MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Sixty-seventh Session
June 26, 1993
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:30 a.m., on Saturday, June 26, 1993, in Room 223 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Diana Glomb
Senator William R. O'Donnell
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Birgit K. Baker, Program Analyst
Marion Entrekin, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert J. Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association
Garth F. Dull, Director, Department of Transportation
Brian R. Hutchins, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Transportation, Office of the Attorney General
Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration
Barbara Cegavske, Concerned Citizen
Sandy Coyle, Concerned Citizen
Sally A. Bilyeu, Concerned Citizen
Debbie Cahill, Representing the Nevada State Education Association
Eugene T. Paslov, Ph.D., Superintendent of Public Instruction,
State Department of Education
Adam Cegavske, Student
Shelly Wadsworth, Representing EnTire Solutions, Incorporated
Senator Raggio requested committee introduction of the following bill draft request (BDR).
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-2174: Provides funding for reduction of ratio of pupils to teachers in certain grades.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 34-2174 WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO DO PASS TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE GENERAL FILE.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio opened the hearing for discussion of Senate Bill (S.B.) 362.
SENATE BILL 362: Provides for classification of state employees in compliance with federal law.
Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, referred the committee to Exhibit C, Amendment No. 1027 to S.B. 362 and said this reflects an agreement reached by the Budget Division and the State of Nevada Employees Association. He explained in detail sections 1 through 5 of the amendment for the benefit of the committee.
Referring to section 5 concerning the provision of compensatory vacation time instead of monetary payment of overtime, Senator Raggio pointed out the committee heard testimony that such an agreement is valid and may be utilized if a representative of the employees or the employee individually agrees to the provision.
Mr. Miles continued his review of section 6, subsection 9, on page 7 of (Exhibit C). Senator Raggio asked the committee to pay particular attention to this portion of the amendment which meets all of the concerns they have expressed concerning the authorization and use of overtime.
Mr. Miles concluded his testimony of the amendment to S.B. 362 by explaining the remaining section 7 through 11 with the committee.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Miles to go over the funding provisions as set forth in section 10 of the amendment.
Mr. Miles said certain items were removed from the Governor's Executive Budget in anticipation of the full-blown exempt-merit service. He commented:
In that budget there were appropriations made to pay for the exempt service both from the General Fund and the highway fund. We have not reduced those appropriations. We left them in as recommended by the Governor but we have turned around the purposes for which those would be used. $4.1 million is available in the first year of the biennium and $5.8 million available in the second year....We are appropriating that to the State Board of Examiners to meet any deficiencies that may be created between what was budgeted for salaries in the various agencies and what their actual expenditures might be.
Mr. Miles said the appropriation to the State Board of Examiners would be used for items (a) through (c) as listed on page 10 of Exhibit C.
Senator Raggio said rather than the classifications that were proposed in S.B. 362 the amendment results in four categories of employees which would be classified and unclassified and within each exempt or non-exempt employee. In addition, an interim study has been recommended of the personnel system which would cover this subject.
Senator Callister asked what changes have been made in the total number of appointive positions by changing the categories. He asked specifically, "Do we change the extent to which there is a larger or smaller number of gubernatorial appointments?"
Senator Raggio replied, "The answer is no. We will still be dealing with the usual number of unclassified employees in their salary bills."
Robert J. Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, concurred Amendment No. 1027 was substantially the agreement that was reached with the Budget Division.
SENATOR CALLISTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 362 WITH AMENDMENT NO. 1027.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio opened the hearing for discussion of Senate Bill (S.B.) 563.
SENATE BILL 563: Transfers highway patrol special account in state general fund to state highway fund.
Garth F. Dull, Director, Department of Transportation, explained under current law for every motor vehicle and motor carrier registered in the State of Nevada, $6 is transferred to a special account for the Nevada Highway Patrol that is established in the General Fund. The Office of the Attorney General has advised the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety that due to a potential constitutional conflict, the highway patrol special account should be in the state highway fund, and any interest earned on the money in the account should be credited to the highway fund. S.B. 563 would transfer the highway patrol special account in the state's General Fund to the state highway fund.
Birgit K. Baker, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said this issue arose at the time the budget was closed for the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety with regard to the special account for the highway patrol. Transferring the account from the General Fund to the highway fund can be accomplished without reopening the budget. She pointed out this would require an amendment to section 1, subsection 3, of S.B. 563.
Senator Glomb asked, "Why would we want to move the account from the General Fund?"
