MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session January 25, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Wednesday, January 25, 1995, Chairman Joan A. 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 COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman, Excused Mr. Wendell P. Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Tashara, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance Gordon DePaoli, Park Cattle Co. Pam Drum, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Marvin Tebeau, Resource Concept Inc. J. Johnson, Toiyabe Sierra Club. Chairman Lambert called meeting to order. Roll call taken. Chairman Lambert asked Mr. Welden if he had any information for the committee before Mr. Hettrick was able to come. Mr. Fred Welden of the Research Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, was asked by a couple of members to provide them with some information that they thought would be valuable to the committee. He also stated that by law a staff person for the counsel bureau cannot advocate passage or denial of a bill. He stated that as a staff person to an interim study, there were a couple of items in the report that appeared to be relevant to the discussion issues. He stated that the information would probably appear to advocate a position. Chairman Lambert stated that the information would be taken from the interim study and not from Mr. Welden personally. Mr. Welden was asked by Mrs. de Braga for a listing of the number of staff people per division in the TRPA in their organizational structure. It was provided as a handout, (Exhibit C). It showed the number of staff people in each division. He said it might be relevant to the people that might be changing positions because of shifting of some of the funding from local government. Mr. Welden told of a discussion of the TRPA governing board structure. Assembly Joint Resolution 1 asked Congress to approve a change in that structure. Mr. Welden, when discussing this resolution, did not explain the existing structure or what had been proposed. Mr. Welden referred to the handout, page three, third paragraph down, which explains the structure of the governing board now and as proposed in the by-state amendments. Structure currently consists of three representatives of local governments, on the Nevada side. All three counties have a representative on the Board. The Governor has one appointee, the Secretary of State sits on the Board, the director of Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and the seventh person is picked by the other six. It is a person at large who is the seventh person. The proposed new structure would retain the three local government representatives, one from each county, two Governor appointees, one appointee of the Speaker of the Assembly and one appointee of the Majority Leader of the Senate, making seven members. The similarities Mr. Welden discussed are that three local government people stay the same, the Governor gets two appointees, rather than one appointee and the seventh member at large and each house of the legislature will add one person from each side. Chairman Lambert thanked Mr. Welden. Mr. Welden discussed page 15 of (Exhibit C) , wherein money for the partnership approach is primarily a Ways and Means function, discussion on the two states contributions. He referred to chart on page 15, (Exhibit C) that indicated and showed for special projects, California has contributed over $2 million that has not been matched by Nevada money in recent years. He stated that was one reason that the proposal was put in as a special project from Nevada. Mr. Welden then thanked the committee. Chairman Lambert recognized Speaker Hettrick and notified the committee that the bills would be taken out of order, A.B. 12 first to be heard to accommodate Speaker Hettrick's schedule. A.B. 12 - Provides for construction of storm sewer project within Lake Tahoe Basin Speaker Hettrick then thanked the Chairman and greeted the Committee. Speaker Hettrick discussed line 15 of the bill. ....A draft of an "Agreement Concerning Design, Permitting, Construction, Operation, Maintenance and Repair of the Stateline Area Storm System" has been presented to all participants for their review...; he stated that this has been an ongoing project and due to various agency releases and permissions, has drawn on a long time. The present situation is that there is an agreement and all parties are looking at the agreement and he encouraged the parties to finish the agreement and do the work. He quoted Line 14, of page two of A.B. 12: "While this says that Douglas County has to construct the system and so on, because it is in Douglas County, it also stated that the Board of County Commissioners, Douglas County is not required to comply with the provisions of this if before October 1, 1995 they are satisfied that the participants are going to proceed with the agreement or some form of an agreement and that project will proceed. He felt that the interim committee put out a Bill request indicating that this is important and that it needs to be moved forward and hoped that the participants will do it by themselves before October 1, 1995. If not, and the Douglas County Commissioners are not satisfied that it will occur, it is important that this project be moved forward. Chairman Lambert thanked Speaker Hettrick and asked for any questions. There were none. Chairman Lambert asked if Speaker Hettrick would like to talk about Assemby Joint Resolution. 