MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session February 23, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, February 23, 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 Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman 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: Mr. Pete Ernaut, Excused GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, District 39 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Paul Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau; Mr. Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas; Ms. Stephanie Licht, Elko County; Mr. Ed Ylst; Mr. Noel Manoukien, General Counsel to General Improvement Districts; Mr. J. Patrick Coward, city of Sparks; Mary Henderson, Government Affairs Director, Washoe County; Mr. Mike Meizel, Administrator, Buildings and Grounds Division, Department of Administration, State of Nevada; Mr. John Adams, Deputy Treasurer, State of Nevada; Mr. Jim Baetge, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; Mr. James Nakada, Supervisor, Nevada-Tahoe Conservation District; Ms. Rochelle Nason, Executive Director, League to Save Lake Tahoe (see also Exhibit B attached hereto). ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 48 - Provides for establishment of funds for extraordinary repair, maintenance or improvement of certain buildings of local government. Mr. Paul Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, testified. He advised A.B. 48 resulted from a recommendation made by the legislative subcommittee created to study financing of infrastructure. Mr. Mouritsen explained Section 2 of A.B. 48 required local governments, when they issued bonds, to establish special funds into which would be deposited one- half of one percent of the proceeds of the bond sales. He indicated the monies so deposited would be held in those special funds, together with any accumulated interest, to be used for extraordinary maintenance or repair of buildings constructed with proceeds from the bond sales. He stated the intent of A.B. 48 was to make funds available to deal with fiscal emergencies which resulted from situations involving extraordinary maintenance, such as failure of an air conditioning system. Mr. Mouritsen said Section 3 of A.B. 48 provided local governments with an option to establish an additional fund to be used for extraordinary maintenance and repair. He indicated deposits to this second fund would be made from any revenues which local governments wished to use for that purpose. He stated monies placed in the additional fund could not be used for any purpose other than extraordinary maintenance and repair. Mr. Mouritsen said A.B. 48 contained two references to the United States Code, both of which referred to the arbitrage provisions contained in the Internal Revenue Code, which provisions prohibited proceeds from bond sales being invested at a higher rate of interest than the rate of interest being paid on the bonds. Mr. Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas, testified. He said, when the hearing on A.B. 48 was held in Las Vegas, a number of suggestions were made for possible amendments to A.B. 48 which would make application of its provisions less costly to local governments and to the state. He advised he had drafted a proposed amendment to A.B. 48 (Exhibit C) based on those suggestions and explained the changes proposed to be made to A.B. 48 by said amendment. Mr. Leavitt said the first proposed change to A.B. 48 dealt with the nomenclature used to establish a means by which to account for the funds discussed in A.B. 48. He stated A.B. 48 provided local governments must establish a separate fund for each separate project. He explained, in governmental terminology, a fund was a set of books and, therefore, A.B. 48 required local governments to establish a separate set of books for each project. He advised the proposed amendment to A.B. 48 (Exhibit C) would allow local governments to establish only one fund but to establish separate accounts within that fund. He suggested this would provide for the same accountability on the part of local governments but would eliminate some record keeping problems. Mr. Leavitt advised the second proposed change to A.B. 48 would add flood control projects to those projects exempt from the provisions of A.B. 48. Mr. Leavitt stated it was proposed to add to Section 2, subsection 4(b), the language "The audit report must contain a statement of compliance regarding this fund as part of the statement required by NRS 354.624(4)." He advised the auditor charged for each separate compliance report he was required to prepare. He explained the proposed added language would allow the auditor to provide the compliance statement required by A.B. 48 as part of the opinion he was required to render with respect to the "...total workings of the government..." as opposed to providing a separate compliance statement, thereby saving money. Mr. Leavitt pointed out a further proposed change to A.B. 48 would eliminate references to the "legislative auditor." He stated the legislative auditor did not normally become involved with local governments. He