Brian R. Hutchins, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Transportation, Office of the Attorney General, answered what precipitated the bill was an attorney general opinion (Exhibit D) that the constitution requires all registration and licensing fees and vehicle fuel taxes be used for the construction and maintenance of highways. If money from the highway fund is being used by the highway patrol special account, but placed in the General Fund, interest from that fund is going to the General Fund which is contrary to the constitution. S.B. 563 proposes that the highway patrol special account should be in the highway fund along with the interest earned on the money.
Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration, indicated this proposal has been approved by the Budget Division.
Referring to section 2, lines 30 through 32, of S.B. 563, Mr. Hutchins said this section clarifies that all the money received by the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety can go to the motor vehicle fund and can subsequently be transferred to whatever fund or account a statute may require it be transferred to such as the highway fund.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 563 BY DELETING ALL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN SECTION 1, SUBSECTION 3, EXCEPT FOR THE AMENDMENT REFLECTED IN LINE 14.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio indicated he had received several inquiries regarding Senate Bill (S.B.) 153 indicating he has been holding the bill. He wished to state for the record he has had no knowledge or discussion about this bill since it was first heard on May 24, 1993. At that time there was a discussion regarding potential amendments to the bill.
SENATE BILL 153: Redesignates pupils with disabilities and requires training for teachers.
Senator Callister stated this measure as it was presented involved a significant amendment that had not been reduced formally on the day the bill was heard. There were a number of meetings and efforts made by himself and Senator Rawson to bring some consensus amongst the proponents of the bill and other groups that have an interest in it. Senator Callister said an amendment has been crafted that he believes comes as close to a consensus as can be achieved, although he will not represent that it achieves an absolute consensus.
Senator Raggio recalled that in looking at the amendment in rough draft form the chairman was concerned it mandated coverage which was one of the considerations. Senator Callister concurred with this comment.
Barbara Cegavske, Concerned Citizen, urged the committee to pass S.B. 153. She testified:
...The nation and Nevada needs this law to help our children and teachers. Can you imagine being a teacher and told to teach a class of blind children with no training? Not only would that be stressful for the teacher, but imagine the frustration for the child. That is what we are doing everyday. Children are dropping out. Why? Because they are frustrated. There are different learning styles. The teachers don't know how to teach all the different children that are going to be coming into the classroom. We have undetected learning disabilities. We need to help the teacher help the child.
I am sorry to say that the teachers' association has pulled their support for this bill and also the state department....I felt that we were altogether on this when we came to you and you had addressed the issue, Senator Raggio, about the mandate....We had all come to an agreement with that. The agreement was that new teachers coming into teaching would have a mandate of three credits of special education training....which once we did have in the State of Nevada....The professional standards did take that away. We discussed that at the last hearing.
I still would urge you to pass this bill. I will answer any questions and I thank you.
Senator Raggio asked where the amendment to S.B. 153 is.
Senator Rawson said there is an Amendment No. 705 proposed by the Senate Committee on Finance but he did not have copies available for all of the members to review. In the interest of time, Senator Rawson read portions of the amendment to the committee that stated, in part, "A person who is teaching or performing other educational functions in public schools of Nevada...for any program of instruction for kindergarten or grades 1 through 12 inclusive...
must possess adequate knowledge concerning the instruction of persons with disabilities."
Senator Rawson said the word "must" has turned out to be the difficult portion of the language in the amendment. He stated if the word "should" were substituted, it would accomplish the same purpose of the amendment. However, he pointed out whether or not the word "must" is substituted by the word "should", there will be those individuals that will still be in opposition to the language as written. The basic concept of the bill and the amendment is to see that the state's teachers have been exposed to enough information concerning individuals with special needs to recognize their problems for proper placement in a suitable classroom. He asked Ms. Cegavske if it would be agreeable to change the word as suggested.
Ms. Cegavske responded, "My first priority was to make sure it was mandated for new teachers but if that will help pass the bill then I...."
Senator Raggio interjected, "Doesn't the bill mandate the university system to spend a half million dollars in each year?"
Senator Rawson said the way the bill is now worded allows the university system to expend up to $500,000 in any fiscal year if that is provided through federal programs, or there is no state appropriation involved. He further stated there is federal money available for these programs to allow this funding to take place.
Senator Glomb noted the purpose of S.B. 153 is to make it very clear children with special needs in Nevada schools, whether they are academically talented or otherwise, are taught by trained personnel. She asked, "Right now we have children in school that are not being trained by trained personnel?"
Ms. Cegavske replied in the affirmative.
Senator Glomb continued, "This bill would say that...originally without the amendment...the State Board of Education would see to it that the school districts provide training so that teachers would have the skills necessary?"