9. He agreed. Speaker Hettrick discussed the problems facing the Lake Tahoe Basin, the thresholds and standards set and said they were working on getting those standards met. He then referred to Line 17 of A.J.R. 9, asking it to be read through line 20. He stated that if Tahoe could get full mail delivery, it would save 57,000 vehicle miles traveled a year in the Tahoe Basin. It would reduce pollution and congestion. He further explained, many places mail delivery is not done. The home owner and businessman are making daily trips to collect mail. There have been various studies done showing that air pollution would be reduced if the Federal Government would deliver the mail. The same rates are paid in the Tahoe Basin as well as the rest of country, wherein they are getting their mail delivered. The Federal Government has chosen not to deliver in the Tahoe Basin. He feels that it would be very helpful if the Federal Government would initial full mail delivery in the basin. Chairman Lambert called upon Mr. Ernaut. Mr. Ernaut stated that he had sent out mailers in the Lake Tahoe Basin, having a large number of them returned. He stated that there were numerous other problems with not having mail delivery. Speaker Hettrick spoke up and made a comment regarding campaigning in the Lake Tahoe Basin, that most of it is done at the post office. Chairman Lambert then called upon Mr. Nolan. Mr. Nolan expressed that the air standards are federal and are the most stringent that communities are trying to comply with. Speaker Hettrick replied that the thresholds are more stringent in the Tahoe Basin and they are more difficult to obtain. Chairman Lambert recognized Mr. Neighbors. Mr. Neighbors asked for the population of Lake Tahoe Basin. Speaker Hettrick replied that it was approximately 52,000 that are permanent residents. There is very little fluctuation, since TRPA limited building. Chairman Lambert recognized Mr. Ernaut. Mr. Ernaut added that there is a huge influx in population during the summer due to seasonal living. Chairman Lambert recognized Mrs. Tripple. Mrs. Tripple questioned as to the delivery of mail to the home or to banks of boxes. Mr. Hettrick replied that what ever they would prefer to do as long as the delivery was made so that the public would not have to travel. Mrs. Tripple stated that having delivery to the home would be a way of making contact to the elderly. Mr. Hettrick stated that may be of some benefit. He explained that there are many people that are there seasonally, and that mail does pile up. And this causes problems for the post office. Chairman Lambert thanked Mr. Hettrick and he was excused. Chairman Lambert asked that they return to discussion on A.B. 12. She asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in behalf of A.B. 12. With no response, she recognized two people in opposition. Mr. Steve Teshara of the Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance stated that six of his member properties were involved in this particular project. He then introduced Mr. Marvin Tebeau, Resource Concepts, and Mr. Gordon Depaoli, legal counsel for Park Cattle; Park Cattle being one of the lead properties, the major land owner in Stateline and having other holdings. They serve as the lead private proponent of this project. He offered a brief overview of the technical project and the administrative end of the project. He stated they are united in opposition to the Bill and feel that it is unnecessary. He asked for permission to proceed. Chairman Lambert agreed. Marvin Tebeau, of Resource Concepts, Carson City, was then introduced. Mr. Tebeau stated his name and said he was involved in preparing the technical aspects of this project. He stated that originally, this was primarily a private initiative implemented by Park Cattle Company, and embraced by other casinos in the Tahoe Basin. He then gave a handout, (Exhibit D). He went on to say that over the years they went through several alternative investigations as to what was required in order to meet not only Nevada's division of Environmental Protection discharge standards, but also the 208 plan, and what was the design criteria that these clubs in private as well as the public entities would have to implement. He further added that there is a 150 acre area which is intensely developed with overlapping uses of utilities, improvements that have been installed over the years. They have had to develop a plan that would allow for the use of the improvements in order to minimize the burden to the property owners when they had to install new infrastructure to meet the standards. He referred to a report called Stateline Storm Water Control Plan, which is presently in draft form. All properties, First Interstate Bank, Douglas County, and Nevada Department Of Transportation have been involved. They have embraced a regional plan, and verbal and written correspondence shows they are interested. They are looking at collection, pre-treatment and transfer of storm water. One of the bigger problems that they faced was the transportation of storm water across private and public land utilizing existing infrastructure so that new building can be avoided. Storm water would be stored in the golf course ponds, it would be irrigated on the golf