advised, generally, local governments were monitored "...through the external auditor in the Department of Taxation." He suggested to involve the legislative auditor in matters with which he normally did not deal would create costs to the legislative auditor, which would waste money. Ms. Stephanie Licht, Elko County, testified. She said she hoped the committee would carefully consider the effect which occurred when the legislature passed a mandate requiring local governments to do something. She read a position statement of the Board of County Commissioners, Elko County, signed by the Assistant County Manager, which stated the board's opposition to A.B. 48. She suggested mandates to local governments by the legislature could force local governments to do things which they were unable to do (financially). Mr. Ed Ylst testified. He stated he was familiar with situations in which mandates, through administrative function, sought to circumvent constitutions. He said, "One specific mandate which - that hurts us very badly is that something called `risk management.' Now this is an example of a mandate issued by the county insurance carrier whereby none of the county commissioners are allowed to do the right thing unless they gain permission from the District Attorney." He declared this was a destruction of the check and balance system at the level of county government. He contended whenever a law was passed it restricted people's freedom. Mr. Noel Manoukien, General Counsel to General Improvement Districts, testified. He submitted a letter addressed to Chairman Lambert and dated February 3, 1995 (Exhibit D). He declared the General Improvement Districts, particularly the Incline General Improvement District, were adamantly opposed to legislation such as A.B. 48 for those reasons previously testified to by the representative of Elko County (Stephanie Licht) and for the additional reason that the State Tax Commission had existing regulations governing such matters (as those addressed by A.B. 48). Mr. Bennett asked what procedures were currently in place which would allow a local government to establish a fund, of the kind proposed by A.B. 48, through a local bond issue. Mr. Manoukien replied, in his experience, bond issues were done to pay for capital improvements and such things as maintenance would have to be paid for with monies from a general fund or a specific utility fund. Mr. Neighbors commented the issue being discussed was "...reserves for replacement." He advised all counties had funds budgeted for that purpose, usually held in accounts designated for service and supplies. Mr. Nolan asked, if A.B. 48 was amended to replace the word "shall" with the word "may," would it then allow those local governments which believed the provisions of A.B. 48 to be beneficial to exercise those provisions and allow those local governments which had no use for the provisions of A.B. 48 to refrain from exercising those provisions. Mr. Manoukien replied he believed making the provisions of A.B. 48 discretionary rather than mandatory would make A.B. 48 more satisfactory legislation. Ms. Tripple asked who would benefit from A.B. 48. Mr. Manoukien responded he did not believe there was any need for legislation such as A.B. 48. Mrs. Freeman asked what prompted the legislative subcommittee to recommend establishing the provisions of A.B. 48. Mr. Bache responded A.B. 48 was proposed by former assemblyman Myrna Williams because of her concern that local governments might be faced with needs to make emergency repairs or maintenance to their buildings and would have no funds with which to meet those needs. Mr. Bache suggested A.B. 48 would allow local governments to plan for such emergencies. Mrs. Freeman asked if, when the hearing on A.B. 48 was held in Las Vegas, testimony was given on behalf of county governments. Mrs. Lambert replied testimony was given on behalf of Clark County only. Assemblyman Williams asked Mr. Mouritsen and Mr. Leavitt if they foresaw any problem would be created by adding a population clause to the provisions of A.B. 48 in order to make those provisions applicable only to local governments of largely populated areas. Mr. Leavitt replied he did not believe there would be anything technically wrong with adding such a clause to A.B. 48. Mr. Williams suggested the concerns addressed by A.B. 48 were of greater concern to local governments of heavily populated areas of Nevada, such as Clark County and Las Vegas, than they were to local governments of less heavily populated areas. Mr. Leavitt stated he did not believe it would be appropriate, under existing law, for local governments to use any portion of monies received from sales of bonds to establish funds for long term maintenance needs and A.B. 48 would allow local governments to do so. He commented, whenever government experienced "...hard times...", one of the things it did not do was maintain its infrastructure. Mr. Mouritsen indicated the legislative subcommittee had not discussed including a population clause in A.B. 48 and said he did not know how former Assemblyman Myrna Williams would feel about the addition of such a clause. Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Leavitt if changing the word "shall", on line 3 of page 1 of A.B. 48, to the word "may" would be acceptable to the city of Las Vegas and to Clark County. Mr. Leavitt replied he could not speak on behalf of Clark County but the change proposed by Mr. Bennett would be acceptable to the city of Las Vegas. Mr. Harrington asked if the accounts into which funds generated by the provisions of A.B. 48 would be placed would be bank accounts or investment accounts. Mr. Leavitt replied he anticipated the funds would be invested. He advised Nevada's law placed restrictions on investments made by local governments. Mrs. de Braga asked if, under current law, the type of fund discussed by A.B. 48 could be established. Mr. Leavitt replied he did not believe current law prohibited such a fund being established by a local government but indicated he did not believe local governments could place monies received from sales of bonds into such funds. He contended, however, if a local government established such a fund, there was, currently, no protection against the monies in the fund being used for purposes other than maintenance. He advised not only would A.B. 48 provide for local governments to establish funds for long term maintenance expenditures but it would also prohibit the monies in those funds from being used for other purposes. Mr. Mouritsen referred to Section 2, subsection 3, of A.B. 48 and explained one of the legislative subcommittee's central arguments in favor of that provision was it prohibited monies placed in the funds created under A.B. 48 from being used for purposes other than those set forth in subsection 3. Mr. Neighbors asked how local governments, such as those of the city of Las Vegas and of Clark County, currently funded "...projected replacements." Mr. Leavitt said if Mr. Neighbors was referring to replacement of an asset, most local governments funded replacement of assets by the same means by which they funded the original purchase of those assets, which was to issue bonds. He said, with respect to long term maintenance of buildings, local governments paid for such maintenance from their current revenues. Mrs. Freeman referred to the proposed amendment to A.B. 48 (Exhibit C) and asked, "Would it be appropriate, if we adopt that amendment, that we change on line 8, page 2, where it talks about legislative auditor and then down on page 44 and 45." Mr. Leavitt responded the proposed amendment (Exhibit C) would eliminate references to the legislative auditor from A.B. 48. Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Mouritsen if the population figures for Clark County and Washoe County were the same as those figures were two years earlier, towit: 400,000 and 250,000, respectively. Mr. Mouritsen replied, to the best of his knowledge, the population of Washoe County had not yet reached 400,000. Mr. Bennett asked if Mr. Leavitt could provide an example of the reason the provisions of A.B. 48 should be extended to include flood control districts as provided by the proposed amendment (Exhibit C). Mr. Leavitt responded the proposed amendment (Exhibit C) would exclude flood control districts from the provisions of A.B. 48. He suggested, if the language of A.B. 48 was amended to make its provisions permissive (rather than mandatory), there would be no need to exclude any local governmental entity from its provisions. Mr. Ed Ylst gave further testimony. He said citizens of rural counties were concerned about the fact local governments expended large sums of money for capital projects "...without a referendum vote..." by citizens. Mr. J. Patrick Coward, city of Sparks, testified. He advised the city of Sparks initially opposed A.B. 48 because the city believed the provisions of A.B. 48 to be too structured and inflexible. He stated, if A.B. 48 was amended as suggested by the proposed amendment (Exhibit C) and as suggested by Mr. Nolan, thus making its language more permissive, it should address the needs of local governments. He suggested making A.B. 48 permissive rather than mandatory would be preferable to establishing a population cap for its provisions. He said, "I think Washoe County has that same feeling." Chairman Lambert stated, "For the record, Mary Henderson, the lobbyist from Washoe County nodded yes in agreement." Mr. Bache asked if Ms. Henderson would come forward to answer a question. Ms. Henderson seated herself at the witness table and identified herself, for the record, as Mary Henderson, Government Affairs Director, Washoe County. Chairman Lambert asked Ms. Henderson if she served on the technical committee for the study, conducted by the legislative subcommittee, which resulted in A.B. 48. Ms. Henderson replied she did. Mr. Bache said he did not recall Ms. Henderson expressing any concern about A.B. 48 during the interim study and asked Ms. Henderson to express her thoughts concerning A.B. 48. Ms. Henderson responded Washoe County supported A.B. 48. She contended, in large counties, where large facilities were constructed, it was very important to have a fund from which to provide for ongoing maintenance of such facilities. She stated Washoe County agreed with the position expressed by Mr. Coward with respect to making the language of A.B. 48 permissive rather than mandatory. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 48. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 120 - Creates trust fund for extraordinary maintenance, repair or improvement of capital projects of state Assemblyman Douglas Bache, District 11, testified. He explained A.B. 120 paralleled A.B. 48 but dealt with state government's capital projects rather than local governments' capital projects. He suggested, by establishing a fund which could be used to pay for extraordinary maintenance, in the event a large repair to a capital project should become necessary, A.B. 120 would allow state government to do long range planning. He referred to subsection 6 of Section 1 of A.B. 120 and indicated, because the legislative auditor already had a schedule of audits, that subsection was unnecessary and should be deleted. Mr. Harrington asked whether Mr. Bache felt A.B. 120 should be amended to make it permissive or should remain mandatory. Mr. Bache responded he felt A.B. 120 should remain mandatory. Mr. Mike Meizel, Administrator, Buildings and Grounds Division, Department of Administration, State of Nevada, testified. He indicated the division did not take a strong position on A.B. 120, which had both pros and cons. He stated one benefit of A.B. 120 would be the creation of a fund to care for state buildings and said he believed that to be important. He suggested one detriment of A.B. 120 was the fact it would cause a lot of the money which the state received from bond sales to be tied up for a long period of time. He contended, "Somewhere along the line, due to the arbitrage regulations, there would have to be some administrative recapture of this money every year." He suggested, in some instances, the fund created under the provisions of A.B. 120 would be too small to accomplish anything. Mr. Meizel pointed out A.B. 120 made no reference to university systems but suggested university systems themselves should be in charge of their own long term maintenance, indicating they presently did a good job with regard to such maintenance. Mr. Bache asked if there were any state capital projects, other than public roads and highways, which were not buildings or facilities. Mr. Meizel said it was conceivable the state could become involved in a large capital project involving renovation and suggested it might not be desirable to cause the provisions of A.B. 120 to apply to such capital projects. Mr. Neighbors asked if maintenance of the new prison at Lovelock would be covered by the Public Works Board's budget. Mr. Meizel replied advance planning for prison facilities was included in the budget of the Public Works Board but maintenance of those facilities was not. He explained the trust fund (for maintenance of capital projects) which would be established by A.B. 120 would be administered by the Department of Administration and could be allocated for maintenance projects for institutions such as prisons. Mr. Bennet asked whether the trust fund which would be established by A.B. 120 would be designated for specific purposes or would be made a part of the general fund. Mr. Meizel said, as he understood A.B. 120, the fund would be designated for specific purposes. He explained, currently, if the state contemplated a large facilities maintenance project, it would designate funds for that project and include the project in its list of capital improvements, which were overseen by the legislature. He indicated, however, there was no fund specifically set aside for such projects. He advised, historically, when the state experienced economic difficulties, maintenance of facilities was the first item cut from the state's budget. He contended A.B. 120 would create a fund which would be available to use for facilities maintenance during difficult economic times. Mr. Ed Ylst testified. He expressed concern about costs which might be imposed on taxpayers, particularly property owners, by A.B. 120. He suggested the fact there were fewer property owners than there were voters raised the issue of equity in taxation. He contended laws which were not needed should not be passed. Mr. John Adams, Deputy Treasurer, State of Nevada, testified. He indicated the Treasurer was neutral with respect to A.B. 120 but had some questions regarding the administration of its provisions. He advised the Treasurer understood the fund which would be created under A.B. 120 would not be maintained as a separate bank account but rather as a trust fund, maintained by the State Controller, with accounts allocated for each capital project. He indicated the Treasurer's main concern was that no new bank accounts be created. Mr. Bache advised Mr. Adams the Treasurer's understanding was consistent with Mr. Bache's intent in proposing A.B. 120. Mr. Adams said, "In the determination of the interest allocable to the various capital projects, those amounts have to be determined with respect to the way the law reads. It says `interest will be in excess of' the arbitrage amount. Now, the arbitrage amount, we would assume