MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session January 27, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, January 27, 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 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 Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Scholley, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Steve Teshara, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance, Jim Baetge, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and Rochelle Nason, League to Save Lake Tahoe. Chairman Lambert called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. She then asked for the reading of the roll call. After roll call was finished Chairman Lambert asked that Mr. Ernaut and Mr. Williams be listed as present upon their arrival. Chairman Lambert asked that A.J. R. 3 be heard first. She then asked Mr. Welden or Mr. Baetge to testify. A.J.R. 3 - Urges Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to rank environmental threshold carrying capacities for Lake Tahoe Basin in their order of priority. (BDR R-309) Mr. Welden introduced himself. He then stated that Speaker Hettrick had asked him to introduce the first couple of resolutions, and have Jim Baetge do the technical description of them. Jim Baetge introduced himself. He then stated that the TRPA would be in support of both A.J.R. 3 and A.J.R. 4. He then went on to explain A.J.R. 3 states that TRPA ranks capital improvements related to the thresholds, some of them are not necessarily capital intensive, they do regulations on noise or do things that do not cost money, but are regulations imposed upon projects that come forward. In recreational facilities and transportation and water quality you are getting into capital intensive type projects. He felt that in the past they have ranked those expenditures very clearly. The intent here is not to rank one above the other. Chairman Lambert interrupted asking if the resolution should be amended to make it more clear. Mr. Baetge responded that he felt it was relatively clear, unless you wanted to rank water quality over air quality, then it needs further clarification. Mr. Baetge asked for any questions. Mr. Bennett stated that it is confusing to him because it came out of interim committee report. He would prefer a resolution with more clarity. Mrs. de Braga then quoted lines 10, 11, and 12 declaring they state exactly what they should not say. Mr. Baetge responded saying that it is confusing. Mrs. de Braga asked Mr. Baetge, what exactly are you ranking? Mr. Baetge responded that under Section 208 of the Federal Act, that says " .....in order to correct water quality problems at Lake Tahoe, there are a number of areas where we have to make capital expenditures..." He added that some of those are higher priority than others. In order to do what has to be done over a twenty year period, you have to prioritize where you would spend that money in the water quality program. Further, when you add air quality transportation problems, you have two thresholds on which there is money to be spent. He said that you have to prioritize where you spend the money, assuming your coming from the same funding source. He went on to say that this would be done more in a refined manner in 1996. Mrs Tripple questioned Mr. Baetge why you need A.J.R. 3 if you already do it? If it is good business procedure to rank, why a special A.J.R. 3? Mr. Baetge stated that you carefully rank the way money is expended and make clear to the public that priority setting is occurring. He felt that what is being said in the resolution is that they totally agree that there may be some higher priorities in the water quality areas and that we would like to see you concentrate your monies on those over something else. Further he added, to develop that, it is a public session type thing to make sure the public knows that they are doing something. He added that there are seven threshold issues that need to be met. As the planning period comes to an end, trade-offs will probably occur in that we cannot achieve all thresholds equally. He gave an example of the Hwy 50 corridor and the public transportation system. Ms. Tripple added that "urges", is a permissive term. She does not want more laws to have to work around. Chairman Lambert asked Mr. Welden what the interim study meant. Starting on line 23.. Resolved by the Assembly and the Senate of the State of Nevada jointly, that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is hereby urged to rank, where practicable, the environmental threshold carrying capacities for Lake Tahoe. That is all it talks about. Then it mentions later, if they are ranked in order of priority, you are urged to rank them with the understanding that all of them will be achieved. She stated that it does not talk about capital projects in this, and was that the intent of the interim study. Mr. Welden said that if this was changed to add a couple of words, maybe everyone was not totally clear on what was done. He felt it was worded more strongly at one point, than it is now. There were phrases added that may have made it more difficult to interpret. He said he cannot guarantee that everyone that met on this was clear on the same meaning. Mrs. Segerblom explained that there was a lot of testimony and confusing views on this. They tried to take into account what was said and the worries about the lake. She said they would be happy to make changes to make it more clear. Mrs. Freeman said that the interim study had representatives from business, realty, Chamber of Commerce, environmentalists; anyone that had concerns in regard to this. She felt that if it needed to be clarified, then there were no problems. She said this does not change any of the Statutes, but it does urge TRPA to do certain things. Mr. Teshara on behalf of the Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance spoke regarding A.J.R. 3, he stated that Mr. Baetge captured the intent of our participation in these discussions when he used the example for the potential for Light Rail, and need for consideration of tradeoffs. He added that if there were a major opportunity to achieve a particular threshold, then we need to get more creative in how we would deal with it. The flexibilities in ranking are what they have in mind. As to inclusion of capital expenditures, he said that they would support that. He felt that there is frustration from the constituents at the Lake and perhaps from some members of this body, relative to the fact that the legislature has no formal roll on the governing board of the agency. That is why we are asking you to support the changes to the bi-state compact. That would allow the State Senate and the State Assembly to have members on the governing board. If that was the case, people would interpret that as a message from the legislative body. He said people want to know where the legislature is coming from on a variety of issues. He went on to say that there is not enough involvement on the legislative level. Chairman Lambert then asked for testimony in support of A.J.R. 3. Chairman Lambert then closed the meeting on A.J.R. 3. Chairman Lambert then opened the meeting on A.J.R. 4. A.J.R.4: Urges Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to assist in coordinating analysis of resources within Lake Tahoe Basin which are potentially finite in nature and to continue to review status of environmental threshold carrying capacities for Lake Tahoe Basin. (BDR R-308) Mr. Baetge of TRPA said A.J.R. 4 is speaking to capacity issues of