been done and have 
shown the bales to hold up extremely well.  The bales move and shift to 
accommodate plate movement and the stucco can be patched if it cracks.  He 
proceeded to show the film of a house in New Mexico built by a licensed 
contractor.  It was a beautiful home.  The video went on to describe how the home 
was built and some of the tools needed to construct it.  A few "off the grid" or 
extremely alternative dwellings were shown to illustrate the self sufficiency of 
these buildings.


Chairman Bache inquired if mildew or rot would be a problem.  Mr. Schneider said 
the bales did not need to be treated.  A precaution often taken in these houses 
would be to put plastic around the window frames prior to finishing them.  It would 
be very easy to repair water damage by cutting out the bad spot, putting in new 
straw and stuccoing it.  Mr. Bache wanted to know how these houses were framed 
and wired.  Mr. Schneider said the walls would go up first then the roof would be 
put on to allow for some settling to occur.  Inside along the walls, one would 
simply cut a path in the straw for the desired location of the wire and outlets.  
When the metal boxes are installed, a wooden stake is attached to the box and it 
is pounded into the straw.  Doors and windows are framed with wood and secured 
with wooden dowels into the straw.  The straw house is more solid than a stick 
built house.  

Mrs. de Braga mentioned livestock do eat straw.  She also pointed out bales do 
shrink and she was surprised to learn the straw did not shrink as much as some 
other types of materials.  She wanted to know why the bill was limited in scope 
because there are lots of other innovative construction methods and materials 
available.  Mrs. Guinchigliani stated she would entertain any other terminologies 
Mrs. de Braga might want to include.   Assemblyman de Braga questioned the use 
of adobe construction.  Mr. Schneider remarked adobe construction was 100% 
greater in cost than straw.  An adobe structure is now a rich man's house.  It is 
extremely labor intensive.  Straw homes are so much cheaper to build.  Mrs. de 
Braga was thrilled to find a new use for farm products.  

Mrs. Segerblom asked how thick the walls would be in a straw house.  Mr. 
Schneider replied about 22".  He said a window seat could be created in every 
room of the house.  Mrs. Segerblom wanted to know what would happen if a spa 
was installed in the house.  Mr. Schneider responded the walls were sealed so 
there would be no adverse effects.  

Mr. Nolan wondered about rats using the straw to make nests.  Mr. Schneider 
reiterated the walls would be completely sealed so mice would not be a problem.
 
Assemblyman Krenzer questioned financing, insurance and fire safety.  Mr. 
Schneider stated any new product has to be tested by the market before they will 
finance it.  Some banks are on stand-by to see what happens.  As for fire safety, 
bales can be torched and will not burn down.  Because the straw is compressed, 
the straw will smolder but not flame because there is no oxygen.  The straw is 
stucco covered so there is virtually no area exposed to burn.  There are insurance 
companies in New Mexico and Arizona currently writing policies for owners of 
straw built homes.
  
Assemblyman Braunlin wondered if this request had been made in Clark County and 
whether it had been denied.  Mrs. Guinchigliani said she was not aware of that. 
 There have been some problems in rural areas due to a lack of uniformity in the 
building codes.  This bill would assure recognition of the use of these materials and 
codes would still have to be met and implemented.


Mr. Schneider had arranged with Senator Titus and through the University schools 
of engineering, architecture and environment and earth science to be involved in 
studies and projects using these materials.  The board of the Habitat for Humanity 
wants to be involved as well.  The use of alternative methods for construction is 
a viable means for the future of mankind.  Mr. Schneider said he would probably 
be building a house in Clark County next fall and the city and county would be able 
to come out and write the codes as the house was built.  Mr. Schneider would also 
be able to supply codes from Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.

Mr. Bache stated the bill did not have an effective date and would July first be 
appropriate.  Mrs. Guinchigliani mentioned because the other groups would be 
using this as a model, the July first date would be more accommodating.