and it doesn't say, that has to be computed by the Controller? He does that annually? Interest on those amounts would be distributed quarterly. We need some way to control the disbursement of funds out of that account because the arbitrage may be a larger amount than the interest earned." Mr. Bache suggested Mr. Adams might provide language with which to properly address the Treasurer's concern about disbursement of funds. Mr. Adams replied the Treasurer would like to provide such language. Mr. Adams referred to those provisions of A.B. 120 which provided that the judicial and legislative branches of government had the option of having the chief of the administrative office administer their accounts. He suggested the chief of the administrative office might decline to do so because of costs which he might incur and for which he would not be reimbursed. Mr. Harrington asked, "You mentioned the arbitrage may be more than the interest on the accounts so that the account may actually have to pay out?" Mr. Adams replied such a circumstance would be rare but the possibility existed. Mr. Adams referred to the provision of A.B. 120 which required an annual report be rendered within 30 days of the close of the fiscal year. He advised the Treasurer assumed the end of the fiscal year would be June 30th. He explained, "However, the books are not closed, probably, until October." He contended all the information needed to prepare the annual report would not be available in time to render the report within 30 days of the close of the fiscal year. He suggested amending A.B. 120 to provide a report be made within 30 days of the date the books were closed. Mr. Neighbors asked, "Are you on the modified accrual system, the same as the counties?" Mr. Adams replied affirmatively. Mr. Adams asked from where the funds required to cover the costs of auditing the accounts created under A.B. 120 would come. Mr. Bache suggested he and Mr. Adams confer regarding some of the technical issues Mr. Adams had raised and attempt to arrive at language which would deal with those issues. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 120. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3 - Directs certain state agencies to cooperate with Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and local governments in Lake Tahoe Basin and to provide information within their fields of responsibility. Mr. Jim Baetge, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (hereinafter referred to as TRPA), testified. He explained A.C.R. 3 strongly encouraged Nevada's state agencies to cooperate in the endeavors being made at Lake Tahoe with respect to Lake Tahoe's environment. He stated TRPA supported A.C.R. 3. Ms. Tripple asked if state agencies were or were not cooperating with TRPA at the present time. Mr. Baetge responded, at the present time, the cooperation of state agencies was good but suggested it was good for all state agencies to be aware there was legislative support for the activities being conducted by those involved in the Lake Tahoe Basin to protect Lake Tahoe. Ms. Tripple suggested the language of A.C.R. 3 "...are hereby directed to cooperate..." sounded quite disciplinary and indicated she would not wish to receive such a resolution if she were already providing her cooperation. Mr. Baetge concurred the language to which Ms. Tripple referred was fairly strong and said he did not object to the wording being changed. Mrs. Freeman informed the committee the intent of A.C.R. 3 was to affirm the fact the legislature wished all state agencies to work together with respect to environmental projects at Lake Tahoe. Mrs. Segerblom reiterated Mrs. Freeman's comments. Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, District 39, testified. Chairman Lambert advised Mr. Hettrick of the question which had been raised regarding the language "...are hereby directed to cooperate..." Mr. Hettrick suggested A.C.R. 3 was an attempt to cause state agencies to provide data, information and cooperation to TRPA rather than an attempt to mandate that state agencies must do such things as TRPA directed be done. He indicated he saw no problem with wording A.C.R. 3 to read as a request if the agencies to whom A.C.R. 3 was to be directed were uncomfortable with its present wording. Mr. James Nakada, Supervisor, Nevada-Tahoe Conservation District (hereinafter referred to as the District), testified. He stated he supported A.C.R. 3 but indicated the Nevada-Tahoe Conservation District would prefer to see the language of A.C.R. 3 softened because the District did cooperate with TRPA. He said the District had written memorandums of understanding in which it stressed its cooperation with TRPA. He advised the District was presently working with TRPA to implement TRPA's Best Management Practices program. He stated the District would continue to cooperate with TRPA in the absence of A.C.R. 3. Ms. Rochelle Nason, Executive Director, League to Save Lake Tahoe (hereinafter referred to as the League), testified. She stated the League supported A.C.R. 3. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.C.R. 3. A work session was held. 