course in the summer, which lets no surface discharge into Lake Tahoe. In winter the water would be stored to the extent possible for maximum treatment from the ponds; if necessary, discharge into Edgewood Creek and then eventually Lake Tahoe. The golf course ponds demonstrate a tremendous ability to remove sediment from the highway. Ten thousand cubic yards of sediment in the larger ponds have accumulated. The ponds have done a marvelous job of protecting the Lake. He further added that infiltration of the groundwater was not functional. They have looked at water quality monitoring, wherein each property owner would be monitoring the water that they collect and pre-treat before it leaves their property. The property owners want to be able to only pay for their fair share and be responsible for their own activities they undertake and without that agreement among them, they would not have proceeded as far as they have today. Mr. Tebeau next discussed the administration implementation agreement. Mr. Gordon Depaoli, counsel for Park Cattle Company,discussed his concerns and the procedure outline for the Storm Water Project. His idea is a system that would manage storm water for a number of properties, including Douglas County. The draft agreement, which involves all the parties and which all have reviewed, has many important details. What kind of organization will be finalized in terms of operating and maintaining the system. Who will be involved and how it will be managed. The agreement provides that the preceding will yet be determined. The idea will be to achieve the goals of the agreement and achieve them without unnecessary liability and expense to the parties. He stated that in 1988 a chemical spill happened in a loading dock wherein it was washed into a storm drain which drained into Lake Tahoe. Luckily it was taken care of, unfortunately it resulted in a great deal of expense. He went on to add that part of this would involve monitoring and spill plans for all properties including the highways. Liability was stated as a concern for all parties. Chairman Lambert questioned Mr. Depaoli if he had looked into a general improvement district for liability immunity. Mr. Depaoli said they had considered it to hold the permits for this system. He added that each property would be responsible for the operation, maintenance, collection and pre-treatment and transport of the storm water collected on their individual properties. Each of the parties, excluding the highways, presently has a system in place dealing with the collection and pretreatment of storm water in their parking lots. They are maintained by the individual properties. Some of the systems will be changed to a certain extent. The properties have to have the ability and flexibility to operate and maintain that part of the system on their own. Chairman Lambert interrupted, recognizing Mr. Nolan. Mr. Nolan chose to refrain his question until after Mr. Depaoli had finished his testimony. Mr. Depaoli commented on the common transport line, and the management thereof. Financing and user fees are sensitive areas due to everyone having their own individual system and not sharing in total all the facilities, the effort has been made to develop a system to finance the construction of those things that would be fair to all properties based on what is needed to serve them. He stated that the charges for the common facilities will be based upon the impervious coverage that each property has and which contributes storm water runoff to the overall facility. He stated that another concern to all participants is that each user of the system be required to monitor any discharge from their property to a common facility. Mr. Depaoli's concern for the legislation as written is that it essentially states that if the agreement is not executed by a certain date, then Douglas County is required to construct, operate and maintain this project. He stated that taken literally, then Douglas County would have to install monitor and maintain these facilities. He said that he did not know how Douglas County could come in and handle that type of operation at the golf course area. He felt that if the agreement was not executed it is going to be a result of some problem with this kind of system and the ability of this kind of system to do the job we want it to do. He further added that this Bill does not give any consideration to the reasons that there may not be an agreement. Simply saying that if the Agreement is not in place irrespective of the reasons that Douglas County should build, maintain and operate is not the way to go. His reasoning behind this was that they circulated the draft agreement among all the participants. The sent letters to all participants outlining the areas which need further discussion. He asked to coordinate a meeting of all concerned to go over those particular areas which, in his judgment, were not significant, and assuming everyone is in agreement we will be moving forward with getting the agreement finalized. TRPA has been inserting environmental documentation that is going to be required for this project. TRPA believes that an environmental assessment will be needed. Douglas County has solicited proposals on getting a company to do the environmental documentation. He then asked Steve Tashara to explain recent action that Douglas County Commission took. He finished