MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session January 24, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Tuesday, January 24, 1995, Chairman Lambert 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 Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman, Excused GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Mr. Lynn Hettrick, District 39, Co-Speaker of the Assembly STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Legislative Counsel OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Fred Welden, Legislative Counsel Bureau; Mr. Jim Dana, Finance Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; Mr. Jim Baetge, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; Mr. Steve Teshara, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance; Ms. Rochelle Nason, Executive Director, League to Save Lake Tahoe; Mr. George Finn. Chairman Lambert advised the committee Assembly Bill 17, was concurrently referred to both the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. She said, in general, when there were such concurrent referrals of bills, the committee which was not the "money committee" did not become involved in the amount of money related to a bill but rather determined if the proposal contained in the bill appeared to be good public policy; She asked the committee members to bear that fact in mind when considering Assembly Bill No. 17. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2 - Urges Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to continue to simplify its operations and procedures and to encourage cooperation between persons interested in protecting environment of Lake Tahoe Basin. Mr. Fred Welden, Legislative Counsel Bureau, testified. He said Speaker Hettrick asked him to provide the committee with an overview of subcommittees' actions with respect to those bills and resolutions which would be before the committee during the current week. Mr. Welden advised A.J.R. 2 dealt with streamlining and simplifying programs of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (hereinafter referred to as TRPA). He stated members of the public who testified before the oversight committee in recent years emphasized the need to create a more positive working atmosphere "between all the participants", not only between those applying for projects and TRPA as the agency reviewing such applications. He said during the 1993 legislative session, the legislature adopted Assembly Joint Resolution No. 3, which urged TRPA to increase its efforts to simplify both its code of ordinances and its project review process. Mr. Welden declared TRPA had made strides in streamlining its project review process and in allowing more decisions to be made at local levels but indicated testimony given before the Interim Finance Committee, although supportive of TRPA's actions, reaffirmed a need for TRPA to make additional efforts in these areas. Assemblyman Bennett asked if the resolutions (previously passed by the legislature) had accomplished anything positive. Mr. Bennett indicated basically identical resolutions were repeatedly being sent (by the legislature) to the federal government and it appeared the federal government paid no attention to those resolutions. Mr. Welden said it was his opinion resolutions addressed to the federal government often "...end up somewhere back there that nobody finds them...". He suggested such resolutions were sometimes valuable as lobbying tools because those resolutions provided a record of uniform support for an objective but further suggested the mere act of mailing resolutions to the federal government appeared to have little effect. He said, however, because issues relating to the Tahoe Basin were very controversial and because TRPA must pacify two state legislatures, TRPA gave much consideration to resolutions directed to it by the State of California or by the State of Nevada. He stated he felt resolutions passed by the legislature had more effect on issues concerning Lake Tahoe than they had on national issues. Mr. Bennett asked if TRPA's consideration of legislative resolutions was not based on the fact it received state funds from both California and Nevada. Mr. Welden indicated he felt such was the case. Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, District 39, testified. He advised A.J.R. 2 was nearly identical to a resolution considered in the last legislative session and was simply an indication to TRPA the legislature wished to see TRPA continue to simplify doing business in the Tahoe Basin. Mr. Hettrick expressed his concurrence with Mr. Welden's prior testimony, in which Mr. Welden suggested resolutions sent by the legislature to TRPA had a more powerful effect than those sent elsewhere. Assemblyman Harrington asked what enforcement capabilities TRPA possessed. Mr. Hettrick replied TRPA's enforcement capabilities were similar to those possessed by a planning department or county government, i.e. to "red tag" or stop work. He declared TRPA had hefty