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 HARRINGTON MOVED DO PASS A.B. 11. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. Chairman Lambert assigned A.B. 11 to Mr. Harrington for the purpose of making a floor statement. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 13 - Requires submission of proposal to issue general obligation bonds to provide grants to local governments and departments of transportation for projects for controlling erosion and restoring natural watercourses in Lake Tahoe Basin. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED DO PASS A.B. 13. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion was held. Mr. Harrington stated much of the money spent on Lake Tahoe was spent on "...extremely upperclass neighborhoods..." and said he felt those neighborhoods should share a greater portion of the costs (for those projects identified in A.B. 13). He suggested those individuals who actually enjoyed the beauty of Lake Tahoe should fund the projects rather than those individuals who might never enjoy its beauty. He declared he opposed A.B. 13. Mr. Bache reminded the committee that A.B. 13 would also be considered by the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means for the purpose of determining its fiscal impact. He also reminded the committee the bonds discussed in A.B. 13 were natural resources bonds and were excluded from the two percent debt limit. Mrs. Segerblom pointed out Lake Tahoe was being preserved for tourists, for "...the working people at Lake Tahoe..." and for all Nevada's citizens and stated she supported A.B. 13. There being no further discussion, Chairman Lambert called for a vote on the motion before the committee. THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON VOTING "NO". ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 17 - Makes appropriations for establishment and operation of program to provide for preparation and implementation of plans for protection and development of Lake Tahoe Basin by all interested participants. ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED DO PASS A.B. 17. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion was held. Mr. Bennett stated he opposed A.B. 17. He advised he would like to see the provisions of A.B. 17 made contingent upon matching funds being received from California. Ms. Tripple indicated she was concerned about the small amount of money which would be generated by A.B. 17 compared to the amount of money which would be spent to cause A.B. 17 to be passed by the legislature. She expressed concern about the provision of A.B. 17 which provided quarterly payments be made to TRPA based on TRPA's progress reports. She asked that the reason for that provision be explained "...in terms of good management dollars to get a pass accomplished." Mr. Jim Baetge, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (hereinafter referred to as TRPA), testified in response to Ms. Tripple's question. He indicated reporting to the Interim Finance Committee was time consuming but said the requirement to do so was not entirely negative because it required the partnership participants to gather together to discuss the progress being made. Ms. Tripple asked if the cooperative relationship (among those participating in the protection and development of Tahoe Basin) was sufficiently established "...so we could at least trust each other for six months?" Mr. Baetge responded he believed that cooperative relationship to be very good at the present time. He said, however, he believed the reporting structure established by A.B. 17 should remain. He indicated TRPA believed it could generate the required reports fairly rapidly. Chairman Lambert reminded the committee the issue before it was whether the partnership approach was a good approach and one which should be continued and the issue of the money involved was one which would be considered by the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Bache asked if he correctly remembered, from testimony Mr. Baetge gave at the hearing on A.B. 17, that TRPA had not received its full appropriation from both Nevada and California during the last legislative session and that the $30,000 appropriation discussed by A.B. 17 was less than the amount of money which Nevada had not provided to TRPA. Mr. Baetge replied Nevada withheld monies which were intended for TRPA's operations but then released those monies to TRPA, during the current year, without those monies being matched by California. He indicated there was a commitment to develop the partnership approach over a three year period but to use less funds during the last two of those three years. Mr. Baetge said, "The reality is, yes, it was not intended for a direct match by California." He suggested, over the past 10 years, California had substantially "overmatched" funds (provided by Nevada). Mr. Nolan pointed out the fiscal note on A.B. 17 indicated $20,000 would be allocated for an additional staff position for TRPA. He pointed out, during the committee's hearing on A.B. 17, there was discussion about the fact TRPA's staff would be shifting much of its workload pertaining to project review