MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF

      SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

      AND

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      February 8, 1993

 

The joint meeting of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:00 a.m., on Monday, February 8, 1993, in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Diana M. Glomb

Senator William R. O'Donnell

Senator Matthew Q. Callister

 

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.  Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman

Mr.  Larry L. Spitler, Vice Chairman

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mr.  Joseph E. Dini, Jr.

Mrs. Jan Evans

Ms.  Christina R. Giunchigliani

Mr.  Dean A. Heller

Mr.  David E. Humke

Mr.  John W. Marvel

Mr.  Richard Perkins

Mr.  Robert E. Price

Ms.  Sandra Tiffany

Mrs. Myrna T. Williams

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst

Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Gary Ghiggeri, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Dee Crawford, Committee Secretary

Reba Coombs, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Tom Stephens, Secretary-Manager, State Public Works Board

Roger Grable, Deputy Manager, State Public Works Board

Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration

Dan Daily, Civil Engineer, State Public Works Board

Ron Angelone, Director, Department of Prisons

Mike Meizel, Administrator, Buildings and Grounds, Department of     General Services

Tom Glab, Chief of Plant Operations, Department of Prisons

Jim Schneider, Electrical Engineer, State Public Works Board

Ron Sparks, Vice-Chancellor, University and Community College        System of Nevada

Donald Kwalick, M.D., State Health Officer, Health Division,         Department of Human Resources

Arthur DiSalvo, M.D., Chief, Bureau of Laboratory Services, Health    Division, Department of Human Resources

Terry Sullivan, Director, Department of General Services

Bruce Nipp, Mechanical Engineer, State Public Works Board

John Turcich, Computer Systems Programmer III, Highway Patrol,       Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Bob Seale, State Treasurer

Jana Wesley, Managing Director, Public Resources Advisory Group,     Los Angeles, California

Jerry Griepentrog-Carlin, Director, Department of Human Resources

Scott Mayne, Chief Accountant, Department of Human Resources

Susan Ernst, Director, Aging Services Division, Department of Human    Resources

Harry Clemons, Lobbyist, American Association of Retired Persons

 

Public Works Administration - Page 287

 

Tom Stephens, Manager, State Public Works Board, explained the function of the agency is to develop and manage all phases of the Capital Improvement Program. The agency's function also includes the responsibility to identify the building needs and set priorities for the state capital projects, as well as periodic inspection of state buildings and review of proposed changes in the uniform codes. The Inspection Division of the agency is responsible for the supervision and inspection of construction and major repairs to state buildings.  Staff of the agency also furnish engineering, architectural and construction administration services to state agencies. During the last two bienniums, the Capital Improvement Program has averaged $100 million per year. 

 

Mr. Stephens pointed out the State Public Works Board personnel were reduced from 49 to 43 as recommended by the Governor.

 

Mr. Stephens advised the total resources for the l992-93 work program combined were $2.9 million and the Governor's recommendation was $2.5 million.

 

Senator Raggio asked how the reductions were achieved.

 

Mr. Stephens maintained part of the reductions were due to the reorganization plan whereby some positions would be transferred to the Department of Administration for purposes of general support. "We have reduced...one Construction Manager in northern Nevada, we've laid off an Inspector in Elko, we plan to lay off another Inspector in northern Nevada on July l, l993 and the following July l [l994] one more Inspector position will be laid off," he concluded.

 

Mr. Stephens introduced Roger Grable, Deputy Manager, State Public Works Board, and invited his testimony regarding the merging of the two agency budgets as well as pertinent reductions in staff. Mr. Grable disclosed:

 

      The reorganization recommended by the Governor involved the transfer of two positions out of the [State] Public Works Board budget into the new Department of Administration. [It] also involved the transfer of one data processing individual out of the budget into the data processing field....

 

Highlighting the major impact of the combination of the two budgets, Mr. Grable explained:

 

      ...The major impact areas are in the areas of salaries as a result of reduced staff.  Our operating and equipment and the rest of the categories are fairly conservative.... We're asking for less appropriation than we did in the previous 2 years.