Ms. Cegavske answered, "If you leave "must" in there it will say that every teacher has to have three credits of special education before they can teach...a regular teacher, all teachers. It is administrators, teachers."
Senator Rawson stated if the word "should" is used the amendment would still describe that a person may acquire the knowledge suggested by the bill through appropriate training. He said there are programs currently available for teachers to acquire the knowledge needed.
Senator Callister opined it is worthy to point out S.B. 153 does some other things that are also significant. He remarked:
It would change the designation in terms of terminology throughout. If we are thinking about processing or not processing I certainly do not want to lose that component of the bill....Secondly on the issue of the mandate which has been the difficulty....I do not know what the response would be from those who have had problems with the bill before in response to this latest proposal that I am just hearing for the first time....The mandate language be downgraded to "should" from "must". That is a significant change in my mind. I am curious to hear what the comments are from others who are interested in the bill or members of the committee. I would like to see the bill pass. I would like to get it out in some fashion.
Sandy Coyle, Concerned Citizen, spoke from prepared text (Exhibit E) in support of the passage of S.B. 153.
Sally A. Bilyeu, Concerned Citizen, stated she is a resident of Carson City and has a child in college as well as a child in special education in Carson City. She urged the committee to pass S.B. 153. She testified:
I am very interested in S.B. 153. I thought all of the problems were ironed out a long time ago. It surprises me that I have to be here today. I think the parents have compromised on this bill quite enough....Because it is an important bill for our teachers and the children, I would certainly go along with the "should" and hope the teachers and the local school districts take the ball and run with it. It needs to be in the local school district arena, and I think most of us parents would be pleased to at least make some steps forward. Thank you.
Senator Raggio commented as he understands the proposed amendment it would no longer mandate teachers possess this knowledge or training, but it would be a statement that it is desirable.
Ms. Bilyeu mentioned that the university-affiliated program along with the State Department of Education has put on some workshops within the last year that has assisted with this type of training and has been available to teachers in the state. She feels there are ways for the teachers to receive an education regarding special education children through these ongoing programs.
Debbie Cahill, Representing the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), remarked the association is still concerned about S.B. 153 and have withdrawn their support of the bill. At one point they had joined in the discussion and helped craft the amendment that came before the committee. However, when that failed to survive the scrutiny of the committee, the NSEA withdrew their support.
Ms. Cahill said the NSEA still has concern about the use of the word "should" in the language that states, "should possess adequate knowledge."
We think that would open up a judgment call. If it is in statute, what is to keep someone from coming in and saying they do not believe this teacher does possess adequate knowledge and the law says they should? We still feel this creates a mandate to some extent. We agree this is a very important issue and that teachers need to have this training, but this bill puts all of the onus on the teacher to get this training. We know that there is training and courses available at the university...and we have agreed to help express to teachers the need for this and encourage them to avail themselves of this type of training...If we are going to mandate something, we think we should mandate that the district provide the training and not just require that the teacher possess adequate knowledge....We still have concerns about the language of this amendment.
Senator Raggio said the amendment does not require that teachers have the training. It suggests the training would be desirable.
Ms. Cahill said she understood this but the NSEA still has concerns about the language, "should possess adequate knowledge".
She explained if a concerned parent decided to question the way a teacher had been handling that student, it could cause problems. The parent could make a claim it was believed the teacher did not possess adequate knowledge because it was not specifically tied to training which could lead to a job action.
Senator Rawson said he may have developed insight into the problem he had not previously understood. He stated:
I'm wondering if we shouldn't be saying that every teacher must demonstrate training and give a certain period of time for that to take place rather than saying every teacher must demonstrate knowledge or must have knowledge. Is that the issue, or is there still a concern about the idea of every teacher having to have training?
Ms. Cahill answered:
I think we would be more comfortable with the idea that training had to be gotten....We have now completely divorced this from tying it to licensure which is where we began... and initially was why we were so completely opposed to this.
Senator Rawson said his idea may be a compromise that other people are not willing to live with, but a decision such as this has been made in other professions.
Ms. Cahill said this had been discussed to some extent in the course of trying to deal with S.B. 153. She said the NSEA still has a concern with putting it into law and depending on the time period; they are not positive that the training would continue to be available or that the courses would continue to be offered at a time when teachers can avail themselves of it. By saying a teacher must have the training would almost make it a condition of licensure and is something the NSEA thinks should be examined by the Commission on Professional Standards in Education. She further stated the association has encouraged Ms. Cegavske to take this matter to the commission for them to examine.
Senator Rawson asked, "How about a direction from the legislature to have the commission on standards and training address the issue of this type of training.