up by saying that the golf course water hazards has functioned not only presently for this particular area, but functioned as a silt sediment area for areas that are not part of this particular system. He then elaborated on the fall stream environment zone restoration project which will be a great assistance to the project at hand. This will function as a filtration system for treating water before it enters Lake Tahoe. In spring, sediment will be cleaned from the #10 pond and will increase the volume of the pond which will handle the increased storm water. Cleaning other ponds will also be beneficial to the treatment plan. Mr. Tashara discussed Douglas County Board of Commissioners approval of funds from local source from a major Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. (I.S.T.E.A.) grant. This was supported by all the participants. He said they were successful in getting the money from the federal government. He added that another strong motivation for Stateline is that this project is considered as an irrevocable commitment. We must address the water quality needs of the area, before access to any economic benefits, additional commercial floor area etc. Everyone is committed on moving forward. He then asked for any questions. Chairman Lambert asked for clarification on it being an ongoing project for 20 years. Was it a settlement of a lawsuit from the League to Save Lake Tahoe, and were some of these things a condition of approval for developments that exist, and are any true or half true? Mr. Welden responded in the negative to most. The League to Save lake Tahoe had written letters to the committee which did not have accurate information. There were a number of casino projects approved in the Lake Tahoe Basin in 1973 and those projects had to go to local government and then to the TRPA. If action was not taken by an affirmative dual majority vote under the compact, that was deemed "approval" of what was coming to it from the local entity . Mr. Welden said in 1973 Douglas County approved the Park Tahoe, which is now Caesars Tahoe and also approved Harvey's master plan which is the major addition to Harvey's. The condition of approval which was placed on both Park Tahoe and Harvey's in June of 1973 was that the applicant would exert reasonable effort to cause to be established, and will support and participate in a general improvement district under chapter 318 or under any public or private plan to accomplish the planning implementation and financing of a surface water collection treatment system to serve the areas within the boundaries of each district as determined by Douglas County. Both of the Hotel projects were approved he said. But in September of 1973 they were the subject of legal action, filed to prevent construction. As a result, those projects proceeded on different time schedules. Each of those projects developed their own storm water systems. When those projects were started they had to go back to TRPA and, in both instances made specific findings by majority vote that the condition of storm water had been satisfied. He went on to say that a number of things have happened which led to the interconnecting of Harvey's, Ceasars, and Horizon casino, to holding ponds on the golf course. They also encouraged Harrah's to be brought into the system. The next thing he stated was the possibility of spills not only on properties but on highways, could get into these systems and there being a need for a broader system and then finally the Douglas County Plan which brought together an area wide plan to cover all properties concerned. Mr. Welden stated that there is twenty years of effort to put this stormwater plan together for the Stateline area. Mr. Nolan asked Mr. Depaoli if he felt there was a conflict of interest in the governing organization which would be managing this project and managing the golf course. Mr. Depaoli replied that his concern is that the concept of the management of the project that the individual properties would construct, manage and operate and maintain the part of the system that is on their individual properties, that they would share in those responsibilities for some of the common transport facilities. And once the water arrives on the golf course, that the operator of the golf course would be responsible for operating and maintaining. He feels that it would be difficult for Douglas County to construct and maintain this entire system, including having to make judgments in utilizing the golf course water hazards. Mr. Nolan asked if the ponds are kept at a certain level and if it was controlled for flooding. Mr. Tebeau stated that new structures have been installed and ponds enlarged for extra storage of water. Storage will be for a twenty-four hour period before irrigation of the golf course occurs. In winter, the ponds would be lowered to have the ability to store two 20 year one hour events, attempting to store that water there through the entire winter then irrigate in the summer. If not, then a surface discharge would occur from both ponds. There is a one to two week residence time in the ponds. He felt that the ponds have an inate ability to remove sediment and nutrients from the system and that is what they are trying to enhance and maximize. The majority of the water from the clubs, Douglas County loop road and Highway 50 can gravitate to the ponds. Harvey's would be