enforcement capabilities. Mr. Harrington asked if TRPA had the ability to arrest and incarcerate an individual who was fined by TRPA and who failed to pay such fine. Mr. Hettrick replied he had no knowledge regarding TRPA's ability to make an arrest. He suggested TRPA could instigate court proceedings and could place a lien on property to compel compliance with its enforcement actions. Mr. Harrington asked, "And there's no local representation from the people there, and they have those kind of police powers?" Mr. Hettrick stated there was local representation but such representation had a greater political basis than it would have if the committee ratified "...the other resolution from yesterday..." which would result in the concerns of the people of the State of Nevada being better represented on TRPA's board. Assemblyman Nolan reiterated Mr. Bennett's earlier observation regarding the futility of the legislature's passing joint resolutions to send to the federal government which resolutions were then lost in Washington. He suggested changing "the resolution" to indicate it was an emergency resolution, needed to avert a potential crisis, might garner it greater attention. Mr. Nolan indicated his suggestion pertained to a resolution concerned with removal of logs and did not address A.J.R. 2. Mr. Hettrick stated he would support any change to a legislative resolution which would cause said resolution to receive greater attention. He pointed out A.J.R. 2 was directed to TRPA. He advised representatives of TRPA were present at the current meeting and said their presence afforded the committee an opportunity to let those representatives know the legislature's feelings. Assemblyman Braunlin said she concurred with Mr. Nolan and Mr. Bennett and believed a stronger intergovernmental relations program was needed in order for legislative resolutions to accomplish their purpose. Mr. Hettrick advised letters were drafted to accompany resolutions passed by the legislature and attempts would be made to encourage Nevada's representatives in Washington to act on those resolutions. Chairman Lambert invited Mr. Hettrick to testify regarding Assembly Joint Resolution 5 and/or Assembly Bill 17 at this time. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5 - Urges Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to continue to carry out its current plans and to expand further its efforts to emphasize implementation of those plans and other plans and projects which enhance environmental quality of Lake Tahoe Basin. Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, District 39, testified. Mr. Hettrick suggested the salient points of A.J.R. No. 5 were contained in lines 21 through 23, on page 1, of A.J.R. 5 ,which lines he read to the committee. Mr. Hettrick pointed out representatives of TRPA were present at those interim study hearings which resulted in A.J.R. 2 and A.J.R. 5 and understood the purpose of those resolutions was to encourage TRPA to simplify its procedures and implement existing regulations. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 17 - Makes appropriations for establishment and operation of program to provide for preparation and implementation of plans for protection and development of Lake Tahoe Basin by all interested participants. Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, District 39, testified. He advised A.B. 17 was referred concurrently to both the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs and said the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs' objective was to determine whether or not the intent of A.B. 17 was an appropriate intent. Mr. Hettrick explained the circumstances which resulted in A.B. 17. He advised approximately seven years earlier, it was proposed each of the various counties which touch Lake Tahoe should establish a plan for the development of Lake Tahoe within that county. Mr. Hettrick stated Douglas County worked on its development plan for approximately seven years. He indicated not everyone concerned participated in the planning process. He advised when TRPA passed Douglas County's development plan, TRPA was sued for doing so by some of those who had not participated in the planning process. Mr. Hettrick explained the intent of A.B. 17 was to encourage a partnership approach in which everyone "...who is a player..." at Lake Tahoe would attempt to participate in, and would have some reason for participating in, preparation of a development plan upon which everyone could agree. He suggested such an approach would save TRPA money, would speed up the process of arriving at a development plan and would cause those concerned to work together rather than to work in an adversarial manner. Mr. Hettrick said it was suggested those working on the development plan utilize prior accomplishments, such as establishment of various entities to deal with transportation, tourism and economic development. Mr. Hettrick explained although $120,000 was requested to fund TRPA, A.B. 17 provided said