Mr. Schneider wanted to put an amendment in for the use of rubble trenches.  
Rocks have been used for centuries in trenches and is a lasting and durable 
material.  Cement trenches are used here and are not nearly as effective or 
enduring.  Mrs. Guinchigliani mentioned that would be all right with her and asked 
Denice Miller to check on appropriate verbiage to be used.

Mr. Bennett questioned if specific types of straw or levels of compressibility were 
required in the selection of materials used for housing construction.  Mr. Schneider 
replied compression tests have been done and most are compressed about the 
same.  Rice straw is not as good as wheat straw, for example, but tests are being 
done on the different types.  He indicated dried weeds can be bundled up and that 
would be considered straw.

Christy Tews, concerned citizen, has asked the Washoe County building 
department for their opinion on the use of straw for construction of homes.  They 
told her they have never given permission in Washoe County to use section 105 
or 107 of the code which states the use of alternative building materials is 
permitted.  She said the bill would motivate them to learn what they need to write 
the codes so these materials can be used.  Ms. Tews also mentioned 
owner/builders of straw bale homes have built these dwellings for as little as $10 
a square foot!    She urged the passage of this bill because of the obvious 
advantages of straw bale homes.  Beauty, comfort, durability and simplicity of 
construction are but a few of the benefits of this type of construction.  Three kinds 
of efficiency are also associated with straw bale homes: 1.)  Insulation of the 
highest quality,  2.)  reduction of pollution and  3.)  recycling of disposable 
products resulting in dramatic cost savings.  Adequate testing and the positive 
results are available for the public's perusal.  She announced a hands-on weekend 
in September for the general public to learn how to build these homes.  There will 
also be a seminar for building officials during the same week.  


Phil Herrington, Chief Building Official of Carson City, spoke in opposition to the 
bill.  He said straw bale construction was nothing more than insulation.  He said 
there was nothing wrong with using straw bales instead of regular insulation as 
long as it was evaluated by someone with technical competence.  He indicated the 
bill would erode police powers of local government.  The language that says "shall 
permit" should say "may" permit to avoid taking police powers away from local 
government to evaluate any product.  He stated there was a lack of education on 
the part of building officials.  He felt a bill should be submitted requiring building 
officials to be licensed or certified.  It is necessary to keep abreast of all modern 
and alternative products in the building trade.  He also wanted a bill introduced that 
would require a surcharge on building permits to be put into a state fund for the 
education of building officials.
  
Assemblyman Lambert asked Mr. Herrington about rubble trenches and were they 
good or bad.  Mr. Herrington said it all depends.  The code is prescriptive and has 
certain requirements.  The code also allows the building official to accept an 
engineered design, which is what a rubble trench would be.  The code is flexible 
but the people enforcing the code may lack the education necessary to permit 
innovative construction methods.  

Assemblyman Freeman thought building officials were already licensed or certified. 
 Mr. Herrington responded local government has taken it upon themselves to do 
that.  He also indicated the broad range of requirements necessary to become a 
building official and wanted to add that requirement at the state level.  Mrs. 
Freeman mentioned Reno did require certification of building officials.

Mr. Bache gathered that building officials could allow straw houses at the present 
time.  Mr. Herrington affirmed yes, they could and should be doing it.  Mr. Bache 
said that since it is currently allowed, he surmised that was the reason for the 
wording in the bill of "shall" rather than "may" currently in place.  Mr. Herrington 
reiterated it was a matter of education of the building officials.  He said there was 
a lack of intelligence, experience and education when this product was originally 
evaluated.  It was not the product or the code, it was the personality involved in 
the evaluation of the product.  That is why, he felt, it was more important to 
address the educational issue rather than the technical one in this bill.  

Dave McNeil, energy program specialist, declared the bill as it is currently written 
places the energy office in an awkward position.  His office is all for the use of 
alternative energy sources and supports the use of alternative building construction. 
 He suggested the bill be amended or perhaps even another vehicle to further the 
cause for the promotion of solar and alternative building technologies.  He offered 
a range of options and tax exemptions for consumers.