required to pump their water to their new transport pipe before it can gravitate to the ponds. Most of the properties will need to connect using some existing pipes. They are trying to accommodate each other in order to minimize the burden. Mr. Nolan asked to what level is the water pre-treated. And is their a standard for all to comply? Mr. Tebeau said that they have done an extensive study looking at what pre treatment devices are available. The devices they have identified require a certain storage capacity. He said they require 400 cubic feet of storage for every acre. The Horizon has already installed at least one of these pre-treatment devices on their property. It accommodates approximately 10,000 gallons. All of the clubs will be required to install pretreatment devices of this or a similar nature. All properties will be paying their fair share for the use of a common pipe. All this is discussed in the agreement. Chairman Lambert recognized Mr. Harrington. Mr. Harrington asked how many years have they been in agreement in trying to work this out? Would you say four or five? Mr. Depaoli stated that the systems in place now do function and meet the requirements at the time they were installed. The idea of connecting the hotel facilities to the water hazards on the golf course started in 1986 when Park Cattle Company sought TRPA permission to expand one of the ponds on the golf course to function both as a water hazard and as a part of the integration into the hotel systems. He stated that, that interconnection has been an obligation since 1986. Since, there has been strong encouragement from TRPA that Harrah's be brought into the system. This would require modification to both the golf course and the transport facilities. That part of it was not done, because of the involvement of Harrah's and First Interstate Bank. Mr. Harrington then asked how many years have all the parties been involved? How many years have you been working with everyone? Mr. Depaoli answered that they were involved with Harrah's in 1988 and started with the rest in 1991. Since that time they have entered into a memorandum of understanding in 1992. Mr. Harrington added that it seemed that quite a few years have expired and that the plan they have now sounds good. Government involvement should be avoided and that the government has shown sufficient patience over the years. It was agreed that something has to be done, and that if the private system does not do something, then the public system will have to do it. He stated that by October 1, 1995 you will have the agreement, and if they don't have the agreement, then the government will have to take over. Chairman Lambert recognized Mr. Ernaut. Mr. Ernaut stated that he basically wanted to know the answer to Mr. Harrington's question. Mr. Depaoli said his concern was that if there is not an agreement by October 1, 1995, there are reasons why there is no agreement. The bill does not take into account what those reasons might be. In his judgement, if there is no agreement, it will relate to reasons that have involved fundamental problems with this system. It seemed to him that it was not good policy to mandate to Douglas County that it go out and construct, operate and maintain a system that may not be the right system for the area. He emphasized that with the exception of the roads, each property has in place individual functioning storm water systems, that either have or have applied for NPDS permits issued by the Department of Environmental Protection, that have discharge and monitoring standards that they are required to meet. There is not an ongoing violation of law here. He stated that they are trying to make for a better system. Mr. Ernaut stated that they needed to make up their minds as to whether or not the system was needed. Mr Depaoli stated that the system was a good idea and beneficial. He said he was trying to distinguish between what is required by the legal standpoint versus what private parties be allowed to do if they can put it together. He stated as Mr. Teshara pointed out, it is clearly a requirement for the benefit of the Douglas County Community Plan. It is a requirement in the sense that the additional commercial area and other things in that plan are not going to be available unless it happens. If the parties want those things to happen, then this must happen. He states that his main concern was not to require a county to construct, operate and maintain something that might be very difficult for the county to do. Even if the parties decide to stay with their individual systems, which he felt will not happen, it will be very difficult for Douglas County to go in on a unified basis and operate a kind of system that they are talking about. Chairman Lambert recognized Mr. Ernaut. Mr. Ernaut stated that some of the people and players of Douglas County were catalyst to this coming. Most believe that this system is needed, and that sufficient time has been given to the private identities to come together. He felt that something should be achieved to satisfy the community. He felt that it is a tough precedent from a government standpoint to say that the private sector is not moving fast enough, but none the less, this is a project that benefits the entire basin, not just South Lake Tahoe, and not just the hotels and the golf course. He would like to see expedition of meetings and