MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session January 26, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, January 26, 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 Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Excused GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Mr. Lynn Hettrick, District 39, Co-Speaker of the Assembly STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Jim Baetge, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; Mr. Carl Hasty Senior Planner and Water Quality Program Manager, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; Ms. Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; Mr. James Nakada, Supervisor, Nevada Tahoe Conservation District; Ms. Rochelle Nason, Executive Director, League to Save Lake Tahoe; Mr. Brian Wallace, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California; Ms. Kay Bennett, Governing Board, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; Ms. Susan E. Scholley, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; Mr. Fred Welden, Legislative Counsel Bureau (see also Exhibit B attached hereto). ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 13 - Requires submission of proposal to issue general obligation bonds to provide grants to local governments and department of transportation for projects for controlling erosion and restoring natural watercourses in Lake Tahoe Basin. Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, District 39, testified. He advised A. B. 13 resulted from an interim study conducted the previous year. He indicated much testimony was heard regarding need for projects to control erosion, particularly in regard to state highways which ran through the Lake Tahoe Basin (hereinafter referred to as the Basin). He explained A.B. No. 13 proposed a bond issue, which would be submitted to the voters. He proposed it fell to proponents of the bond issue to convince the general public it should agree to the state's selling bonds and using funds from such sales for erosion control projects in the Basin. Mr. Hettrick referred to Section 1 of A. B. 13, specifically the language "...provide grants to local governments and the department of transportation..." He advised, where erosion control problems existed, it would be incumbent on local governments to develop erosion control projects, obtain bids on those projects and request funds to develop those projects. Assemblyman Segerblom observed the last bond issue to raise funds for Lake Tahoe was passed, even in Clark County. Mr. Hettrick said Mrs. Seberblom was correct. Chairman Lambert asked if those bonds which were the subject of A.B. 13 would be "...outside the debt limit because they're preserving natural resources..." Mr. Hettrick said he understood they would be. Chairman Lambert interrupted the hearing on A.B. 13 to allow Mr. Hettrick to testify on Assembly Bill No. 11. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 11 - Requires administrator of division of state lands of state department of conservation and natural resources to offer for sale certain rights to develop real property in Lake Tahoe Basin. Assemblyman Hettrick, District 39, testified. Mr. Hettrick provided the committee copies of a memorandum from Mr. Steve Teshara of the Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance (hereinafter referred to as the Alliance) to Chairman Lambert (Exhibit C). He said the Alliance fully supported both A.B. 13 and A. B. 11. Mr. Hettrick advised, in the past, land rights purchased in the Basin included land coverage rights. He explained land coverage rights allowed a purchaser of land rights to erect structures covering a certain percentage of the purchaser's land. Mr. Hettrick said land coverage rights were included in the purchase of parcels in the Basin. He indicated on the California side of the Basin, land coverage rights were for sale by the state of California and sales of those rights generated considerable income for the state. He stated A.B. 11 would allow Nevada's Division of State Lands to sell land coverage rights. Mr. Hettrick indicated the sale of such rights was very important to Incline Village, Washoe County and Douglas County. He advised such sales would provide monies to the State of Nevada and said he did not believe those sales would have any negative impact on Lake Tahoe. Assemblyman Harrington asked if land coverage rights which would be sold would be used only to erect individual homes or also to erect major apartment complexes and casinos. Mr. Hettrick advised land coverage rights which would be sold could be used for any purpose approved by Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (hereinafter referred to as TRPA), the agency which would regulate proposed projects. He said individuals in the Basin presently sold land coverage rights but the State of Nevada did not. He suggested sale of land coverage rights was a means by which the state could recover some of the monies it expended to support TRPA. Mr. Harrington asked the monetary worth of land coverage rights held by the State of Nevada. Mr. Hettrick replied he did not know the worth of those rights. Assemblyman Tripple asked why the State of Nevada would wish to sell land it previously purchased. Mr. Hettrick answered the State of Nevada would not be selling land but only land coverage rights. He explained each parcel