Mr. Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 171.

ASSEMBLY BILL 281- Requires unanimous vote of governing body of municipality 
for issuance of certain general obligations without election. (BDR 30-295)


Assemblyman Lambert presented the bill.  She said the bill came out of a 
recommendation of the Nevada Taxpayers Association infrastructure study.  It 
deals with general obligation backed revenue bonds.  The only change in the bill is 
on Page one, line 20 which would require that the governing body approve those 
bonds by unanimous vote.  Mrs. Lambert reviewed the three types of bonds.  First, 
there are general obligation bonds which are backed by the full faith and credit of 
the issuing entity.  They are usually paid through property tax and go to a vote of 
the people after approval of the general obligation bond commission which exists 
in every county.  Upon a two-thirds vote of approval from the commission, they are 
put on the ballot and when approved by the voters, the bonds can be sold and a 
property tax rate established.  These have the lowest interest rate of all types of 
local government financing.  The next type are revenue bonds which are paid from 
revenues on a project like a sewer plant hook-up fees or monthly fees.  Local 
governments are precluded from paying those bonds from the general fund should 
the revenues fail.  These bonds have a higher interest rate than the general 
obligation bonds.  The third type of bonds are the general obligation backed 
revenue bonds or double barrel bonds which this bill deals with.  They are first 
backed by the revenues from a project but if those revenues should fail, then they 
are backed by the general fund and full faith and credit of the issuing entity.  They 
do not go to the vote and are currently approved by a simple majority of the 
governing board.  The only reason they would go to a vote is if there is a petition 
signed by five percent of the registered voters, who together with corporate 
holdings own two percent of the assessed valuation and manage to get the petition 
within thirty days, they can force an election for these bonds.  This can be a good 
form of financing as it can improve the interest rate to have the full faith and credit 
of the government behind it and perhaps make it easier to sell.  If the bonds do 
have to fall back on the general fund, the entity will not go over the $3.64 property 
tax limit, but they could raise the property taxes above the 106% yearly cap.  Mrs. 
Lambert then read excerpts from an article in the Wall Street Journal which raised 
some points to bear in mind when considering anything to do with municipal bonds 
and local government financing (Exhibit F).  Mrs. Lambert asked the committee to 
think about the article when dealing with municipal obligations.  Municipal bonds 
enjoy a special place in the capital markets and have low interest rates for 
government projects.  Mrs. Lambert explained two recent examples of mistakes in 
bond issues.  One was the South Truckee Meadows sewer plant that was built 
with an assessment district bond.  The Washoe County general fund has been 
bailing them out in excess of one million dollars for the last few years and they may 
have to continue for a few more.  In White Pine County, the school district received 
some bad financial advice on a general obligation bond issue and due to 
circumstances it has become very difficult for them to meet that bond.  In both 
cases, these bonds have not been allowed to default.  They are being paid first 
before operating revenues.  All Nevada governments know that any default will 
affect all of us in the credit market.  She said the legislature would never change 
a law that affects bond covenants.  The last straw that encouraged Mrs. Lambert 
to put this bill in was the Honey Lake project in her district.  She indicated many 
people were concerned it was not a financially feasible project.  There are many 
ways this could be financed.  A general obligation bond could be issued, but that 
would require a vote of the people and it probably would not pass.  A special 
assessment district would be possible, but that also would require the approval of 
the people who pay and may be difficult to do.  Revenue bonds could go forward, 
but  a project that might be viewed as a little shaky in people's minds might sell 
better if it was a general obligation backed revenue bond.  The ability for a simple 
majority of a governing board to be able to make that sort of decision that might 
be a little shaky in people's minds worried her and that is why Mrs. Lambert 
suggested a unanimous vote.  She felt very strongly about having a firm consensus 
and giving a lot of thought before committing the full faith and credit of the 
government behind a bond.  A lot of local governments are concerned about the 
unanimous part of the bill.  Mrs. Lambert surmised it might be too large a step in 
reform.  She submitted an amendment to change the unanimous vote to two-thirds 
of the governing board.  She also mentioned another bill soon to come out of 
drafting that would improve the notice and extend the time from 30 to 60 days for 
the petition process where people could take it to an election.  She felt this was a 
compromise that would allow this financing vehicle to be used that would not allow 
anyone on the board to play political games and still provide some assurances.  She 
would also reserve the right to keep a careful eye on the whole process.