some of the regulatory functions. He felt that there has been too many years with nothing being done. Mr. Teshara replied that the private project proponents that are partners in this were asked recently to expand the system to accommodate Douglas County and the State of Nevada. He stated that the proponents from the private sector, agreed to spend some additional time designing a system to embrace the loop road and Hwy 50. There was not an existing infrastructure to allow those components of the system to be plugged in immediately. He felt here was additional time necessary to address the public. He felt that they now have an agreement between the parties that this needs to be expedited. The responsibility has been taken on by Mr. Teshara. Chairman Lambert recognized Mr. Ernaut. Mr. Ernaut asked Mr. Teshara what exactly is holding this project up? Mr. Teshara replied with that it is the number of players, and the complexity of the system both from a technical standpoint and having to do with the administrative details of liability and management once the system is constructed. Mr. Ernaut stated that it seemed that most projects involved at South Lake involves a lot of players and that is the reason given for every stall. That inherently makes the project undoable, because when all the properties get involved there are too many opinions, ending up in a stall. He added that hopefully this would be taken into consideration and will not fall into that category. Mr. Teshara replied that the partnership approach will hopefully lead to a rapid conclusion. Chairman Lambert recognized Mrs. Segerblom. Mrs. Segerblom asked if the agreement needs to be changed? Mr. Depaoli answered "yes," the agreement will have to be changed based upon the comments he received from essentially all the parties. Mrs. Segerblom asked if they wished to change that 1995 date ? Mr. Depaoli said the date is not the problem. He suggested that if there is not an agreement there will be reasons that should be known before mandating building of a system. He said it has not been easy to get all the information and where things are going and where they are coming. When you involve government agencies that have a number of different people, it takes time. He felt that even with the agreement done by October 1, 1995 there is still the engineering and permitting to be done. Mrs. Segerblom mentioned that when they visited the area there was another development planned. Mr. Teshara answered that there was an amendment that included the golf course and a special area in the golf course on which the plan area statement allows for the possibility of a 250 hotel room conference center. He stated that land use change is also a condition upon this area wide system being constructed and put into operation. Mrs. Segerblom added that it was a good idea, because there should not be any more development until this system is added. Chairman Lambert recognized Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett asked if Douglas County has a plan. Mr. Tebeau answered yes, Douglas County has a plan to participate in this plan, as in collection, pre-treatment, transportation of the runoff from the loop road, which covers six to seven acres, to the #6 pond at the golf course and also that they have to meet the same pre-treatment requirements as the others do. Douglas County and NDOT have an agreement on how the I.S.T.E.A funds will be used to design and construct those improvements. One part would include the intersection of Hwy 50 and the loop road and who would be responsible for the maintenance of those agreements within that intersection. It is very complicated as to where the jurisdictions begin and stop. Mr. Bennett added that it was his understanding that Douglas County has a plan to treat seven and one half acres. Your plan, he understood, was to treat roughly 85 acres. Mr. Teshara responded that their area was included in the plan. Mr. Bennett stated that his concern was that this was being taken away from the individuals and given to Douglas County. In his opinion, this would be delaying things. He stated that he had a physics degree and had previously worked in water treatment. He also stated that he would love to see the plans and relate to the committee the technical aspects of it. He then asked if that would be agreeable. Mr. Teshara responded with a "yes". He further stated that one of the ideas all a long is that they are offering the best water treatment for the area. One of the ideas that they considered as a future item. Mr. Bennett then stated that if they get the government involved, that you are going to get some beaurocrat coming in, who will not look at minimum standards, but look at his maximum utopian idea of standards instead of have screening and sedimentation as a pre-treat, we are liable to be looking at hydracyclones and high speed centrifuges. With that he said he would like to get with Marvin at a later date and look at the technical aspects of the plan. Chairman Lambert recognized Mr. Nolan. Mr. Nolan asked since the county has accepted responsibility to manage this project, if they do not follow through, who then would be asked ? Mr. Depaoli answered that the county will not be managing this project. This project will have a board with a representative from each of the involved entities and it will be that board that will oversee the management