funds be paid in increments of $30,000 every six months, with payment being predicated upon TRPA having reported its progress during the previous six months to the Interim Finance Committee and the Interim Finance Committee's being satisfied with TRPA's progress. He suggested if the Interim Finance Committee was not satisfied with TRPA's progress, the Interim Finance Committee could withhold payment. Mr. Hettrick said although the sum involved sounded like a small amount of money, it was a very significant amount to TRPA. Assemblyman Ernaut commented funding being discussed was over and above TRPA's regular appropriation from the general fund and stated he had a philosophical problem with the legislature's granting a subsequent appropriation for a task which was purely administrative and which should already be being done. Mr. Ernaut said A.B. 17 appeared to make provisions for those things which TRPA was supposed to have been doing from its inception. Mr. Ernaut questioned what TRPA did with those monies presently appropriated for its use and indicated he did not understand why it was necessary the legislature pass A.B. 17. Chairman Lambert asked how much money was withheld from Nevada's contribution to TRPA's budget during the last biennium. Mr. Hettrick said California paid significantly less than it was supposed to pay (to TRPA) and explained Nevada was required to match funds provided to TRPA by California on a one-half basis, resulting in California paying two-thirds of the funds provided TRPA and Nevada paying one-third. He said California cut its appropriation to TRPA and Nevada then cut its appropriation "...to match..." Mr. Jim Dana, Finance Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, testified. He said in fiscal year 1993-1994, $45,500 was withheld from TRPA and in fiscal year 1994-1995, $70,250 was withheld. Mr. Hettrick gave further testimony. He said he did not disagree A.B. 17 dealt with the task TRPA should already be doing but declared TRPA had been deprived of funds with which to accomplish said task. He indicated A.B.17's purpose was not only to assist TRPA in accomplishing its task but also to establish conditions for such assistance which would make TRPA more accountable to the legislature. Mr. Hettrick advised funds were appropriated for TRPA's use by the Interim Finance Committee, in the period between the last legislative session and the current legislative session. He said when those funds were appropriated, it was commented unless California provided its share of funding for TRPA, the committee would take a hard look at whether or not to include funds provided TRPA during the interim in the appropriation of funds for TRPA for the upcoming biennium. Mr. Bennett said he had serious concerns regarding A.B. 17. He asked, rhetorically, how many man-hours and how many dollars of the $30,000 per quarter were spent merely to justify TRPA's existence. Mr. Hettrick suggested the issue was whether TRPA was to justify itself every two years or every six months and posed the question, "Would you rather have the reins to pull it in in six months or do you want to wait two years?" He declared it was up to the legislature to demand TRPA both justify its need for funds and demonstrate it was providing a positive benefit in return for those funds. Mr. Hettrick contended every agency supported by government justified itself in one fashion or another and the issue was how often the agency was required to do so. Mr. Welden gave further testimony. He said he believed TRPA would ask for an adjustment in the mechanism of its reporting to the legislature and might ask it be allowed to report to the oversight committee (Legislative Committee to Continue Review of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency) rather than the Interim Finance Committee. Chairman Lambert reminded the committee "...it is our job to just pass judgment, if you will, on the public policy of the partnership approach and then send it on to Ways and Means and they deal with the budget aspect...". Mrs. Segerblom remarked, "...this was unanimous, and we sat through a lot of hearings. We went four times to Lake Tahoe and sat through a lot of hearings, and it was unanimous. Some of the resolutions were not unanimous, but we agreed on this. If you'd heard all the testimony, I'm sure you'd be more sympathetic to what's happening there." There being no further questions of Mr. Hettrick, Chairman Lambert directed the hearing on A.J.R. 2 be resumed. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2 - Urges Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to continue to simplify its operations and procedures and to encourage cooperation between persons interested in protecting environment of Lake Tahoe Basin Mr. Jim Baetge, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency testified. He declared TRPA supported A.J.R. 2 and stated TRPA took legislative resolutions very seriously. He said TRPA attempted to carry such resolutions forward to Nevada's congressional delegates. Mr. Baetge stated during the past three to four months, TRPA received total cooperation from cities and counties and expected to enter into memorandums of understanding with all such cities and counties, except Douglas County, by May. Chairman Lambert asked if TRPA's cooperating more completely with local governments, through memorandums of understanding, and passing on to local governments some of its duties, would free some of TRPA's staff to work on other objectives such as the partnership approach or implementation of plans. Mr. Baetge advised TRPA paid for staff with fees it received from issuing permits. He explained when TRPA delegated duties for issuing permits to local governments, all but a small portion of permit fees were then received by such local governments and TRPA then reduced its staff. He stated TRPA had reduced its staff by three members over the past year. Mr. Ernaut asked what happened to fines and permit fees levied by TRPA. Mr. Baetge replied when an application was made for a permit for a project there were several fees involved. He said one fee was for the permit itself, which fee paid for the staff who reviewed the permit. He explained fees were also paid which were applied to water quality mitigation and air quality mitigation accounts and were released from those accounts to cities and counties for specific purposes. He stated funds from fines and enforcement actions went into TRPA's budget. Mr. Ernaut advised the purpose of his question was to inform the committee there were mechanisms for funding TRPA other than general fund appropriations. Mr. Baetge stated when TRPA prepared its budget, the budget would reflect revenue sources. Mr. Steve Teshara, Executive Director, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance (hereinafter referred to as the Alliance), testified. He advised Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance supported A.J.R. 2. Mr. Ernaut asked if the Alliance fully supported all three resolutions and bills before the committee (A.J.R. 2, A.J.R. 5 and A.B. 17). Mr. Teshara replied affirmatively. Ms. Rochelle Nason, Executive Director, League to Save Lake Tahoe (hereinafter referred to as the League) testified. She stated the League supported A.J.R. 2. She said although the League had considerable reservations about some processes involved and local governments' abilities to effectively implement some aspects of project review in the Lake Tahoe Basin, the League felt the effort to streamline TRPA's efforts made much sense. She suggested if local governments assumed those responsibilities set forth in A.J.R. 2, it would allow TRPA to focus on other aspects of its mission, particularly achievement of some of its broader environmental goals. Mr. Bennett suggested a conflict existed between Ms. Nason's testimony and Mr. Baetge's testimony in that Mr. Baetge had testified local governments' assumption of responsibilities presently handled by TRPA would not free up TRPA's staff while Ms. Nason had testified it would allow TRPA to perform other tasks. Ms. Nason responded there was no real conflict in her testimony and Mr. Baetge's testimony. She said while local governments' assumption of responsibilities presently handled by TRPA would not free specific TRPA staff members to perform other duties, it would allow TRPA more freedom in focusing its attention. She suggested TRPA had become too focused on review of specific projects, which interfered with TRPA's other functions. She stated while memorandums of understanding (referred to in A.J.R. 2) did not free TRPA staff members to perform other functions, but instead caused TRPA to lose staff members, memorandums of understanding would allow TRPA staff in various levels to focus more closely on the more important issues with which TRPA dealt. Mr. George Finn testified. He declared he opposed all the resolutions presently before the committee (A.J.R. 2 and A.J.R. 5) on the ground TRPA itself was unconstitutional. Mr. Finn said, "But, I would like to make a correction of an impression that I left yesterday that I was opposed, essentially, to Mr. Ernaut's bill. I'm highly in favor of it. It is constitutional. But if you will read page 25 of the complaint that is filed in the district court, it establishes conclusively that if the Ernaut bill were adopted under the circumstances that exist between the two states, it would create a new state. I'm not opposed to that." Chairman Lambert advised Mr. Finn he was welcome before the committee but Mr. Ernaut's bill was not being considered by the committee at this meeting. She explained the committee was conducting a hearing on A.J.R. 2 and asked Mr. Finn to limit his testimony at this time to A.J.R. 2. She told Mr. Finn he would be welcome to testify concerning Mr. Ernaut's bill at such time as it was before the committee. Mr. Finn declared he would oppose "...all the behaviors.." which would perpetuate TRPA and "...the unconstitutional compact." Mr. Ernaut suggested he meet personally with Mr. Finn to discuss Mr. Finn's concerns. Mr. Finn responded such a meeting would be most appropriate. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.J.R. 2. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5 - Urges Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to continue to carry out its current plans and to expand further its efforts to emphasize implementation of those plans and other plans and projects which enhance environmental quality of Lake Tahoe Basin. Mr. Jim Baetge, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, testified. He stated the Agency supported A.J.R. 5, the purpose of which he suggested was to allow implementation of TRPA's plans. He indicated many positive things were happening at Lake Tahoe in terms of projects and offered to provide more information regarding those things should the committee so desire. Mr. Steve Teshara, Executive Director, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance, testified. He declared the Alliance supported A.J.R. 5. Ms. Rochelle Nason, Executive Director, League to Save Lake Tahoe, testified. She said the League supported A.J.R. 5. She stated many of the plans set forth in A.J.R. 5 were extremely important and the League desired to see progress in implementation of those plans. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.J.R. 5. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 17 - Makes appropriations for establishment and operation of program to provide for preparation and implementation of plans for protection and development of Lake Tahoe Basin by all interested participants. Mr. Jim Baetge, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, testified. Mr. Baetge cited a project which involved a portion of Highway 28, between Spooner Summit and Incline, and which dealt with erosion control, overlaying of pavement, creating bicycle facilities and resolving parking problems as an example of the type of partnership project on which TRPA expended funds. He advised a partnership group, entitled "Team Tahoe" and led by Kay Bennett, a Carson City supervisor, had been established and met on a monthly basis to discuss this project. Mr. Baetge said the question arose why TRPA could not accomplish the objectives discussed in A.B. 17 utilizing its current budget. He advised TRPA's budget had been cut dramatically over the previous few years. He explained TRPA performed many functions, and he suggested the monies proposed to be provided to TRPA pursuant to A.B. 17 would permit TRPA to perform additional functions beyond mere "housekeeping chores." Mr. Baetge declared TRPA supported A.B. 17. Mr. Ernaut said it appeared the major portion of cuts made in TRPA's budget resulted from cuts made in California's funding of TRPA and not Nevada's funding. He declared Nevada's funding of TRPA had increased in each fiscal year with the exception of the fiscal year just passed. He stated it was not Nevada's responsibility to restore funds to TRPA's budget which were removed by California's actions. Mr. Ernaut said he was uncertain he could separate, philosophically, public policy from money involved. Mr. Ernaut advised he saw nothing in A.B. 17 which created a supplement to TRPA's existing mission. Mr. Baetge responded Mr. Ernaut was correct in observing it was those cuts in TRPA's budget made by California which caused TRPA's role to be decreased. He said, however, when California made cuts in TRPA's budget, Nevada withheld funds from TRPA and it was funds withheld by Nevada which were being discussed. Mr. Baetge referred to a table summarizing contributions to TRPA made by California and by Nevada set forth on page 12 of the "Continued Review of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency" (Exhibit C, a complete copy of which may be viewed at the Legislative Counsel Bureau's Research Library). He said the table reflected in the late 1970's, Nevada contributed more to TRPA than California contributed, but he pointed out California made a substantial contribution during the period 1983 through 1987. He suggested contributions to TRPA by California and Nevada had not always been equitable but said over the past few years contributions by the two states had been on a 2/3 to 1/3 basis. He indicated he hoped the current situation involving cuts to TRPA's budget by California would be a short term situation and would not, of itself, stop the partnership approach. Mr. Baetge said a major criticism of TRPA concerned its wetlands restoration program. He referred to loss of water clarity in Lake Tahoe, which he indicated exceeded one foot per year over the past 25 to 30 years, and declared wetlands restoration was one of the most important things TRPA could accomplish in the Tahoe Basin. He advised due to interim financing, TRPA had been able, during the past year, to assign a staff member, on a nearly full time basis, to the task of obtaining "capital monies" for wetlands restoration. Mr. Baetge expressed the hope TRPA would be able to show progress in its wetlands