Ms. Cahill replied the NSEA has said all along they would like a resolution regarding this issue. If there is no time to draft a resolution, the action suggested by Senator Rawson would address the problem.
Senator Raggio said there is time for the committee to issue a letter of intent.
Eugene T. Paslov, Ph.D., Superintendent of Public Instruction,
State Department of Education, remarked he got involved with the bill because he thought the parent advocates were supporting something that was very powerful and very much needed on the part of the teaching staff. He has been concerned about the
mandate and sought to work with both parent advocates and the NSEA to see if they could finesse the language of the mandate to work around it to the satisfaction of everyone. He further commented:
It becomes a matter of interpretation...must or should...and I suspect my commitment to you will be regardless of what you do I am going to do everything possible to communicate with the local school districts to try and provide this training in their professional development activities. I am going to ask our staff where possible to make funding available through special education to make sure that training is provided in local school districts....On a voluntary basis I will do that. I think the parents were right in the first place. I don't think we were successful in finessing the language so that it indeed does not become a mandate. That is Ms. Cahill's concern and remains the concern of some others. I hope perhaps you can resolve this with a letter of intent, and my commitment is to enhance the training as best we can through a voluntary agreement.
I also agree with Ms. Cahill that this is a larger issue that should be dealt with by the professional standards commission.
Ms. Cahill said the other technical amendments referred to by Senator Callister were amended into Senate Bill (S.B.) 265 so that other portions of the bill would not be totally lost.
SENATE BILL 265: Redesignates pupils with disabilities and makes various changes regarding program for education of handicapped persons.
Adam Cegavske, student, testified:
I was in special education and some of my teachers didn't understand what my problems were so they couldn't help me learn what I needed to learn, so I learned in a different way. I think this bill would really help other kids like me learn what they need to learn if they learned in a different way.
In response to Senator Raggio's inquiry, Adam Cegavske said he was age 12 and will be going into the seventh grade next year.
Senator O'Donnell told Mr. Cegavske he appreciated his comments and admired his courage in appearing before the committee today. He pointed out Ms. Cegavske has brought an issue to this committee that has opened up the doors for evaluation, discussion, and dialogue which he felt is a feat that bears some accommodation and is a giant step forward.
Senator Rawson asked Ms. Cegavske:
You have sensed the division that is here....I will support your issue. When we try to establish regulations in the medical profession we establish professional boards to do that. In education when we tried to deal with the issue of licensure there was a point where I supported the idea of a professional standards commission with the idea of trying to produce the same kind of regulation or control over teachers. Properly that is the best place to address this....We will ask you if you would like to see a strong letter of intent from this committee directed to the professional standards commission, or if you want us to put the bill up for a vote. If we do it for vote, we will do it either way, with or without the changes. You tell us what you want, and we will try to handle it.
Ms. Cegavske replied:
We had talked about a resolution and we had talked about letters of intent. The problem that I have with going back to the professional standards commission is that is the group that dissolved having three credits required for teachers once that group was established. I do not feel real confident they would put that back in after they fought so hard to get rid of it.
Senator Rawson said the committee could not force them to do this with a letter of intent but could say it is the intention of the Senate Committee on Finance to address this issue during another session of the legislature. We could ask them to address the issue in the meantime.
Ms. Cegavske said she wished to have the committee vote on the bill.
Senator Rawson said the amendment could be included and asked her if she wanted to substitute the word "must" for the word "should".
Ms. Cegavske responded, "Ideally to have it required would be the greatest thing."
Senator Raggio interjected that he believed it highly unlikely the measure would pass if it is mandated.
Ms. Cegavske agreed and said the word "should" could be used if it would help.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 153 WITH AMENDMENT NO. 705 MODIFIED TO DELETE THE MANDATED LANGUAGE AND CHANGE THE WORD "MUST" TO "SHOULD".
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator O'Donnell maintained the language "should" is completely
subjective and could be challenged anywhere, anytime, by anybody. He pointed out even if a teacher had gone through a class and received a passing grade it would not mean that teacher has the knowledge or information necessary for special education. He would rather see the word "must" kept in the language and a letter of intent be considered because he could not vote for the bill if the word "should" is used.
Responding, Ms. Cegavske said:
I have heard this statement and the last two days is the first time it has been addressed to me that anybody had come up with that information. Again, our district is already looking at doing some type of professional development course to help. The unfortunate thing is we don't have 2 years. We are already behind and we need help now and 2 years would mean another 1 to 2 years before anything is implemented. We don't have that kind of time. The kids are here. They are waiting. They are dropping out. If there are other words you can think of that would be better....We don't have time. We don't have it.