Lake Tahoe, especially sewer and water. He felt that was the main focus, when this was put together. He added that the idea was that they have two states with differing issues on water. The idea was that out of this resolution we would facilitate all of the players that provide water and sewer in the basin, to come together and present where they stand on remaining capacity of water and sewer. This is already in the process since the first draft came out. He felt it would be appropriate to proceed . Chairman Lambert stated that it was nice to see regional coordination. Steve Teshara stated that the intent was to send a signal to the various agencies in the State of Nevada dealing with water, that we need their cooperation and information at these meetings. He stated that TRPA does not have jurisdiction over water supply issues. They need to rely on the other agencies in both Nevada and California that deal with those issues. He then asked for support in this resolution moving forward. Chairman Lambert asked for further questions and testimony in support of A.J.R. 4. She then asked for testimony against A.J.R. 4. With no response, she then closed the meeting on A.J.R. 4. A recess was taken at 8:30 a.m. A.J.R. 8: Urges Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to establish procedures to grant variances from ordinances adopted pursuant to Tahoe Regional Planning compact for certain projects. (BDR R-311) Speaker Lynn Hettrick for the Assembly District 39 spoke addressing A.J.R. 8. He stated that the zoning rules for TRPA have no provision for variance; there is no flexibility. He felt there should be some flexibility to allow for situations that are different than what the rules address. He said variations need to be addressed. He said it would allow TRPA to develop their own system for these variances. This is not a system that the government is trying to force on them, they would develop their own system. He said that this system could still be quite restricted in its ability to be accessed by whomever might need some sort of relief in a form of variance. He continued that it would also mean a procedure to have this addressed. Chairman Lambert asked Speaker Hettrick if this was a variance involving driveways, fences etc., or was it a zoning variance. Speaker Hettrick replied that he was not talking about zoning variances, but specific property variance. He said TRPA does not support this. He then reiterated on TRPA finding a procedure with more flexibility. Mr. Harrington asked if this was geared for the little guy, not some big corporation. Mr. Hettrick replied with a yes. He stated that there is no intent for more building. The intent is to enable minor changes to occur with some flexibility. Mrs. Freeman felt that the approval of variances left the door wide open for the possibilities for abuse. She said they were unnecessary. Mr. Hettrick respected her position. The Committee as a whole supported this issue. It is a controversial issue. The basic request at this time is for flexibility in the variance procedure. Mr. Nolan wondered who provided variances at the present time. Currently, there are none. The TRPA would handle the variance procedure, as they are the initiating agency. He also hoped for more objective variances from the constituency in the future. Mr. Hettrick pondered if the TRPA wrote the variances and did maintain flexibility and objectivity, would the public still complain anyway. Mrs. Segerblom said that variances were more trouble than they were worth. She would vote against it. Mr. Bennett indicated that the TRPA should be able to write a workable procedure with the guidelines already in place. Mrs. Krenzer asked Mr. Hettrick if the TRPA had a review board and would a planning board be necessary to implement the variance project. Mr. Hettrick replied they did have a review board, but this resolution would not set up a separate board. Variances would only be granted for exceptions and this would not apply to most of the public. There will not be many people who need these variances. Mrs. Krenzer stated there would no doubt be valid complaints among the people applying for the variances. Mr. Hettrick responded indeed there would be, but with the open meeting law, everyone would have a chance to air their grievances and there would be fair treatment all around. Mrs. Krenzer questioned whether people are aware of the ordinances when they buy property. Mr. Hettrick was interested in this point. When the TRPA came into being, ordinances changed and many folks had to go along with them, like it or not. Many of the more sensitive properties were purchased and residents moved away. The few folks left comprise unique situations being addressed through this bill. Susan Scholley, Special Projects Attorney for TRPA spoke against A.B. 8. This issue has been around for a long time. Variance procedures are scattered throughout the ordinances of the TRPA and these work well. A catch-all procedure would not be appropriate. Ms. Scholley clearly explained that through the ordinance amendment procedure, currently in place, the results have a cumulative impact on all concerned. It is fair, objective, does not adversely affect policies, procedures or capacity thresholds and does not compromise the goals of the TRPA. To establish another variance plan would be costly, time consuming and subject to abuse by larger corporations and big money interests. To put it simply, it would be a move in the wrong direction. Mrs. Freeman asked about increased costs for the agency. Ms. Scholley had no specific numbers. Some rules and procedures are being delegated to smaller agencies which would not compromise the compact. The TRPA does not wish to be forced to adopt this bill. Mr. Nolan inquired as to the variance content of the current ordinances and if they were meeting the people's needs and accomplishing the things expected from them. Ms. Scholley indicated there were several ordinance amendments last year that dealt with provisional concerns. There does not appear to be any overwhelming obstacle this year that the ordinance amendment process would not be able to surmount. There is a 45 day turn around time for these amendments. Ms. Rochelle Nason from the League to Save Lake Tahoe also testified against A.J.R. 8. The TRPA has both a regulatory and an activist function to achieve needed goals and protect the environment. She expressed that this bill is inconsistent with others of its kind that have been presented. She insisted this bill was not needed, the current procedure is very fair and that forcing the TRPA to contend with minutiae detracts from the big picture and the real problems at hand. Mr. Baetge was not in opposition to the bill. He stated that the resolution would be brought before the board and considered as public policy before that board. Mrs. Lambert closed the hearing on A.J.R. 8. She announced the meeting would be at 9:30 a.m. on Monday and that it would be a work session. Mr. Baetge reminded the Committee about the upcoming tour of the Lake Tahoe projects. He would be willing to accommodate all interested parties. Mrs. Lambert expressed appreciation for the tour opportunity. Mrs. Freeman encouraged all members to give a serious look at the Tahoe projects in order to be as informed as possible in terms of passing appropriate legislation on these matters. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:15 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Kelly Liston, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs January 27, 1995 Page