restorations program when the agency made its six-months reports to the legislature as required by A.B. 17. Mr. Harrington asked how long TRPA had been in existence. Mr. Baetge advised TRPA had existed since 1969. Mr. Harrington asked how many projects TRPA had completed and implemented which were functioning at this time. Mr. Baetge indicated it was more difficult to advise the number of projects completed by TRPA than the amount of money expended on capital improvements in the Tahoe Basin, which amount he stated was approximately $79 million or $80 million. Mr. Harrington asked, of those things TRPA had accomplished with its expenditure of $80 million, which were the three greatest accomplishments. Mr. Baetge responded the wetlands restoration, erosion control and purchase programs were TRPA's three greatest accomplishments. He explained along Emerald Bay Road, nearly all erosion had been controlled, sediment basins collected nutrients before those nutrients could reach Lake Tahoe and the entire area was well protected. Mr. Harrington asked if Mr. Baetge felt benefits achieved in the area of Emerald Bay Road were worth the $80 million dollars TRPA had expended. Mr. Baetge said TRPA was attempting to better evaluate erosion control projects in terms of the benefits to Lake Tahoe and indicated he believed there was a benefit to Lake Tahoe. Mr. Ernaut asked, with respect to proposed quarterly progress reports by TRPA to the legislature, what percent of supplemental funds to be allocated to TRPA would be required solely for the purpose of providing those progress reports. Mr. Baetge indicated he was unable to give a direct answer to Mr. Ernaut's question. He said TRPA intended to request a more streamlined reporting process than the process involved in reporting to the Interim Finance Committee. Mr. Ernaut asked how many man-hours were required to prepare and submit a report by TRPA. Mr. Baetge replied one day would be required to give testimony before a committee and two days would be required to prepare a summary report of TRPA's progress. Mr. Ernaut again asked how many man-hours would be required for a report by TRPA to the legislature. Mr. Baetge said he guessed 30 to 40 man-hours would be required to prepare such a report. Mr. Nolan pointed out TRPA's organizational chart (contained in Exhibit C) provided no information as to the number of people employed in positions subordinate to Mr. Baetge or as to the departments in which such people were employed. He suggested TRPA might include such information in future organizational charts. He asked what division of TRPA was responsible for issuing permits. Mr. Baetge responded TRPA's Project Review Division was responsible for issuing permits. Mr. Nolan asked how many of TRPA's staff were involved in issuing permits. Mr. Baetge replied either eight or nine staff members were involved in issuing permits. Mr. Nolan asked if, pursuant to the provisions of A.B. 17, TRPA delegated to local governments responsibility for issuing permits, would TRPA have no flexibility in the manner in which it utilized those staff members presently involved in issuing permits. Mr. Baetge indicated if the function of issuing permits was delegated to local governments, TRPA would have some flexibility in its use of those members of its staff previously utilized in issuing permits, but explained TRPA would retain a portion of the responsibility for issuing permits as TRPA was required to oversee issuing of permits and report to its board. Mr. Ernaut referred to Mr. Baetge's prior testimony regarding capital expenditures for wetlands projects and asked what benefit $30,000 would provide TRPA in terms of capital improvements at Lake Tahoe. Mr. Baetge replied $30,000 would be used to ",,,fund a staff person - which is what we're doing this year- in order to pull together all the players to determine where these money sources are and how we can get them." Mr. Ernaut asked how much help TRPA received from other agencies in funding capital projects for wetlands restoration. Mr. Baetge replied other agencies did assist TRPA in funding capital projects. Mr. Ernaut referred to page 2, lines 43 through 45, of A.B. 17 and asked of Mr. Welden if it was his understanding A.B. 17 would usurp authority of the Board of Examiners and grant that authority to the Interim Finance Committee. Mr.Welden responded when A.B. 17 was drafted, an effort was made to provide for TRPA to report directly to the Interim Finance Committee rather than to the Board of Examiners but there was a question regarding the process of such reporting. Mr. Ernaut asked, "Is that somewhat of an unprecedented move...?" Mr. Welden replied it was unprecedented for money to be withheld (from an agency) pending a report, however, there were agencies required to report their progress directly to the Interim Finance Committee. He said in a prior legislative session, a bill was passed which appropriated a special amount of money, similar to the appropriation provided by A.B. 17, and