MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session April 26, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday, April 26, 1995, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Vice Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter Senator William J. Raggio Senator William R. O'Donnell Senator Dina Titus Senator Raymond C. Shaffer GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman John Carpenter STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst DeLynn Gillentine, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Churchill County School District Staff, Chaperones and Students: Gaye Johnson, Staff; Theresa Mackedon, Chaperone; Joanne Tanner, Chaperone; Annabelle Baldwin, Ronda Banks, Ronnie Bell, Christine Blair, Patrick Corbett, Halie Ellifritz, Veronica Erb, Tim Findley, Melissa Getto, Samantha Hammon, Travis Hansen, Kari Hendrix, Brian Hegerle, Erin Hegerle, Sage Hiibel, John Hyce, Tyler Ingram, Michelle Johnson, Jennifer Kramer, Jamie Laca, Jared Laca, Emily Mackedon, Theresa McKnight, Jessica Miller, Raeanne Moore, Marvel Murphy, Rebeka Newman, Mike Olsen, Natalie Parrish, Scott Peterson, Sam Phompadith, Kim Radonski, Marikris Rapista, Melinda Reynolds, Mathew Schottel, Analie Smith, Summer Smith, Jamie Snow, Amy Steuart, Colleen Sullivan, Aleah VanWoert, Tim Ward, Ashley Weed, Ferne Williams, and Katie Wolff, Students Stephanie Licht, Lobbyist, Elko County Francis Gillings, Concerned Citizen Juanita Cox, Lobbyist, People to Protect America Lucille K. Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Jerry Keller, Sheriff, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department John Compston, Supervising Criminal Investigator, State of Nevada, Division of Investigation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Ken West, Chief Deputy Controller, Office of the State Controller John Adkins, Deputy Treasurer, Cash Management, Office of the State Treasurer Daniel Miles, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau John Sande, III, Lobbyist, Washoe County Airport Authority Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys Association Marvin Leavitt, Legislative Coordinator, City of Las Vegas Steven Miller, Concerned Citizen Senator O'Connell held a discussion with the Churchill County School District staff, chaperones, and students regarding the Legislature and the legislative process. She asked the group to listen carefully to the testimony provided on Assembly Bill (A.B. 43) and to let the senators know how they would vote. Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on A.B. 43. ASSEMBLY BILL 43: Clarifies authority of officer or employee of Federal Government to enforce state laws and exercise powers of peace officer in Nevada. (BDR 23-219) Assemblyman John Carpenter, Assembly District 33, representing Elko County, testified in favor of A.B. 43. He explained it would clarify the limited authority of federal officers to enforce state laws while on federal lands. He stated this measure provides that a federal officer may not enforce Nevada laws or exercise state peace officer powers while on public lands controlled by the federal government unless a state or federal statute or cooperative agreement with the local sheriff specifically grants the authority. He said it is already law; this bill would clarify the law. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Carpenter to explain his testimony that this is already law. Mr. Carpenter responded per a Legislative Counsel Bureau memo, the bill clarifies the existing law regarding federal officials enforcing state laws on federal lands, but does not change the existing law. He told the committee the bill indicates this in the title and summary. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Carpenter to cite examples. Mr. Carpenter explained last spring or early winter, the Division of Forestry attempted, via federal regulations, to get this power, which created a public outcry. He stated the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) attempted last session to get the same powers in the state and were refused. He stressed local controls and local law enforcement personnel are the best way to handle these situations. Senator O'Connell remarked she believes there are several cooperative agreements in southern Nevada due to a shortage of law enforcement staff in Clark County. Mr. Carpenter stated he feels this bill will clarify such situations. He explained the bill allows the sheriff to make cooperative agreements with any federal staff as determined by the sheriff. Senator Townsend asked if the Assembly held a discussion regarding other agencies which they refer to in the bill? He asked if it is only the BATF or the Department of Justice? "You said the Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) already have police powers here, even if they are on federal land and dealing with a local statute. You are talking about . . . ?" Mr. Carpenter responded that the bill refers to agencies which are not law enforcement people, like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or the Division of Forestry. He said in 1993, the BATF came to the Legislature and tried to get police powers within the state and were refused. If any of these agencies want to come and ask, the Legislature could decide to grant powers then. He stressed his concern is with land management agencies exercising those police powers out on public lands. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Carpenter if he had objections about amending the bill to specifically state the agencies who do not have the law enforcement privilege now? Mr. Carpenter replied he has no problem with that amendment. He explained the real professionals, the FBI and the Secret Service, should have that power. Senator O'Donnell, playing devil's advocate, provided the scenario of a forest service person: ... I'm out with my family and I'm having a cookout and all of a sudden, I notice in the campsite next door, this gentleman happens to be drunk . . . he takes out a firearm and starts shooting up the place. Well, murder is not a federal crime, it is a state crime, unless you are going to kill a federal agent. If he goes out and shoots somebody, and kills them, I as a park ranger or a forest service personnel, I could not do anything. Senator O'Connell interrupted and asked if he could place the man under citizen's arrest? Senator O'Donnell responded, "I am not a citizen. When I am sworn as an officer, I am an officer, or sworn as a government official." Mr. Carpenter responded that the powers of citizen's arrest could be used in the situation. He said: I do not see any problems with you doing that. We can all do that and we need to be able to do that. What we do not want are these people having that specific power to 'arrest or harass' without the local sheriff agreeing that they should have that power. I mean some of them have power to enforce federal regulations, and they should have that. What we are talking about are our state statutes. We just feel that should be a matter of local control. Senator O'Donnell remarked: If you made a citizen's arrest . . . I guess I am concerned because, if you do that as a citizen, it could be argued that you had no right to do that. Therefore, you had no probable cause to arrest the person, because you are precluded by statute by doing that. So therefore the arrest is a false arrest, and the case gets thrown out. Mr. Carpenter responded: I do not think that is the intent of the bill. I do not think it says that. As far as citizen's arrest, I have had quite a bit of experience because I have a mini-mart. If someone shoplifts, or some other petty crime, the police may come, but the police will not arrest that person because they did not see him. They'll say, 'You arrest him.' So then I have to say to that person, 'You are under arrest.' Citizen's arrest is used many times even if the police are sitting right there, because they did not witness it [the crime]. I think anyone, who witnesses a crime, can use the power of citizen's arrest. Stephanie Licht, Lobbyist, Elko County, gave the committee a position statement (Exhibit C). She stated the Elko County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously at their April 1 meeting to support A.B. 43. She assured the committee that the Elko County Board of Commissioners would support an amended bill. She said, "Sometimes in rural counties you have crimes that take place and we would need some federal law enforcement in that instance." Francis Gillings, Concerned Citizen, stated his support of the bill. He emphasized it is the duty of the county sheriff to carry out things because they are the closest to the people. He explained if a federal agency wants to be involved in anything, they by law, must come to the sheriff. He asserted most people would not know what to do with a citizen's arrest, but many people use it; it is a common practice. He stated staff, when not on duty, could use citizen's arrest as easy as any member of the public. He assured the committee that a judge "really honors a citizen's arrest. I've never seen a judge . . . there's not even a question . . . they just lay it to them. I know from experience how good it is." Juanita Cox, Lobbyist, People to Protect America, testified more states are following Nevada's lead in changes of constitutional law. She urged the committee to vote in favor of A.B. 43. Lucille K. Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified the bill clarifies the intent to provide specific power, restrained power, to federal agents. She asked the committee to carefully check the guidelines within which the agents must work and to be sure the bill they adopt is the bill that they want. Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, told the committee he opposes the bill as it is currently written. Jerry Keller, Sheriff, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, stated his opposition to the bill. He explained he leads the largest police department in Nevada, with a force of 2,500 employees. He said: As you know, the resources of our community are stretched thin. We have police officers who are handling calls, a different call, every 9 1/2 minutes in the metro jurisdiction. We are the 15th largest police jurisdiction in the United States and without the support, help and cooperation of the federal law enforcement agencies; including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service and others, we would not be able to effectively police and conduct our duties and keep our community safe . . . without these resources we can coalesce, cooperate with, and provide a comprehensive package in the multiple strategies needed in a large urban area. It may not have the same impact in a rural area like the rest of the state. We have a variety of task forces that are put together in our community with state, federal and local officers. This bill is not about the powers of arrest. The difference in the powers of arrest between any one of you and a commissioned law enforcement or peace officer is the fact that we can exercise a warrant of the court and you cannot. Other than that, the powers of arrest are very much the same. This says 'any powers' and there needs to be investigative powers. It is very clear -- if the bombing on Oklahoma City had been a state building and not the federal building, that would have been the State of Oklahoma's responsibility. They do not have the resources, nor does any other state in this nation have the resources of some of those federal investigative agencies. I, as the Chief of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, need those resources, need to be able to work with them, and work cooperatively and collectively. When I raised my hand 26 years ago and pinned on my badge, I swore to protect the public, their property and their rights, to arrest suspects and to prevent crime. I need the cooperative effort with the investigative ability of the federal law enforcement agencies in southern Nevada to accomplish that mission today as I lead law enforcement in that county . . . We need their support. We need their assistance. We need them to have those investigative skills. Even though I hear testimony that this could be a cooperative agreement with the sheriff . . . I believe we are doing a disservice to every member of that community, at least to the community I police, when we disallow their ability to perform their function as investigative police agents. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Keller if he had concerns with the Division of Forestry or the Bureau of Land Management. Mr. Keller responded if any employee of any government agency steps beyond the line of law, they must address that individual's behavior swiftly with the consequences to match the offense. He stated: I do not think we can categorize a group of people. There's been a tremendous amount of talk, logic and rhetoric about the Waco incident that was 2 years and 1 week ago. There may have been some bad decision making there; but that does not and should not cause us to castigate every single agent of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agency, because that's not true. Or the DEA. Just as my officers, when they make a mistake, we deal with that directly. We do not punish the whole class for one kid chewing gum. We go after that employee and his behavior and address it swiftly. That's what we should do in every instance, whether they are investigative, enforcement, or in any other branch of government. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Keller if he would be willing to work with the bill's sponsor regarding suitable language? Mr. Keller responded: Once we begin to limit the investigative powers of a police agent, regardless of whether they take their oath from local, state or federal sources . . . we are limiting the effectiveness of law enforcement and peace officers in southern Nevada. I do not know how it affects Mr. Carpenter's jurisdiction, but it significantly affects mine. I've got another bill . . . to see if we can have the authority, if we can identify more resources, have without legislative approval each time, more resources approved by election within the county. This bill is critical. Without these federal officers, quality officers, substantial high integrity officers, I do not believe we can afford to police Las Vegas. We would be right back to being the number one city in the nation. Eric Cooper, sitting behind me, was the undersheriff for 12 years and we went from number 1 to number 83 in the nation in crime rate. We will go right back to being the best opportunity of anywhere in America to be the victim of a crime and I am not willing to tolerate that. That's why I am speaking in opposition to this bill. John Compston, Supervising Criminal Investigator, State of Nevada, Division of Investigation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated they oppose this bill on the same grounds as Sheriff Keller. He told the committee they work very closely with federal authorities throughout the state regarding statewide narcotics task forces. He explained the Division of Investigation just agreed with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the FBI regarding narcotics control on Indian reservations. He emphasized deterring the powers of any of these federal agencies would hinder enforcement efforts on a statewide basis. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 43 by thanking the Churchill County School District staff, chaperones and students for attending the committee hearing. She opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 370. SENATE BILL 370: Eliminates certain provisions regarding disposition of money received by agencies, departments and institutions of the state. (BDR 31-1971) Ken West, Chief Deputy Controller, Office of the State Controller, testified that S.B. 370 deals with a recording revenue problem. He told the committee state agencies cannot deposit and record revenue in their budget accounts unless they have the authority through an approved state plan for these activities. He stated this bill will allow agencies to record the revenue in their budget accounts. However, they will not spend it unless an appropriate state plan for the expenditure is in place. He explained when receipts are greater than what the agency plans in the present controls, that money is not deposited in an agency's account; instead it is deposited in a holding account. Mr. West stressed, "It temporarily loses its identity and the time profile of revenues and receipts are corrupted. We do not have a good time profile of receipts and revenues, because the money is off someplace else and we do not know where it is at. This causes us difficulty in forecasting for cash flows, and forecasting for revenues if it stays out there a long time." Mr. West explained that being short-funded toward the end of the fiscal year is possible for an agency, yet, they may have revenue in the holding account. To use the money, agencies have to go through budget or interim finance to receive approval to use the money. He asserted this creates difficulties at the end of the fiscal year when the Office of the State Controller is attempting to close the books for the fiscal year. He told the committee he does not know why this account exists. He noted chapter 353 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, which is the statute for the holding account, was last revised in 1963. He explained agencies will commingle funds until they can straighten out budgets. He outlined the difficulties in cash management and reconciliation of accounts to the committee. He asserted this bill will save time for the agencies, the Interim Finance Committee, and for the Office of the State Controller. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. West to cite an example of how an agency generates more revenue than anticipated. Mr. West asked if the committee has an idea of how much sales tax would be generated by June 30? He stated this is an example of how this is possible. He explained to the committee that budget plans are submitted 2 years in advance and the environment can change, resulting in an increase in revenue. Senator O'Connell stated she could understand about an increase in estimated tax revenues, but how would an agency receive more revenue? Mr. West explained as the economy changes, the revenue source will increase or decrease. He cited the Office of the Secretary of State as an example. He said there has been an increase in filing fees and they restrict those funds for a certain purpose. He stated if economic activity is greater in one part of the year, and the plan is 2 years old, the agency will receive more revenue than anticipated and they must change their plan if they are to spend the revenue. Mr. West commented the revenue should be received, the amount to expend should be noted, and the plan should be changed to accommodate expenditure. Senator O'Connell asked if the agency took in the revenue, and the revenue remained with the department, would the agency have to change their plan. Mr. West stated the plan could be changed in the next fiscal year when the revenue would need to be spent. He stated this generally happens at the end of the fiscal year when plans are not in place to spend the revenue. He explained the agency would want to carry the revenue to the next fiscal year. Mr. West told the committee that an amendment will be forthcoming to amend language regarding proprietary funds. He explained proprietary funds and how the Office of the State Controller does not want those funds reverting to the agencies at the end of the fiscal year. He said the amendment will exclude proprietary or reserve funds which are to be used by some agencies for the new fiscal year. Senator O'Donnell asked Mr. West to clarify what happens to unexpended funds at the end of a biennium? Mr. West stated federal revenue cannot revert to the General Fund. He explained if it is money an agency has earmarked for a specific use, it cannot revert to the General Fund, it must be reserved for the purpose for which they earmarked it. Senator O'Donnell asked if agencies, at some point, are putting money into suspense accounts and holding the funds over through the next fiscal year. Mr. West responded this is not what happens. The agencies have to come to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) and clear the suspense accounts prior to the end of the fiscal year. Senator O'Donnell asked if expending the funds before the end of the fiscal year is difficult. Mr. West responded that if an agency has to adjust their state plan and budget more than $25,000, then they have to come before IFC before the end of the year. He explained last year IFC met in September, and this creates many difficulties for the agencies and the Office of the State Controller. Senator O'Donnell asked if this bill will allow the automatic reversion of these funds rather than a mechanical reversion. He asked if it is mandatory rather than permissive. Mr. West explained they would create the suspense accounts in the budget accounts for each agency, rather than in one separate fund where the money loses its identity. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. West if he had the language for the amendment with him. Mr. West explained the intent would exclude proprietary funds and planned reserves. Senator O'Connell told Mr. West the amendment would be drawn up and he would be contacted to approve the amendment. John Adkins, Deputy Treasurer, Cash Management, Office of the State Treasurer, stated since an amendment is proposed to S.B. 370, the Office of the State Treasurer suggests eliminating the last sentence of section 1. He stated the first and the last sentence of section 1 are contradictory. He cited the lines for the committee. Senator Townsend explained to the committee, "To be specific, you are talking about the last sentence of subsection 1, section 1, lines 7 through 9." Senator Raggio suggested the fiscal division provide input on the proposed language. Daniel Miles, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated the purpose of the bill is not an attempt to expand the expenditure authority, but to clarify and correct accounting mechanisms. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Miles to explain the changes which will occur with this bill. Mr. Miles stated the change will occur in the Office of the State Controller because they can accept deposits which exceed authority. He explained this would be automatic and they would straighten the deposits out after the fact. He stated it will not expand the budget approved by the Legislature. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 370 and opened the hearing on Bill Draft Request (BDR) 3-518. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 3-518: Allow inspection of property to be acquired by condemnation. John Sande III, Lobbyist, Washoe County Airport Authority, testified this BDR is supported by other government entities. He explained the bill sets forth a procedure for entry upon property to do surveys and tests before condemnation. He told the committee the BDR is patterned after a California law. He stated: As I understand it now, you cannot conduct surveys or enter in property until you have filed a condemnation action. With the consent of the landowner, or in the absence of the consent by an order of the district court, you would be able to conduct certain surveys as ordered by the court. You would also have to deposit funds into the court in the event that you caused any damages. In the event that you did unlawfully enter or caused damages that were beyond the scope of what you are authorized to do, the landowner would be entitled to costs and attorney fees. I think it is a very evenhanded bill . . . I think it is something that would be useful in Nevada and would hopefully save costs, especially because of environmental problems where you want to make sure, before you condemn property, there are no environmental problems. Senator O'Connell asked, "This doesn't relate directly to the airport authority, although it is a request from them for their purposes. They have eminent domain powers now?" Mr. Sande, "Yes, the airport authority does have eminent domain powers. That is how they acquire some of their land." Senator O'Connell stated, "I need to share with the committee that chapter 37 [of the Nevada Revised Statutes] is normally a chapter that is handled by judiciary. There are two members of the committee who had requested making some changes in the eminent domain law itself. That is why I allowed the bill to be brought before the committee to see if you would like to hear this bill or if you would prefer it going to judiciary." Senator O'Donnell said he did not see any reason why the government affairs committee could not hear this bill draft request. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 3-518. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator O'Connell asked if the committee had any discussion on the bill before the introduction. Senator Raggio asked the record to indicate that he abstained from voting. Senator Townsend also asked the record to indicate that he abstained from voting. THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND SENATOR TOWNSEND ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on BDR 3-518 and opened the hearing on BDR 20-2012. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 20-2012: Makes various changes concerning guardians and administrators of estates. Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys Association, requested committee introduction of BDR 20-2012. He explained this bill draft request is to clarify internal procedures. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 20-2012. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on BDR 20-2012 and opened the hearing on A.B. 163. ASSEMBLY BILL 163: Authorizes community redevelopment agencies to issue bonds at discount. (BDR 22-686) Marvin Leavitt, Legislative Coordinator, City of Las Vegas, testified in favor of A.B. 163. He stated it would allow the city to issue bonds at a discount. He briefly explained the significance of discount bond issues, premium bond sales, underwriter fees, and penalty bond sales. He explained when bonds are sold at a discount, a better bond rate can be obtained. He explained they can sell any bond in the state at a discount, except a redevelopment bond. Senator O'Connell asked if redevelopment bonds are harder to sell. Mr. Leavitt responded, "That is correct." Senator O'Connell asked if a provision in the law limits the interest rate on redevelopment bonds to 9 percent. Mr. Leavitt responded, "That is correct. Discount [bonds of any kind] can never be larger than 9 percent." Senator O'Connell asked if the bill is for a specific bond issue? Mr. Leavitt responded, "No, it is just for general application. We do not have a specific issue in mind. We have just discovered from past experience, as well as talking to the bond council and underwriters and financial advisors, that we could save a little bit of money if we can issue bonds at a discount." Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 163 and opened the hearing on A.B. 164. ASSEMBLY BILL 164: Revises provision governing jurisdiction and authority of certain units of specialized law enforcement established by political subdivision. Mr. Leavitt testified in support of A.B. 164. He explained the history of the bill. He stated during the last session there was a bill dealing with marshals and there was a proposed amendment to the bill. The amendment was brought to him for approval on the last night of the session. He approved the amendment. The amendment and bill were transferred to the Assembly. The bill was concurred in the Assembly without the bill being reprinted. He explained when the session adjourned, he and the committee were certain the bill was in the form they had all agreed upon. However, he told the committee, the amendment was a conflict amendment which was added, because the original amendment was never added. He stated no one realized at the time what was going on. Mr. Leavitt testified this bill will perform the task which the original amendment to the bill for last session should have done. He stated it allows marshals and park rangers to enforce ordinances on city-owned property, not just within the parks. It would allow them to serve warrants of arrest and impound abandoned vehicles. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 164 and opened the hearing on A.B. 137. ASSEMBLY BILL 137: Prohibits restraint of competition to purchase or lease county property. Mr. Graham explained the intent of the bill is to prevent collusion and to assure the county receives a fair deal in the sale of surplus properties. He stated the intent is that information is not exchanged which would provide an unfair advantage. He requested the committee hold the bill and conduct subcommittee hearings to include possible amendments to the bill. He gave the committee a copy of a letter (Exhibit D). He explained it is a misdemeanor offense and the $1,000 fine is the reason for the fiscal note. Steven Miller, Concerned Citizen, testified in support of A.B. 137 in principle. He stated he has two concerns which he would like addressed. He asked if the penalty for violation is sufficient to prevent violation. His second concern is if the bill is enforceable as written and will they enforce it? He stated he likes the idea in spirit, but requested that the committee address his two concerns. Mr. Graham told the committee the bid process would be deemed invalid and there would be no profit for the parties in collusion and they would be subjected to a misdemeanor charge and fine. He stated 6 months in jail is a hardship for an ordinary person. He stated he feels this is adequate punishment. Senator O'Connell asked if large bids were involved in collusion. Mr. Graham stated they were large bids, and cited an example for the committee. He asked Mr. Miller to meet with him regarding language for possible amendments to the bill. He explained this misdemeanor charge and fine are in line with other trade actions. He told the committee that enforceability would depend upon proof. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 137 and adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs April 26, 1995 Page