 

Senator Raggio proclaimed difficulty with the new budget format in trying to follow the changes in the Base budget. He asked what were the total existing positions for l992 of all accounts now merged.

 

Mr. Grable said:

 

      There were l6 positions in the General Fund side under Budget 1560. They are now merged into the combined Budget l562. Of those l6 positions in the General Fund side, one position is being transferred to the data processing area and one Account Clerk is going to be transferred to the Department of Administration.

 

Senator Raggio queried, "...Then all the General Fund side shows up in this Budget Account l562?"

 

Mr. Grable responded in the affirmative.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "What was the General Fund [amount] in l992?"

 

Mr. Grable responded, "$l,238,770...Obviously there is a difference there, but we also had a significant savings in the General Fund side for this budget year." Continuing, he explained:

 

      Relative to the large difference, there was $309,133 in revenue for reversion in this budget year that we accomplished through transfer of personnel from General Fund side to the direct charge side.  What we did, in order to meet the Governor's needs on the General Fund side, we reduced our General Fund budget through transfers of individual staff out of the General Fund side to a more appropriate charge area. The people who were transferred were working directly on capital improvement projects and were not involved with the general operations of the [State] Public Works Board....

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Is that going to be funded through assessments on the projects?"

 

Mr. Grable responded in the affirmative and explained services are now being charged to agencies for in-house designs and management of projects.

 

Mr. Stephens explained, "The trend is that we are becoming more fee-based off the Capital Improvement Program. In the last biennium, 47 percent of the agency operations were General Fund and this budget would reduce that to 32 percent."

 

Mr. Marvel asked, "On the state cost allocation, will that come out of proceeds?"

 

Mr. Grable responded in the affirmative and added, "...That will come out of proceeds from projects. It's used to fund the General Fund side of the Department of Administration and the new Department of Administration under the reorganization plan, as well as pay a fair share back into operating of state government, is what I understand."

 

Senator Raggio asked for an explanation of the amounts requested in the first year of the biennium of $l3,000 and $3,500 the second year.

 

Mr. Grable proclaimed the request was to obtain new tank files and replace a 30-year old blueprint machine. He explained that a tank file is a fireproof bulk storage container to protect plans and blueprints. 

 

Mr. Arberry asked if the new blueprint machine will provide more copies than the existing machine.

 

Mr. Grable responded, "I hope so....The blue line process isn't going to change, but the method of handling the developer [will]. The old machine is worn out....As we get into the next biennium, there is indication there will be more and more in-house design...."

 

Mr. Arberry asked the cost of the blueprint machine.

 

Mr. Grable responded approximately $8,950.

 

Mr. Raggio directed the committee's attention to the Occupational Studies section of the Governor's Executive Budget and asked how many employees were affected.

 

Mr. Stephens advised the study reclassified some of the State Public Works Board staff. He reported the list of affected employees would be forwarded to the committee and pointed out relatively small salary changes in the various positions analyzed.

 

Mr. Stephens declared no enhancement in the agency budget. Attention was drawn to the agency performance indicators.  Mr. Stephens explained, due to the decrease in design programs, the agency is projecting fewer design contracts being let in the next biennium.

 

Mr. Arberry noted the agency had eliminated one Architect and two Engineer positions.  He remarked, "I understand under the reorganization plan, Buildings and Grounds [Division] is going to come under your jurisdiction.  If that is the case, and you're laying all these people off, how will your existing staff be able to manage Buildings and Grounds [Division]?"

 

Mr. Stephens elucidated:

 

      I think we're going to manage Buildings and Grounds [Division] by bringing them into the last part of the twentieth century in the way that we do things...Let me give you one example.  Buildings and Grounds [Division] has four Accountants...that handle their $7 million-a-year worth of expenditures.  Those people have one l985 PC [personal computer].  So they're doing most of their work by hand. Their maintenance system is all done manually....There are canned programs out there that will make it a lot easier to do...so those are the kinds of things we're going to look at....I cannot imagine we can't save significantly by tracking utility bills better in the first year. That's what my plan would be for Buildings and Grounds [Division].