of land was allotted a certain amount of land coverage which could be used for such purposes as building a driveway or dwelling or a combination thereof. He indicated land coverage was of concern because when something which would not allow water to percolate into the ground was placed on land, it created water runoff. He explained when water runoff was created, it generated a concern as to how such runoff should be handled to prevent it from creating a problem in Lake Tahoe. Mr. Hettrick said virtually every parcel (sold in the Lake Tahoe Basin) had some land coverage rights but when the State of Nevada retired those parcels, it also retired the land coverage rights for those parcels. He explained individuals who needed more land coverage rights could purchase additional coverage rights and contended if the State of Nevada had such land coverage rights to sell, the state should become one of the willing sellers of such rights. The hearing on A B. 13 resumed. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 13 - Requires submission of proposal to issue general obligation bonds to provide grants to local governments and department of transportation for projects for controlling erosion and restoring natural watercourses in Lake Tahoe Basin. Mr. Jim Baetge, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, testified. Mr. Baetge stated TRPA strongly supported A.B. No. 13. Mr. Baetge indicated the cost to the State of Nevada to meet water quality thresholds for Lake Tahoe would be approximately $100 million and advised it would require extensive capital projects for TRPA to deal with the problem of continued loss of water clarity in Lake Tahoe. He contended the $20 million (which might be obtained under the provisions of A.B. 13) was insufficient money to provide for everything which needed to be done in the Basin but suggested it would "...supplement what a lot of other people are doing in the Basin." He indicated California's Department of Transportation was involved in a number of projects in the Basin. Mr. Harrington asked what percentage of TRPA's needs for dealing with erosion control would be provided for by the $20 million A.B. 13 might generate. Mr. Baetge indicated the $20 million would provide for most of TRPA's short term needs in connection with erosion control if matching monies were provided by local governments. He said, however, how much money local governments would provide, in the form of matching funds, was unknown. Mr. Harrington asked how much money Mr. Baetge anticipated would be received from local communities. Mr. Baetge deferred to Mr. Carl Hasty to answer Mr. Harrington's question. Mr. Carl Hasty, Senior Planner and Water Quality Program Manager, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, testified. In response to Mr. Harrington's last question, Mr. Hasty said monies available from local governments consisted in large part of "mitigation dollars," collected by TRPA in return for developments made at Lake Tahoe, and amounted to approximately $300,000 to $500,000 per year. He advised county contributions might total $1 million per year. Mr. Hasty said TRPA was pursuing reinstatement of matching federal funds, which were previously cut, and suggested if TRPA was successful in having those funds reinstated, total funds might be as much as $30 to $40 million. Mr. Harrington asked what time frames were involved in TRPA's short term needs and what long term needs TRPA anticipated. Mr. Hasty said TRPA hoped to accomplish its current goals by the end of 2007 and it would require large expenditures of money for TRPA to do so. He indicated the $20 million (which might be provided under the provisions of A.B. 13) would cover such expenditures for approximately five years. Assemblyman Ernaut asked Mr. Baetge to describe the scope of the election proposed by A. B. 13. Mr. Baetge replied, with respect to the bond measure, a statewide election was proposed. Mr. Ernaut asked what argument Mr. Baetge felt would best persuade citizens of Las Vegas to vote for a bond measure which would benefit Lake Tahoe. Mr. Baetge advised Lake Tahoe had been recognized as a special treasure of both Nevada and California and also of the nation. He suggested individuals residing outside the Basin had an interest in preserving the treasure of Lake Tahoe and the recreational resources of the Basin. Mr. Ernaut commented the last seven or eight bond measures submitted to voters in Clark County had failed and suggested convincing those voters to pass the bond measure provided for by A.B. 13 would be difficult. Mr. Baetge proposed it was a question of how important retaining water clarity in Lake Tahoe was to voters. Discussions were held among committee members. Assemblyman Bennett asked why Santini-Burton funds were no longer available and whether Mr. Baetge anticipated restoration of those funds. Mr. Baetge indicated he was uncertain why Santini-Burton funds were withdrawn but believed it might have been because some people believed the problem at Lake Tahoe had been solved. He said those involved in the partnership approach in the basin were in the process of preparing an argument in support of restoration of Santini-Burton funds to present to Nevada's congressional delegation. Assemblyman Nolan commented if TRPA wished voters to vote in favor of A.B. 13, it might wish to budget funds for a marketing strategy for use in Clark County. Mr. Baetge concurred. Assemblyman Neighbors asked if the bond proposed by A.B. 13 would be a statewide general obligation bond. Mr. Baetge responded affirmatively. Ms. Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands and Division of Conservation Districts, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, testified. She said, as Administrator of both the Division of State Lands and the Division of Conservation Districts, she supported A.B. 13 but was concerned about whether the State of Nevada could afford such a bill. She said there was no question about need for additional erosion control in the Basin. She advised her office had administered a $31 million bond issue, approved by voters in 1986. She said that bond act provided up to 1/4 of the funds it generated could be spent on erosion control projects. She indicated the commission for land acquisition in the Basin instructed her office to spend the maximum amount so provided on erosion control. She stated her office, through a cooperative program with the Nevada-Tahoe Conservation District, spent more than $7 million on erosion control. She advised the Nevada-Tahoe Conservation District assisted her office, both by prioritizing needed erosion control work and by assisting in establishing a program of grants to local governments. Ms. Wilcox called the committee's attention to the "Tahoe Bond Act Capital Improvements Program Final Report" (Exhibit D), which contained photographs of completed erosion control projects. Ms. Wilcox explained there were differences in the bond issue proposed by A.B. 13 and the bond issue previously administered by her office, the major difference being funds generated by the bond issue proposed by A.B. 13 could be used for projects of Nevada's Department of Transportation. Ms. Wilcox stated the executive budget was carefully constructed to preclude an increase in the property tax rate and questioned "...whether the state can afford this." Assemblyman Bache asked if the bond proposed by A.B. 13 was a natural resources bond and therefore excluded from the two percent debt limit. Ms. Wilcox responded affirmatively. Mr. Ernaut expressed confusion as to the link between the bond proposed by A.B. 13, which he said would be a voter-approved, general obligation bond, and the executive budget. Ms. Wilcox replied requested bond acts were considered in constructing the executive budget, in order to ensure there would be no necessity to increase the tax rate, but said the bond issue proposed by A.B. 13 had not been considered because the budget office did not become aware of A.B. 13 until it was scheduled for hearing by this committee. Mr. Ernaut suggested the state might sell state held lands upon which buildings could be erected. Ms. Wilcox contended there were not enough state held lands for their sales to generate sufficient funds (with which to pay for erosion control in the Basin). Mr. James Nakada, Supervisor, Nevada-Tahoe Conservation District (hereinafter referred to as the District), testified. He advised the District helped to administer funds for erosion control projects and to supervise such projects. He declared the District's primary mission was to work toward improving water clarity in Lake Tahoe, utilizing erosion control, revegetation and other means to accomplish that mission. Mr. Nakada presented four photographs, depicting erosion which occurred in a section of Incline Village before the District began its erosion control project (Exhibits E, F, G and H, respectively). Mr. Nakada expressed support for A.B. 13. He advised the District worked closely with the Natural Resource Conservation District of the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) and also with TRPA to attain its goal of improving water clarity in Lake Tahoe. Mr. Ernaut informed the committee Mr. Nakada was a new trustee of Incline Village General Improvement District and congratulated Mr. Nakada. Assemblyman Bennett asked whether the lowered water level of Lake Tahoe might contribute to the problem of water clarity. Mr. Nakada said he could not answer Mr. Bennett's question but contended water clarity was not solely influenced by the amount of water in the lake but was also influenced by erosion, the number of people living near the lake, tourists, automobile traffic and other factors. Rochelle Nason, Executive Director, League to Save Lake Tahoe, testified. She advised the League to Save Lake Tahoe (hereinafter referred to as the League) was comprised of approximately 4,000 families, dedicated to conservation of the Basin. She stated the League had active members in southern Nevada who strongly supported protecting Lake Tahoe and preventing its deterioration, and she declared the League strongly supported A.B. 13. Ms. Nason indicated the League would be happy to arrange for members of the committee to visit Lake Tahoe and view some erosion control problems and some projects for erosion control. Ms. Nason said the League recognized the present time was a difficult one in which to discuss spending government funds but, she suggested, few people would contest preventing further deterioration of Lake Tahoe was a good investment in the future. She declared if the bond issue proposed by A.B. 13 was placed on the ballot, the League would do its utmost to educate the general populace and elicit support for