Referring to Amendment No. 705 Senator Rawson suggested using the language, "It is desirable that a person teaching or performing other educational functions...should possess adequate knowledge," to be followed by a letter of intent from the Senate Committee on Finance for the State Board of Education and the Commission on Professional Standards in Education to address the issue. He believed this was as far as the committee could go to reach a consensus and restated the motion.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 153 WITH AMENDMENT NO. 705 WITH THE LANGUAGE "IT IS DESIRABLE THAT A PERSON TEACHING OR PERFORMING OTHER EDUCATIONAL FUNCTIONS SHOULD POSSESS ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE" AND TO INCLUDE A LETTER OF INTENT TO THE COMMISSION ON PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS IN EDUCATION AND THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio referred the committee to Senate Bill (S.B.) 464.
SENATE BILL 464: Authorizes state to contract for restoration of old state library building.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 464.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio noted this motion is necessary since other capital improvement action had been undertaken.
Senator Coffin said he was disappointed this is being done because he had hoped to see the old library building restored. He asked if it would be possible to communicate with the State Public Works Board to keep the committee apprised of work done on the old state library building.
Senator Raggio said the State Public Works Board advised the committee they would do the work that was necessary to utilize and maintain the building and gave their assurance they would not do anything to destroy the integrity of the building.
Ms. Matteucci said the State Public Works Board supervised the restoration of the old mint building and contracted with the same individual the proponents of S.B. 464 were contemplating contracting with to restore the old state library building. They also did the Mackay School of Mines restoration which was done in an excellent manner. She has never heard any complaints about restoration projects completed through the State Public Works Board.
Senator Raggio asked Ms. Matteucci to reconvey the committee's concerns regarding the maintenance of the old state library building.
Senator Coffin asked if there are funds available to pay for a consultant concerning the restoration and preservation of the building.
Ms. Matteucci said there are no funds for restoration purposes. She said the work that will be completed in the old state library building will involve temporary work inside the building that is nonstructural and will not destroy any of the historic properties of the building. Nothing will be done to that building that will destroy future rehabilitation for historic preservation purposes.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio announced those individuals present at today's hearing that may be waiting for some resolution dealing with the Yucca Mountain project are waiting in vain. There will be no such resolution in this committee today.
Senator Raggio opened the hearing for discussion of Senate Bill (S.B.) 493.
SENATE BILL 493: Increases fee for purchase of tire to support program to use recycled tires in highway construction.
Senator Rawson said the bill raises the fee from $1 to $2 and an amendment was given to the Fiscal Analysis Division that stipulates $1 of the $2 fee be used for tire recycling efforts.
Shelly Wadsworth, Representing EnTire Solutions, Incorporated, distributed the proposed amendment to S.B. 493 to the committee (Exhibit F) and explained the amendment proposes the additional $1 be designated for a recycling fund that would be managed by the Division of Environmental Protection.
Ms. Wadsworth said if we had a recycling process in the State of Nevada producing crumb rubber the state would be using Nevada's old tires to satisfy regulations stipulated by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) that stipulates by January 1, 1994, 5 percent of the asphalt in all highways will contain crumb rubber.
Senator Raggio asked how much competition is available in this state for this service.
Ms. Wadsworth replied there is no crumb rubber manufactured in Nevada at the present time. There is a recycler in Reno that shreds tires but he buys his crumb rubber from out-of-state. She believes Nevada should be recycling their own tires and producing crumb rubber rather than purchasing this from California or Arizona.
Senator Raggio asked what is the problem with S.B. 493 without an amendment.
Ms. Wadsworth replied it would do nothing to recycle tires. It simply gives the Department of Transportation money to purchase crumb rubber. She would like to see the Department of Transportation have the funding necessary to provide for the statewide collection of tires.
Senator Raggio asked if the passage of the bill would prevent someone in the state from setting up a business to produce crumb rubber.
Ms. Wadsworth said it would not prevent this, and it would not encourage anyone to set up a business either. She would like to
see Nevada tires collected for recycling purposes to be used for the production of crumb rubber.
Senator Glomb said it was her understanding from prior testimony the Department of Transportation indicated a need for an additional $1 fee so that they could use recycled tires to build roads and the amendment proposed would change that.
Senator Raggio indicated the way S.B. 493 is worded provides that the money may be used only for support projects approved pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 408.281.
Senator Rawson suggested S.B. 493 be held pending further review.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 493 but said definite action would be taken by the committee on this bill on June 28, 1993.
There being no further business to come before the committee, Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 10:00 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Marion Entrekin,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Finance
June 26, 1993
Page 1