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked:

 

      What is the inter-fund transfer being used for or where those dollars are coming from and what they're intended to be used for....It's rolled in under your Operating Expenses on Page 287 [of the Governor's Executive Budget]...Because we went from an actual of $60,600 to $200,956. It's my understanding there's an inter-fund transfer added into that for that figure.

 

Mr. Stephens deferred the question to Mr. Grable.

 

Mr. Grable explained:

 

      Under the personnel side, under Reorganizational Savings...there is a $66,000 reorganizational savings scheduled in the [State] Public Works Budget....It's a value that is used to estimate the cost...for the new Director.  Under the inter-fund transfer there is $67,526 and $69,294 scheduled for transfer to cover administration and general services cost.

 

Mr. Grable summarized, "Apparently when the Department of Administration is created, you have to fund this operation....Participating agencies will fund part of that, and that's what this is for."

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked, "So is there some sort of fee assessment that we're doing to try and generate the money to cover and offset that administrative cost, or maybe that [question] needs to go to the Budget Division."

 

Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration, testified in response to the question:

 

      Throughout the organization, whenever there are positions transferred to another budget account, mostly that administrative services account you see being created in all the departments, we transfer operating money with it....This is a transfer from this account to that administrative services account to help support the positions that were transferred into the administrative services account.  There were two positions transferred into that account....

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if a value formula was used.

 

Ms. Matteucci answered, "What is done is when the particular positions were decided to be transferred, every agency had to calculate the value of the positions that were being transferred and the operating cost associated with it and they took them with it."

 

Ms. Giunchigliani interjected, "So in all instances, the agencies generated that figure, so if anybody winds up being short, then we need to go back to that agency...?"

 

Ms. Matteucci corrected Ms. Giunchigliani and said:

 

      No, the agency didn't generate it, the [Budget] Analyst working with the reorganization, when they decided which positions should be recommended for transfer into the Administrative Services account, came up with it. But it will not be consistent among budget accounts because different budget accounts have different operating costs associated with the positions. We can give you the specific breakdowns if you have concerns....We can show you how we calculated that transfer.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani requested that information be provided to the committee.

 

 

 

 

Senator Rawson asked:

 

      I think we've all struggled with the performance indicators to get something that is meaningful and helpful. I'm a little concerned about the performance indicators here that they simply be a reflection of whatever the Governor's, or approved CIP [Capital Improvement Program], budget list will be.  In other words, you see here that the average number of design contracts are going to take a sharp dive down towards 1995 and that's because of the proposed projects that will be designed. As we try to struggle with these in the future, your budget, or certain restrictions, may fall upon you because of these performance indicators.  I'm wondering if you could spend a little time to try to develop some ratios, or indexes, that would help us to really look at the efficiency of your department. Maybe something like [number of] months in design would be more valuable to us than looking at simply how many projects designed....

 

Mr. Stephens responded the request would be hard to quantify because "oftentimes a small project with a small dollar amount will take almost as much effort as a project that is twice as large because of the nature of the design."

 

Senator Raggio declared, "...Under the reorganization savings, the equivalent of the Secretary-Manager salary is deleted in both years....Does that indicate that the new position of Director of the Department of Administration will now be in charge and there will be no Secretary-Manager?  What is the plan?"

 

Ms. Matteucci interjected:

 

      Again, the Governor has not made the decision as to how that is going to work out, because he has not named a director of the Department of Administration. What we have done here, is removed either directors or deputy directors as we have gone through each of the previous stand-alone departments that now become divisions. We, again, have removed only the value of allowing the flexibility to the new director to choose how he wants to come up with that particular proposal. So as you go through here, you're going to see values of other directors and deputy directors as well as the values of what look to be excess administrative personnel, accounting types, when you combine your administrative services and those are the positions that you'll be seeing throughout the budget....

 

Senator Raggio pointed out:

 

      In the Governor's Executive Budget in Brief, the new position of Director, Department of Administration, does, among other things, oversee construction and facilities and the amounts that you have identified as reorganizational savings are the equivalent of the Secretary-Manager's salary for the periods involved. Do we draw any conclusion other than what you're telling us?

 

Ms. Matteucci insisted, "You should not draw any conclusions other than what I'm telling you."