of the project. He did not feel that Douglas County would do it or could do it. He really had no other solution at the present time. Mr. Nolan asked if Douglas County felt they could do it. Mr. Depaoli answered that he had not discussed with Douglas County any idea that they construct, operate, maintain and manage this entire system. That has never come up. He did not know if any Douglas County folks were even aware of this bill. Chairman Lambert recognized Mr. Harrington. Mr. Harrington asked who and what the assessments were, and how much. Chairman Lambert responded to Mr. Harrington that the district does not exist and they do not now how much the assessments would be. Mr. Harrington went ahead with second question as to the deadline of October 1, 1995; what deadline would you give yourselves if the government were to intervene. Mr. Depaoli said his concern was not the deadline but that government intervention would mandate the county to do something without knowing why this other approach is not working. Mr. Harrington stated that this could be an indefinite postponement, in other words a dead bill. The project already has gone 20 years. Mr. Teshara stated that the issue that is of concern, that if the county is mandated to come in, how are they going to access the golf course without a major set of agreements and contract with Park Cattle Company. That issue would probably take a year or more. Further, the date is not the problem but the physical mechanism of how the county would access the golf course and all the private properties. It would, in his judgment, push the project out further, which he stated they did not want to do. He felt the county could not do technically what the bill asked them to do. It could possibly ask them to do a system that would not work. He added that Douglas County does not have the staff nor the resources to undertake the overall management of a system of this nature. Chairman Lambert interrupted stating that by putting a district in place they could do whatever they needed to do. Mr. Teshara agreed with her. Chairman Lambert recognized Mrs. de Braga. Mrs. de Braga questioned if this same testimony was given at the interim Study Committee and whether or not Douglas County was represented or presented any position at that time. Mr. Depaoli stated that he recalled that there was no discussion of this bill during his attendance to the meetings. Mr. Tebeau responded that on many occasions a representative of Douglas County was present at the meetings but did not speak. I suspect that the County has not been informed of this nor are they aware that it is in draft form. Chairman Lambert recognized Pam Drum of the TRPA. Pam Drum expressed regrets on behalf of Jim Baetge, who was absent, due to another meeting in Kings Beach. She stated that the committee indulge their " no particular position on this A.B. 12." She felt it was time for this project to be completed, and that the partnership approach be applied and it will have a good effective project as a result. Chairman Lambert asked for questions. With no response, she then closed the public hearing on A. B. 12. Chairman Lambert asked Mr. Ernaut to meet with the meeting participants, Douglas County and Department of Transportation to work out some of the problems. A.J.R.9 Urges Congress and United Postal Service to provide for delivery of mail in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Chairman Lambert asked if anyone was there in support of A.J.R.9. Steve Teshara, on behalf of the Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance, strongly supports this resolution to deliver mail to homes. He hopes that utilization of this resolution will help efforts in Washington. He stated that there is a meeting scheduled on February 15, 1995 , in Washington with the Nevada delegation while the Tahoe contingent is in Washington. They will also be meeting with representatives of the Senate and the congressional level from California. He hopes to ask the Postal Service to implement home mail delivery in the Tahoe basin. It seems essential to meet the V M T (Vehicle Miles Traveled) reduction threshold of 10% off the base. He then thanked the committee. Chairman Lambert asked if the regional Postmaster had been informed and should this resolution be sent to them? Mr. Teshara agreed that it would be appropriate. Chairman Lambert asked if there was anyone else to speak in favor of A.J.R. 9. Pam Drum with TRPA stated that the home mail delivery program is the single most effective control measure that can be taken to reduce the vehicle miles traveled in the area. She would like to see more federal involvement in terms of "urging" the United States Postal Service to speed up its availability of home mail delivery in the Tahoe Basin. Regarding Line 20 of the bill, she stated that it should state 57,000 miles per day, not per year. Chairman Lambert thanked her for the correction and asked for other testimony in support of A.J.R. 9. Mr. Johnson of the Toiyabe Sierra Club wanted to go on record in support of A.J.R. 9. Hearing was then closed and meeting adjourned at 9:40 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ______________________________ Kelly Liston, Committee Secretary Approved By: ________________________ Douglas A. Bache ________________________ Joan A. Lambert Assembly Committee on Government Affairs January 25, 1995 Page