A.B. 13. Ms. Nason said she would like to address the question Mr. Bennett asked of Mr. Nakada (whether the lowered water level of Lake Tahoe might contribute to the problem of water clarity). She said even though Lake Tahoe's water level had fluctuated quite dramatically over time, the lake's deterioration was a modern phenomenon. She contended what was happening to Lake Tahoe was not a natural phenomenon but was a result of development in the watershed. She explained the flow of phosphorous through the soil, by means of surface and ground water, caused the deterioration of the lake. She advised erosion control and wetlands restoration were the only mechanisms available by which to stop the flow of phosphorous into Lake Tahoe. Mr. Bennett asked, "Is this in reference to the DRI (Desert Research Institute) study?" Ms. Nason responded she was uncertain to which DRI study Mr. Bennett was referring. She indicated studies were done both by DRI and by the Tahoe Research Group of the University of California and both studies had arrived at the same conclusion with regard to a number of watershed projects. Mr. Harrington asked how Lake Tahoe's water clarity was quantified and what was the ultimate goal with respect to water clarity. Ms. Nason explained, while water clarity varied from year to year, clarity was clearly deteriorating at the rate of approximately one foot per year. She said the ultimate goal was to stop deterioration. She advised it took several years to discern a change in the trend of water clarity which represented a lasting change. She contended if funding could be found for those things which needed to be done and which were planned to be done, "...we will see Lake Tahoe stabilized within our lifetimes." Mr. Nolan observed Lake Mead experienced some of the same phenomenon in water clarity as did Lake Tahoe, and indicated water clarity in Lake Mead altered when there were changes in temperature. He asked if Lake Tahoe's water clarity was affected by climate changes. Ms. Nason responded Lake Tahoe's water clarity did change seasonally and many natural processes influenced water clarity at any given time of year, however, natural processes did not instigate deterioration of the lake's water clarity. Mrs. Lambert stated the committee's objective was to determine whether a need for erosion control existed at Lake Tahoe and whether it was appropriate to fund erosion control by means of a state bond issue. Mr. Brian Wallace, Chairman, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California (hereinafter referred to as the Tribe), testified. He said the Tribe supported A.B. 13. He advised, historically, Lake Tahoe was the heartland of the Washoe People's religion. He stated the Tribe worked closely with TRPA, regarding watershed management and erosion control, and found TRPA's board members to be open to the Tribe's concerns about preservation of the Basin. He reiterated the Tribe's support of A.B. 13. Ms. Kay Bennett, Carson City Board of Supervisors, testfied. She urged the committee to support A.B. 13, which she described as a very important bill. She advised she was the Carson City Board of Supervisors' appointee to the governing board of TRPA and had served on TRPA's board for nearly seven years. She said she was also a member of the governing board of the Nevada-Tahoe Conservation District. Ms. Bennett stated, over the past two to three years, she had focused her energy and efforts in working on problems related to the east shore of Lake Tahoe, which she described as the last remaining large stretch of public land in the Basin. She contended the east shore of Lake Tahoe presented beautiful vistas and contained a profusion of artifacts from the "Comstock days" and from prehistoric times. She explained, over the years, little attention had been paid to the east shore but now efforts had begun to obtains funds to address problems relating to the east shore. She indicated a significant erosion control program would take place in the area of Highway 28. Ms. Bennett declared A.B. 13, if passed by the legislature, would "...take an enormous step on behalf of Nevada to say that we treasure this national treasure." She expressed her support of A.B. 13. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 13 ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 11 - Requires administrator of division of state lands of state department of conservation and natural resources to offer for sale certain rights to develop real property in Lake Tahoe Basin. Mr. Fred Welden, Legislative Counsel Bureau, testified. Mr. Welden explained rights which were transferred when property was purchased or sold in the Basin. He also explained "excess coverage" and advised, when an individual had excess coverage on land in the Basin, he must either remove such excess coverage or pay a fee to retire coverage on some other piece of land. Mr. Welden stated, based upon a memorandum of understanding between TRPA and the Division of State Lands, such fees were given to the Division of State Lands, which administered a program under which it would purchase property and retire excess coverage on such property. He indicated various rights which accompanied property could be sold. Mr. Welden asserted the goal of A.B. 11 was to direct the Division of State Lands to sell to individuals those rights which the Division was able to sell