 

Senator Jacobsen asked if the reorganized departments and divisions would be physically moved to accommodate the reorganization plan.

 

Ms. Matteucci replied in the affirmative and added the relocation would be a phase-in plan over the course of the biennium.

 

Mr. Arberry asked:

 

      I see here where you're transferring the funding from the attorney general's office of about $28,000 for both years l993-1995.  Also here it shows the General Fund amount of $44,000 in each year. But I understand that the attorney general's office previously...provided his agency with no cost so how can you be transferring something that was never a cost before?

 

Ms. Matteucci suggested Mr. Arberry research the files and implied, "You will find several letters that the attorney general's office wrote asking for payment."  She asserted:

 

      A proposal was made to the Interim Finance Committee, which you turned down, to pay for the attorney general's services for the [State] Public Works Board. The [State] Public Works Board is increasingly using an almost full-time deputy attorney general....They simply could not provide those duties without charging.  Remember too, when the attorney general appeared before you, we attempted to explain the new cost allocation method for the attorney general. The federal cost allocation folks would not allow us to continue to bill out attorney general costs as we have in the past, because we were half billing it out and half assessing it, so we had to go to a cost allocation method.  This is that cost allocation method. You are correct, $27,000 of that...does go to support the attorney general's time in this particular account.  If this account were entirely General Fund, you would not see any charge, because that is cost allocated and recovered back another way. But since this is largely funded through user fees, you see that charge....

 

Senator Raggio declared:

 

      Several sessions ago, we were told that the [State] Public Works Board needed additional staffing, that it had serious problems that could only be solved by augmenting the staff. We provided a significant staff increase and the reason given, probably by you, Judy, was that if we would do that, we would not have the delays in design and construction that were of some concern to the legislature and we responded...completely to that....How will this organization be able to function?  Are we going to, as a result of the reduction of staff, re-experience the unreasonable delay in the period of time of design and construction?

 

Ms. Matteucci deferred the question to Mr. Stephens and pointed out, "We have a much, much smaller Capital Improvement Program being recommended this time and there is a direct correlation of what you need as far as [State] Public Works Board staff and the size of your CIP."

 

Mr. Stephens proclaimed agency architects and engineers have, over the last 2 years, been spending most of their time managing projects and have not had the time to work on in-house projects.

 

Senator Raggio asked if 97 percent of the projects would be accomplished by FY 1993.

 

Mr. Stephens explained, "We won't quite hit that number because we have a big project that's involved in litigation. The $8 million architectural school...."

 

Senator Raggio queried, setting aside the architectural school and its problem, what percent of the CIP design of l99l will be complete at the end of this fiscal year.

 

Mr. Stephens responded, "I think 97 percent is a good figure. Maybe not an exact figure, but I would stand behind that...."

 

Senator Raggio asked if architectural and engineer expenses could be saved if projects were done in-house.

 

Mr. Stephens responded in the affirmative and explained in-house designs are surcharged 6 percent of the construction amount. To hire architects and engineers outside the agency, 7 percent is normally surcharged plus an additional l0 percent for in-house review of the drawings and project supervision.

 

Senator Raggio said:

 

      We've been concerned in this legislature for about 20 years over the automatic A&E [architectural and engineer] expense on every project including erecting a barn, and I think that is someplace you ought to look very carefully. We're talking about capping attorneys' fees and medical fees...and I would suggest you take a long look at negotiating those kinds of fees as well.

 

Mr. Stephens announced he has been successful in renegotiating three large architectural/engineering contracts at a savings to the state.

 

Ms. Tiffany testified:

 

      ...I still don't understand where you want to receive your efficiencies. If you look at what the community is doing, most of the large companies...are going out for design, and they are negotiating the prices down to the bottom line. But they're getting most of the drawings back in digital form, and it seems like they can do some of these projects in-house as long as they have digital form.  Do you have a CAD [computer automated design]?

 

Mr. Stephens responded the agency currently has an updated autocad version ll system.

 

Ms. Tiffany asked if the agency had in-house expertise to utilize the CAD.

