BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
SB 630 (Pavley/Steinberg) - California Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency.
Amended: April 2, 2013 Policy Vote: NR&W 7-2
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: April 22, 2013 Consultant:
Marie Liu
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: SB 630 would re-establish the governance and
responsibilities of the California Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency (CTPRA), should the State of Nevada withdraws from the
Tahoe Regional Planning Compact thereby dissolving the existing
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA).
Fiscal Impact:
One-time savings of approximately $4.1 million from the
Environmental License Plate Fund (Special Fund) and the
Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund (Special Fund), for
the cessation of California's budget contribution to the
operating budget of the TRPA.
Unknown one-time costs, but at least in the tens to
hundreds of thousands of dollars from the General Fund to
transfer appropriate responsibilities from the TRPA to the
CTRPA.
Unknown ongoing costs, likely in the millions of dollars
from the General Fund for the operation of the
administration of the CTPRA
Background: Lake Tahoe faces a unique governance challenge given
that the lake's basin spans two states. In 1969, a bi-state
compact between California and Nevada, called the Tahoe Regional
Planning Compact, was ratified by the U.S. Congress and resulted
in the creation of the TRPA. Prior to the creation of the TRPA,
both California and Nevada had their own regional planning
agencies. The CTRPA still exists in statutes but is functionally
nonexistent.
The compact intended that California would provide 2/3 of the
funding for the TRPA with Nevada providing the remaining third.
However, currently of the $14.7 million TRPA budget, California
SB 630 (Pavley)
Page 1
contributes $4.1 million (28%) and Nevada contributes $1.3
million (9%). The remaining $6.6 million (63%) is being provided
by federal funds and other sources.
TRPA's original charge was to regulate development in the Lake
Tahoe Basin. In 1980, TRPA's was additionally given the
responsibility to adopt environmental quality standards or
thresholds. The plan to achieve these thresholds is called the
regional plan. TRPA adopted a long-range regional plan was first
adopted in 1984 with a successor regional plan being adopted in
1987. The next update was not adopted until December 2012.
The long, arduous negotiations that preceded the adoption of the
December 2012 update greatly frustrated many interested parties
including the State of Nevada. In 2011, Nevada passed Senate
Bill 271, which demanded that a new regional plan be approved
and required several changes in the governance and
responsibilities of TRPA. If these requirements are not met, SB
271 allows the Nevada Governor to withdraw Nevada from the Tahoe
Regional Planning Compact in 2015, thereby dissolving TRPA.
While a new regional plan was approved, not all the requirements
have been satisfied (and cannot be satisfied without
congressional action). This year, the Nevada Legislature is
considering SB 229 which would repeal SB 271.
Proposed Law: This bill would re-establish the CTRPA and its
responsibilities. Specifically this bill would modify the
membership of the CTRPA governing body and specify that the 2012
regional plan serve as the interim plan of the CTRPA with six
specific exceptions. This bill would not become operative if
Nevada repeals SB 271 on or before January 1, 2014.
Staff Comments: If TRPA is dissolved, California will score a
savings equal to its current contribution to TRPA's budget-
$4.1million. But this savings will be far outbalanced by the
cost of re-establishing, then operating, the CTRPA. Not only
will California be shouldering the cost of the agency on its own
(albeit an agency with a smaller jurisdiction), but the
substantial amount of federal funding currently received by TRPA
will be in jeopardy. Even if CTRPA is able to reclaim a
significant share of the federal funds, there may be a delay in
receiving the funds as they will need to be reauthorized.
The likely budgetary needs for a CTRPA are unknown, but staff
SB 630 (Pavley)
Page 2
notes that the Senate Budget Subcommittee #2 has requested that
TRPA provide the Legislature with a rough budget estimate. This
information is anticipated at the end of April. The Subcommittee
also has voted to direct staff to prepare a proposal to allocate
$100,000 to the Natural Resources Agency to start planning to
re-establish CTRPA.
TRPA has provided this committee and the Senate Budget
Subcommittee with a preliminary analysis of the fiscal impacts
should they be dissolved. The impacts include:
The need to renegotiate numerous Memorandums of
Understandings on issues such as wastewater infrastructure
and determining appropriate successor agencies for
programs.
The potential loss of millions of dollars of grants
awarded to TRPA.
The need to pay off $13.3M of outstanding obligations
that were largely incurred by the purchase of TRPA
headquarters in Stateline NV.
The transfer of $4.2 million in funds held in trust for
California local agencies for environmental projects and of
$2.2 million in security deposits from California property
owners which are held by TRPA to ensure project completion.
The potential loss of more than $4 million in federal
transportation funds.
The terminating or transferring of 70 TRPA staff.
As this bill does not call for the dissolution of TRPA itself,
all of these costs are not technically attributable to this
bill. However, staff notes that these are costs that will be
incurred in the scenario in which this bill would go into
effect.