MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session February 7, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 9:00 a.m., on Tuesday, February 7, 1995, Chairman Bache presiding in Room 4412 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, 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: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Dickenson, Nevada Concerned Citizens; Kris Jensen, Nevada Concerned Citizens; Robert Elliot, Mirage Resorts; Drake DeLanoy, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; Jerry Wells, TRPA; James Nakada, Nevada Conservation District; Rochelle Nason, League to Save Lake Tahoe; Bill Cadwallader, Nevada Dept. of Transportation; Pam Mackay, Division of Insurance; Stephanie Tyler. A.J.R. 12 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to prohibit exemption for legislators, officers, employees or agencies of state from laws applicable to general public. (BDR C-1139) Assemblyman Max Bennett, District 14, spoke first in favor of A.J.R. 12. This bill addresses the issue of government accountability. The public is fed up with exemptions granted to the federal government. A.J.R. 12 will ensure that the citizen legislature remains just that. As the legislative session is just beginning, this will serve to strengthen the public's opinion of and confidence in its citizen legislature. Assemblyman Harrington was concerned that state employees currently do not have the right to strike and would this now become possible. Mr. Bennett understood constitutional amendments to be interpreted from the time they are initiated. Clarification would be in order for the specifics on this issue. Assemblyman Ernaut asked Mr. Bennett for specific examples of things employees are exempted from. He had none at this time. He indicated that no single piece legislation was in place and that was a positive note. He also mentioned the poor example federal government has provided up to now and that they are trying to remedy their situation to eliminate the same exemptions we are. Assemblyman Bache questioned the federal law in regards to the Nevada constitution where it states a legislator cannot be arrested while on his way to vote. Mr. Bennett intended to discuss this with legislative legal counsel. Assemblyman Lambert asked Mr. Bennett if his intention was to take away legal regulatory capabilities or simply the convenient types of exemptions. He stated there was no intention to impede the law enforcement process. Mr. Harrington inquired as to the wording of the national bill that was recently signed into law. Mr. Bennett responded he would have to seek the answer from the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Mr. Bache wondered if the national bill had been passed by the house as public law as opposed to a constitutional amendment. If so, would it be more appropriate for this to be a bill instead of a constitutional amendment for the state. Mr. Bennett replied that for the citizens' safety, it must be a constitutional amendment. Mr. Ernaut would weigh that as a constitutional amendment can take as long as five years while a bill is immediate. Perhaps that could be pursued. Mr. Bennett would take that under advisement. Scott Dickenson, representative of Nevada Concerned Citizens, spoke in favor of A.J.R. 12. He declared this bill put a smile on their faces. Although usually reticent when amending the constitution, the group is in full support of this bill. Mr. Bache asked if Mr. Dickenson knew of any pertinent laws at the present time that would be affected by this legislation. Mr. Dickenson was not aware of any. Kris Jensen, Chairman of Nevada Concerned Citizens, welcomed the opportunity to meet with the Committee. She expressed support of A.J.R. 12 and correlated the bill to setting a good example as parents do for their children. This is one of the most effective teaching methods. Mr. Bache closed the hearing on A.J.R. 12. ASSEMBLY BILL 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. (BDR S-317) Mr. Fred Welden of the Research Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau introduced A.B. 13. He reminded the Committee that the bill was a product of the interim study of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). A.B. 13 calls for a 20 million dollar bond proposal to be placed on the statewide ballot in 1996. If approved, the proceeds of the bond would be used to provide grants to local governments and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) for erosion control projects and stream restoration projects in the Tahoe Basin. The basic genesis of this type of proposal is in the effort to shift the emphasis of the TRPA and the activities in the Tahoe Basin from strictly and solely planning to actually implementing on the ground projects in the Basin. Erosion control and stream restoration are the two most critical issues in the Basin and would be addressed through this bond issue. Mr. Harrington pointed out that most of the residents of the Tahoe Basin were well- to-do and did not see it as fair for the remainder of the constituency to have to pay for improvements for wealthy homeowners. Mr. Weldon deferred the question to the agency and assumed the argument would be covered in the introduction to the bi-state compact where the Tahoe Basin is considered a national treasure by state and national significance and has a tremendous recreational and scenic value to the people who come to visit as well as to those who are fortunate enough to live there. Mr. Ernaut expressed the fact that even though there is an affluent nature in the Basin, the population is finite and a 20 million dollar bond issued on a per capita basis to a limited citizenry would indeed be a burden. The Tahoe Basin is a state treasure, truly unique and the clarity of the lake along with erosion control needs to be taken into immediate consideration. It is in the best interests of the entire state. Mr. Bache stressed that Mr. Welden was there to present what the interim committee did, not to advocate or oppose the bill. Assemblyman Segerblom served on the interim committee for Lake Tahoe and emphasized we are protecting the Lake for us, not just for the wealthy residents. Assemblyman Nolan agreed with her viewpoint, reflecting on the damage being done and the necessity to control it and preserve the quality of the Basin for