required TRPA to report, semiannually, to the oversight committee which committee then reported to the Interim Finance Committee. Mr. Ernaut asked if Mr. Welden felt comfortable with such a reporting process. Mr. Welden replied he had no problem, as an administrator, with a reporting process which required an agency to make progress reports to the Interim Finance Committee on a semiannual basis. He suggested, however, such a process might create problems for an administrator of an agency who must advise prospective employees their jobs would be in jeopardy each six months because the administrator must then seek funding to pay such employees. He said TRPA had several funding sources and could move employee positions from one funding source to another when necessary. Mr. Welden indicated if the responsibility for creating the reporting procedure to be followed by TRPA was his, he would choose the option of having TRPA report to the oversight committee and advise the Interim Finance Committee, by letter, of any problems. Chairman Lambert referred to the past reports Mr. Welden cited and asked if any appropriations were contingent on those reports being successful. Mr. Welden replied they were not. Mr. Harrington asked Mr. Baetge how many acres or square miles of wetlands had been restored. Mr. Baetge explained TRPA evaluated wetland restoration every five years and advised the last good evaluation by TRPA was made in 1991. He said approximately 100 to 115 acres of wetlands had been restored. He stated TRPA's goal was to restore 1100 acres of wetlands. Mr. Harrington asked how many square miles or how many acres of erosion control had TRPA completed. Mr. Baetge said he could not answer Mr. Harrington's question but would be glad to ascertain the information and provide it to the committee. Before calling for additional testimony, Chairman Lambert recognized former assemblymen Mr. Dave Nicholas and Mr. Val Garner, present at the meeting. Testimony on A.B. 17 resumed. Mr. Steve Teshara, Executive Director, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance, testified. He said recognition of the partnership approach represented a major change in TRPA's way of doing business. He advised he spent an increasing amount of time working on partnership programs with TRPA and others in the Tahoe Basin region and he knew staff members of many private organizations were also spending more time in working on partnership agreements. He said (in addition to funds from Nevada) funds also came from California in recognition of the public-private partnerships. He stated California provided funds for the establishment and on-going operations of two transportation management associations (TMAs) at Lake Tahoe, those being the Truckee-North Tahoe TMA and the South Shore TMA. He declared over a period of four to five years, California would contribute $165,000, in the form of seed grants, for the establishment and operation of those TMAs and said remaining funds needed for those purposes would come from the private sector and public agency commitments. He stated those TMAs were the only ones, of the 55 TMAs in California, for which California permitted funds contributed by California to be used on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe. Mr. Teshara declared thus far, at the state level, Nevada had contributed nothing to either of those TMAs, although local governments and agencies in Nevada did contribute. Mr. Teshara stated he believed partnership agreements to be good public policy and suggested such agreements allowed TRPA to more efficiently utilize its existing staff. Chairman Lambert asked whether Mr. Teshara foresaw some of the funds allocated by A.B. 17 would be required for mediators. Mr. Teshara acknowledged the possibility of a need for mediators. Mr. Teshara said he found a statement made by Mr. Baetge to be particularly compelling. He explained Mr. Baetge said TRPA's "thresholds" were not TRPA's per se but rather were those of the basin and therefore were "ours." He stated the partnership approach, working together in a community effort to establish environmental protections and enhancements at Lake Tahoe, emphasized Mr. Baetge's point. Mr. Teshara spoke of the importance of the environment at Lake Tahoe to the gaming industry, suggesting it was the environment which provided a difference between gaming at Lake Tahoe and gaming at other locations. He stated to preserve its competitive edge in the gaming industry and its ability to generate funds to the State of Nevada, the Alliance was working with TRPA to protect and enhance the environment and Lake Tahoe. Mr. Nolan asked Mr. Teshara to describe the typical relationship a casino had with TRPA regarding permits, licenses, authorization and similar matters. Mr. Teshara explained the gaming industry interacted with TRPA with respect to permits required for exterior modification to casino properties, such as modifications to signs, or external projects, such as parking garages or modifications