and thus enable such individuals to transfer those rights to their properties and then develop those properties. Mrs. Segerblom commented she believed it was not intended there be more development at Lake Tahoe. Mr. Weldon said A.B. 11 did not provide for additional development but, rather, for transfer of the right to develop from one piece of property, upon which such right was not exercised, to another piece of property. He contended A.B. 11 would not change the amount of development which could take place, only the locations of such development. Mrs. Segerblom asked if it was correct an individual, whose house covered more of his property than it was allowed to cover and who needed to add a driveway on his property, could purchase a coverage right from another individual and then be able to add his driveway. Mr. Weldon said he believed Mrs. Segerblom's scenario was inaccurate. He indicated TRPA would have to address a situation in which an individual already had excess coverage on his property and wished to add additional coverage. He said he believed additional coverage rights could be transferred only to parcels on which there was not already excess coverage. Ms. Susan E. Scholley, Special Projects Attorney, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, testified. She stated, in 1987, when the regional plan was adopted, each piece of property in the Basin was assigned an amount of land coverage and each vacant residential parcel was given one residential development right. She explained a system was created whereby owners of parcels of land in the Basin could trade rights among those parcels in order to add coverage or increase density on their parcels. Ms. Scholley reiterated Mr. Welden's testimony regarding the system established for sale of land rights by the Division of State Lands. Ms. Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, testified. She said the Division had used more than one source of funds to purchase land at Lake Tahoe. She advised all land coverage and all development rights on land purchased by the Division with funds derived from the $31 million dollar bond issue previously discussed had been retired and explained the Division believed it had a trust with the voters to retire those rights. She indicated the bond issue was approved by the voters in order to decrease the amount of potential development at Lake Tahoe. She reiterated Mr. Welden's testimony concerning purchase of land and sale of land rights by the Division. Ms. Wilcox expressed concern about the language "shall offer for sale" in line 2, page 1, of A.B. 11. She declared, as registrar of state lands, she wanted to have discretion as to what she sold. She explained the state might sometimes need to retain land rights for public purposes. Ms. Wilcox said she would prefer the language of A.B. 11 read "may offer for sale." Chairman Lambert asked what the Division would do with monies it received from sales of land coverage rights. Ms. Wilcox pointed out A.B. 11 provided those monies be deposited in the state treasury and credited to the account for mitigation of land coverage. Ms. Susan E. Scholley, Special Projects Attorney, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, testified on behalf of Rochelle Nason of the League to Save Lake Tahoe. She advised the League supported A.B. 11. Ms. Kay Bennett, Governing Board, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, testified. She expressed support of A.B. 11, which she said would be of significant benefit and would make citizens of Nevada aware there were additional development rights available to those citizens. She indicated additional development rights were particularly important to the Incline Village area, where the issue of affordable housing needed to be addressed. Ms. Bennett again voiced her support of A.B. 11. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 11. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 43 - Clarifies authority of officer or employee of Federal Government to enforce state laws and exercise powers of peace officer in Nevada. Chairman Lambert advised the committee the issue addressed by A.B. 43 had gone before the Assembly Judiciary Committee during the last legislative session and Assemblyman Carpenter, sponsor of the bill, wished the issue to go before the Judiciary Committee again. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO RE-REFER A.B. 43 TO THE ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BDR 23-14 - Expands scope of mandatory bargaining for teachers and certain persons employed by school districts. Mr. Bache stated he would like the committee to introduce BDR 23-14. Mr. Nolan asked why such a bill draft request was not being introduced by the Assembly Committee on Education. Mr. Bache replied Chapter 288 of NRS was involved and the Committee on Government Affairs dealt with that chapter. Mr. Bennett asked if he correctly understood the subject of BDR 23-14 was mandatory bargaining. Mr. Bache replied affirmatively. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 23-14. ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Bennett abstained from voting.) There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Lambert adjourned the meeting. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Sara Kaufman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs January 26, 1995 Page