all people. Assemblyman Neighbors was concerned about the statutory $3.64 property tax limit and felt perhaps it would be better to request a one-shot appropriation from the state budget surplus. Mr. Welden indicated some fiscal research had been done, but the ramifications of the $3.64 limit had not been explored. Robert Elliott, Mirage Resorts, read a statement from Steve Wynn, a TRPA board member in favor of A.B. 13 (Exhibit C). Drake DeLanoy, Vice Chairman of TRPA, spoke in favor of A.B. 13. TRPA was devised as a method of controlling population and business growth in the Basin to halt the destruction of the area's beauty. Since then, the TRPA has become the policy-making agency for the entire basin. He drew attention to the various erosion problems. The streams have been tormented, first with the historic timbering of the Basin and now with asphalt roads, golf courses, and lawns with nutrients being carried downstream into the Lake. This has affected the clarity of Lake Tahoe on a permanent basis, resulting in the loss of the pristine beauty of this national treasure. Funding is limited in all agencies. He urged the allocation of the 20 million dollars for erosion control. Mr. Bennett surmised 20 million dollars would not be enough to accomplish the desired effect. There seems to be too much to be done geophysically. He cited examples of local areas where certain types of remedies are needed. Mr. DeLanoy suggested one step at a time. Although it does require a substantial amount of money, 20 million would certainly be a big step in the right direction. There are many concerned citizens who will continue to move forward in the preservation process and keep the ball rolling as far as obtaining the needed funds for conservation of the Tahoe Basin. Mr. Ernaut mentioned the proposal of a similar bond in California to assist in the preservation efforts of the Basin. The bond money can be drawn on from time to time and therefore will be somewhat of a perpetuating fund, able to gain interest and replenish itself to a certain extent. The cooperative effort of both states would be a plus to the preservation program. Mr. Harrington suggested a possible fee for visitors who come to the area. The burden would then not be solely put upon the residents, some of whom are retired and cannot afford a tax increase. He also mentioned the idea of fee roads into the area. However, Mr. DeLanoy indicated a prohibition or a limitation existing in the law regarding that. It definitely has been considered. Jerry Wells, Deputy Director for the TRPA, voiced his opinion on the importance of this bond. He reviewed the problems; algae growth, decrease in clarity of the Lake (Exhibit D), erosion and run-off, phosphorus treatment and needed restoration of stream environments. He then restated some of the necessary remedies; installation of a major erosion control device and restoration of natural waterways, marshes and meadows. Over 1,000 acres so far have been targeted for restoration. Over 100 acres have been restored since the establishment of TRPA and about 1,000 acres remain to meet threshold targets. Thus far, in excess of 75 million dollars has been spent on erosion control in the Basin since the mid-seventies. In Nevada, an estimated 67 million will be necessary for erosion run-off and control. In addition, another 32 million will be required for stream environment restoration. Basin-wide, the numbers are much larger. It is a huge problem, but the solution has to begin somewhere. The 20 million dollar bond is a good start. In Nevada, there are a number of priority areas where the monies will be allocated. Mr. Wells presented a map identifying these areas (Exhibit E). Highway 28, from Spooner towards Incline has another funding source for a summer erosion control project. The Glenbrook and Kingsbury watersheds are two other high priority areas which need immediate attention. In order to fund all the needed improvements, both California and Nevada federal and local governments will be looked at in a broad-based, cost sharing approach. The ultimate goal is to meet the region threshold requirements and to comply with the state's water quality standards. The Supervisor of the Nevada Conservation District, James Nakada, spoke in favor of A.B. 13. His district represents the three counties surrounding the Lake. The prime focus of the conservation district is to help the states assist TRPA to provide expert advice, supervise the erosion control practices, and work to improve the clarity of the Lake. All work is done on a volunteer basis; no salaries are paid. He indicated the 20 million dollar bond is subject to matching grants from other agencies. There will be funds from other locations, perhaps even doubling the 20 million. In an effort to cut costs, offices and staff support are shared with California. The Department of Agriculture provides the resources for the expert engineers who help with the design work and get it done. There are also many volunteers who contribute to the conservation efforts. Mr. Nakada provided copies of the Tahoe Bond Act Final Report for the Committee's perusal (Exhibit F). Rochelle Nason, League to Save Lake Tahoe, briefly explained the League's effort to preserve the Lake and get this bill passed. She indicated a 40 million dollar bond issue was being proposed in California for Basin projects. She reiterated the prohibition in the Bi-State Compact of charging admission for entering the region. However, the possibility of imposing parking fees or some other type of impact fee has been considered in assessing the visitor's share of the work that needs to be done. Both states have to be responsible for their shares as well. Mr. Nolan testified before the group that he was in support of A.B. 13. He mentioned the clarity and erosion problems and the definite need for immediate solutions. He stated he would rather pay a bit more tax to see the preservation of the Lake which would ultimately enhance income in the state by allowing for the tourism trend to continue. Mr. Bennett remarked that through the Santini-Burton funding program, Clark County has already contributed over 54 million dollars to the TRPA projects. The hearing on A.B. 13 closed. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Denise Sins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs February 7, 1995 Page