to parking facilities, urban run-off projects or water quality products. He advised the gaming industry also interacted with TRPA with regard to permits related to projects developed as part of a community plan. Mr. Teshara explained TRPA had no authorization over gaming permits and licenses but the gaming industry was required to interact with TRPA with respect to those things the gaming industry did which affected the environment at Lake Tahoe. Mr. Nolan asked if any new casino projects were planned or under development. Mr. Teshara responded there were "...no new casinos per se..." but indicated there were projects under way to change or enhance existing properties. Mr. Bennett asked how permits for capital improvements to gaming properties were handled prior to the existence of TRPA. Mr. Teshara replied such permits were handled by local governmental entities prior to TRPA's existence. Mr. Bennett asked if Mr. Teshara considered working under a two state compact an improvement over working solely with local governmental entities. Mr. Teshara explained the Alliance worked both under the two state compact and with local governmental agencies and indicated he could not respond to Mr. Bennett's question with either "yes" or "no." Mr. Harrington asked what Mr. Teshara felt would be the effect on Lake Tahoe and the lake environment if the legislature eliminated TRPA. Mr. Teshara responded he believed there would be some detriment to Lake Tahoe and the lake environment due to the fact there would be a long period of confusion while another method of dealing with regional issues was developed. He suggested in the period of time since TRPA was first established, local governments and the business industry had gained greater understanding of the need for environmental controls and local governments and the business industry would be more responsive to that need than they were in the 1960's. He indicated, however, he did not think TRPA would cease to exist. Mr. Harrington asked if Mr. Teshara viewed TRPA as a help to the Alliance or merely another bureaucratic level with which the Alliance had to deal. Mr. Teshara answered the Alliance had concerns about aspects of the process (of dealing with TRPA) which the Alliance considered burdensome and said a lot of time was spent in working with TRPA in an attempt to overcome those burdensome aspects. He said the solution was not to do away with TRPA but, rather, to attempt to work with TRPA to streamline and simplify the process. He stated because of pressures on TRPA from the legislature, from California, from TRPA's constituencies and, to some degree, from the federal government to make greater progress in accomplishing its objectives, TRPA was greatly motivated to work together with the business industry to accomplish objectives it was mandated to accomplish. Ms. Rochelle Nason, Executive Director, League to Save Lake Tahoe (hereinafter referred to as the League), testified. She expressed the hope the committee shared the League's positive feelings about the fact the regulatory agency, primary industry and primary environmental group of the Lake Tahoe region were in agreement on basic principles regarding protecting the environment while encouraging the economy. She contended the ability of those entities to agree on many things was due, in large part, to the partnership process, a process in which industry, environmentalists and regulators came together in an effort to resolve problems. She stated the partnership process consumed much time and many resources but the League was very committed to that process. Ms. Nason suggested without action participation by TRPA, the partnership process would be severely crippled. Ms. Nason described how ineffective attempts to obtain a federal commitment to assist in achieving water quality goals had been in the past, when many different entities and agencies in the Lake Tahoe Basin pursued separate agendas in attempting to obtain such commitment. She then described the progress made in obtaining federal assistance for a particular project when those various entities worked together in a consensus building process. She advised during the current year, under the leadership of TRPA, the consensus building process was being expanded. Ms. Nason referred to an earlier question by Mr. Ernaut and expressed the opinion the $30,000 funding for TRPA provided by A.B. 17 would make it possible for TRPA to provide "...the umbrella for the rest of us to work together to make these things happen..." Ms. Nason stated the League strongly supported A.B. 17. Mr. George Finn testified. He declared TRPA was unconstitutional and contended its unconstitutionality could not be remedied by a legislative resolution. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 17. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Lambert adjourned the meeting at 9:40 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Sara Kaufman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs January 24, 1995 Page