to local governments and asked if so shifting the workload would not permit TRPA to reallocate its present staff to assume those responsibilities which would otherwise be handled by the proposed additional staff person. Mr. Baetge replied, when TRPA delegated its responsibilities for project review to local governments, TRPA lost the permit fees it received as a result of conducting project reviews. He indicated the loss of these fees resulted in TRPA having to reduce its staff. He indicated the partnership monies (provided under A.B. 17) allowed TRPA to do things at Lake Tahoe which had not previously been done and contended, without those monies, TRPA's activities would be severely restricted. Assemblyman Braunlin asked if she correctly recalled, from Mr. Baetge`s prior testimony, that one of the responsibilities of the proposed additional staff person would be management of grants, a subject upon which TRPA had been unable to focus and which, it was hoped, would generate more money for TRPA's use. Mr. Baetge replied affirmatively. Ms. Braunlin asked if Mr. Baetge had any idea how much money management of grants would generate. He replied he did not. Chairman Lambert called for a vote on the motion before the committee. THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH MR. BENNETT VOTING "NO". ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8 - Urges Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to establish procedures to grant variances from ordinances adopted pursuant to Tahoe Regional Planning Compact for certain projects. Mrs. Freeman said she wished to point out "...TRPA is currently working this out with local government, with local ordinances. It's working very well." She contended A.J.R. 8 represented micro-management, by a state agency, of something which was presently being done well. She suggested there was great potential for the provisions of A.J.R. 8 to be abused. She stated resolutions had an impact on the agencies to whom they were directed. She said she believed A.J.R. 8 was not needed and that the negative aspects of A.J.R. 8 outweighed its positive aspects. Mr. Bennett stated TRPA's attitude, as reflected in the testimony given by its representatives, was "...very, very bad toward the little guy." He suggested wealthy residents of Lake Tahoe had the financial resources with which to obtain variances from ordinances but the average person did not have the financial resources to do so. He urged the committee to support A.J.R. 8. Mrs. Segerblom expressed her opposition to A.J.R. 8 and declared she would not support it. Mr. Bache said TRPA indicated it had a means to provide variances but provided those variances with respect to specific ordinances. He suggested a general variance procedure, such as was proposed by A.J.R. 8, as opposed to the procedure used by TRPA, which addressed itself to specific ordinances, could create problems. Ms. Tripple asked if TRPA would care to respond to Mr. Bennett's comments concerning the financial inability of the average person to obtain a variance from an ordinance. Ms. Susan Scholly, legal counsel for Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, testified in response to Ms. Tripple's question. She said, when TRPA amended an ordinance in order to create a variance, the variance was then available to everyone and not just to those who could afford to pay consultants and to take time to appear before TRPA. She indicated there was no way to obtain a variance other than by "...these variance provisions that are adopted into the codes." Mrs. Krenzer said, because a method currently existed to allow variances from ordinances, she too would oppose A.J.R. 8. Chairman Lambert explained there were exceptions contained in the ordinances but those exceptions were not variances. Mr. Bennett asked Ms. Scholly if an individual could obtain a variance through TRPA. Ms. Scholly replied, in numerous situations in which an individual could not proceed with his project under existing codes, TRPA had provided for codes to be amended. She reiterated, when a code was amended to allow an exception, the opportunity to take advantage of that exception was available to everyone. She advised, if TRPA's staff did not support amending a code, the question of whether or not an exception to the code should be created was submitted to TRPA's governing board. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.J.R. 8. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3 - Directs certain state agencies to cooperate with Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the local governments in Lake Tahoe Basin and to provide information within their fields of responsibility. Chairman Lambert advised the committee an amendment to A.C.R. 3 had been proposed which would replace "direct" with "urge". ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO AMEND A.C.R. 3, ON LINE 26, TO REPLACE THE WORD "DIRECTED" WITH THE WORD "URGED" AND DO ADOPT A.C.R. 3. ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. Chairman Lambert assigned A.C.R. 3 to Mrs. Freeman for the purpose of making a floor statement. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 49 - Revises provisions relating to alteration of boundaries of certain districts for support of public parks. Chairman Lambert advised the committee, in order to avoid the necessity of holding an election, an amendment to A.B. 49 had been proposed which would provide for a unanimous petition requesting inclusion in a park district. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON MOVED DO PASS A.B. 49. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Discussions were held regarding whether or not the committee wished to amend A.B. 49. Mr. Harrington asked if the proposed amendment would allow a large developer, such as Hughes Corporation, without the requirement of a vote by the citizens, to choose to be included in a different park district than the one in which it was originally included by choosing from among various park districts whose boundaries were contiguous with the developer's land. Chairman Lambert replied the proposed amendment would only allow such a developer to choose to be included in a park district and would not allow the developer to remove itself from inclusion in its existing park district. The committee determined it would take no action on A.B. 49 at this time. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 51 - Revises provisions relating to districts for the control of floods. Chairman Lambert reminded the committee it had received no testimony either in support of or in opposition to A.B. 51. She explained A.B. 51 would affect Washoe County and suggested it might be better to deal with flood control for Washoe County in connection with some of those bills pertaining to water planning on which the committee would be holding hearings in the future. ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 51. ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 53 - Authorizes municipalities to issue refunding bonds for improvement districts under certain circumstances. Chairman Lambert explained A.B. 53 would allow refunding of assessment district bonds. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED DO PASS A.B. 53. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bache pointed out A.B. 53 would also provide to local governments the ability to combine projects under one bond, thereby saving costs. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. Chairman Lambert assigned A.B. 53 to Mr. Bache for the purpose of making a floor statement. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 145 - Makes various changes relating to county and city parks. Chairman Lambert advised the committee A.B. 145 changed some statutory language, which defined what a "park project" was, and allowed a county commission to delegate authority to make refunds of up to $1,000. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON MOVED DO PASS A.B. 145. ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. Chairman Lambert assigned A.B. 145 to Mr. Harrington for the purpose of making a floor statement. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 146 - Facilitates amendment of master plan of district for control of floods. Chairman Lambert advised A.B. 146 changed the requirement that a proposed amendment to the master plan must be approved by two-thirds of all members of the board to a requirement that a proposed amendment must be approved by two- thirds of those members of the board who voted on the proposed amendment. Mrs. Segerblom said she recalled there was no opposition to A.B. 146. Mr. Bennett said the board presently consisted of eight members, with five members constituting a quorum. He pointed out A.B. 146 would require only four members of the board, rather than six members, need vote in favor of something in order for it to pass. Mrs. Krenzer asked if Mr. Bache could clarify the purpose of A.B. 146. Mr. Bache replied, in the last legislative session, legislation was passed which dealt with flood control boards and which changed the voting requirement set forth in other statutes concerned with flood control boards but not in the statute dealt with by A.B. 146. Mr. Nolan suggested the committee might hold a further hearing on A.B. 146 and A.B. 51, concurrently, in order to hear testimony on both bills at the same time and from the same people. Chairman Lambert explained flood control planning in Washoe County was dealt with by entities unique to Washoe County and, therefore, A.B. 146 and A.B. 51 had no direct relationship to one another. Chairman Lambert advised A.B. 146 should be amended to provide that it would become effective on the date it was approved by the Governor. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 146 TO PROVIDE THAT IT BECOME EFFECTIVE ON THE DATE IT WAS APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR AND DO PASS A.B. 146. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. Chairman Lambert assigned A.B. 146 to Mr. Bache for the purpose of making a floor statement. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Lambert adjourned the meeting at 10:10 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Sara Kaufman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs February 23, 1995 Page