Mr. Neighbors thought his concerns were covered by the change from unanimous 
to two-thirds.  He liked the bill and said it was good.


Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, spoke in favor of the bill.  She 
mentioned the Association made the recommendation for the bill due to the liability 
and the potential property tax being imposed by the issuance of double barrel bonds 
in the event of default or being added because of the nature of the issue.  They 
wanted extraordinary scrutiny and took the most extreme position in all cases, this 
one being unanimous.  However, they supported Mrs. Lambert's recommendation 
to change it to two-thirds and asked the committee's favorable consideration of 
A.B. 281.

Assemblyman Harrington wondered how often the board voted on the bonds.  Mrs. 
Vilardo related in Clark County last year, she received notices of at least four issues 
that had to do with the metropolitan transit project that were being backed by 
property tax.  She proceeded with a lengthy explanation of various types of bonds 
and taxes used for that program.  She said the number of bonds issued has to do 
with the infrastructure plans of each particular entity.  There has been a huge 
increase in the use of double barrel bonds due to the beneficial interest rates and 
security involved.

Mr. Neighbors questioned the case of White Pine County and the bond problems 
they had and how it was being handled.  Mrs. Vilardo pointed out the White Pine 
situation has become very convoluted.  They were not increased over the 106% 
but the total revenue picture is full of multiple problems and in the deficit.  White 
Pine County will not be able to meet salary or operating expenses in the month of 
April because their bond payment is due.  She stated the legislature would have to 
get involved before the end of the session.  They are considered to be in financial 
hardship.  She would not be surprised to see the tax commission take over the 
school district in White Pine County, do their budget and bail them out.  Mr. 
Neighbors asked what the size of that bond issue was.  Mrs. Vilardo replied the 
bond issue approved by the voting public was 14 million plus.  Seven million was 
issued.  She mentioned there have also been some unfunded leases arranged which 
are currently in dispute against the amount of money that had been approved for 
the schools.  There is still approximately five million dollars that could be issued. 
 If White Pine County could find someone to buy those bonds, there is nothing in 
the law to preclude them from selling that additional money they have and totally 
wiping out everybody's operating funds in the entire county.  She stressed there 
have been some irresponsible actions taken which have not protected the taxpaying 
public. 

Mr. Bennett wanted to know the approximate dollar amount on the transportation 
bonds Mrs. Vilardo had discussed with Mr. Harrington.              

Mrs. Vilardo indicated she did not remember and would have to get back to him 
with the information.

Mr. Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 281.

ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 281.


ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Neighbors wondered about line 8.  Mrs. Lambert stated that was only a 
unanimous vote to declare an emergency.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mrs. de Braga referred to S.B. 80 concerning the tule duck decoys becoming the 
state artifact and had asked that bill be held up to await a resolution memorializing 
the George family legacy of the construction of this decoy.  She wanted a third 
piece of legislation on this bill that would allow some of the original decoys from 
Lovelock Cave be returned to Nevada.  Mrs. de Braga was hoping to present all of 
this to the family and school children at the same time.

ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT ON THE 
 	PROPOSED RESOLUTION.

ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mrs. Lambert pointed out A.B. 15 was returned to the general file because it was 
not as simple as it looked at first and needed further consideration.

Mrs. Segerblom questioned preserving the tortoises.  Mr. Bache indicated that bill 
would be held for the time being.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m.





RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:



	
Denise Sins,
Committee Secretary





APPROVED BY:


Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman





Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman

Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
March 15, 1995
Page