 

Mr. Stephens responded, "Yes, for example the new regional headquarters for the Nevada Highway Patrol which is being constructed in Reno now was designed in-house....We don't plan to do the larger projects in-house...."

 

Ms. Tiffany queried the duties staff perform when not performing project management.

 

Mr. Stephens reported staff work on design projects.

 

Ms. Tiffany queried whether maximum use of staff was being attained.

 

Mr. Stephens responded in the affirmative and added, "In fact, our people are complaining about their heavy work load...."

 

Ms. Tiffany asked, "So the efficiency is coming from where, when you're trying to look at juggling, going out or staying in-house?"

 

Mr. Stephens explained it has to be ascertained whether in-house capability is available. Major projects, over $l million, are taken outside the agency, he maintained.

 

Senator Jacobsen drew the committee's attention to the failing water system at the Veterans' Cemetery in Fernley, Nevada, and he questioned what recourse is available to the State of Nevada since the prime contractor and subcontractor are both defunct.

 

Mr. Stephens commented to the committee that it is a requirement that contractors be bonded, then deferred the question to Mr. Grable.

 

Mr. Grable explained the prime contractor was Frankovich and Son who subcontracted the landscaping portion of the project. Continuing, he expounded:

 

      We had part-time inspection on that project. My role was Project Manager....I would go out about...every other week....He had a landscaping subcontractor who we had considerable trouble with as far as completing the project on time and delivery of vegetation and getting the work completed.

 

      ...After looking at the...failed pipes, apparently what they did when they glued the joints together...you prime the pipe inside and out at both connections then you apply a liberal amount of solvent-type cement and as you're pushing the pipe in, coupling the pipe together, you rotate it slightly to smear the glue around inside the coupling.  What happened apparently, and you can't see it unless you're examining every single pipe connection, what they did was use the pipe primer and it's a blue color so it looks like it's all done. And they took their can...[and swiped] around the pipe, stuck the thing together and walked down the line. Instead of putting enough glue on it to make the joint structurally sound and rotating the pipe, it's not a hard task and it's inexpensive.  It was beyond me, why these people would try, or even do this. I'm convinced the people who were doing it, had no idea what they were doing....

 

      After the warranty period expired, and after the bonds had terminated and the work had already been done, then these things started to fail....I don't know how we could have caught it except to have had l00 percent inspection on every single joint.

 

Mr. Grable informed the committee the project was a $600,000 project. It was pointed out the (State) Public Works Board does not assign a full-time inspector to a $600,000 project.

 

Mr. Stephens interjected the agency is overseeing $l00 million in annual construction projects with only l6 inspectors.  

 

Senator Raggio asked who was going to fix the broken pipes.

 

Mr. Grable responded, "The people at the cemetery have been replacing the pipe as they find a failure."  He advised the bond was for the period of one year and "everybody's gone....it's terminated."

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Wouldn't the contractor involved have some pride even if the warranty period had failed?"

 

Mr. Grable announced the contractor (Frankovich) is no longer in business and the landscaping firm "has denied any action." Mr. Grable recommended replacement of the entire pipe.

 

Mr. Arberry asked why a pressure test was not accomplished.

 

Mr. Grable explained the pipe was pressure-tested twice and there were no failures. He explained the Fernley water system has a very high fluctuation of water pressure and water surges are frequently experienced.  It was his opinion the weak joint failed during a water surge episode.

 

Mr. Arberry asked if there were any specifications on the glue used.

 

Mr. Grable responded in the affirmative and reiterated, "Again, unless you are there watching the technician in the hole three feet down in the ditch...with the glue can...there isn't any way to absolutely control every single application of that glue."

 

Mr. Arberry asked if truss blocks were installed.

 

Mr. Grable stated truss blocks were installed at angled points where pressure changes. It is not a truss-block problem, he insisted, but a contraction and expansion of the pipe from pressure.

 

Mr. Price asked if bonding could be obtained longer than one year.

 

Mr. Grable stated bonding is secured for l00 percent performance and labor and materials. The bond is extended through the warranty period, which is generally one year. Extended guarantees are currently required on roofing contracts, he stated.

 

Mr. Stephens suggested to use bonds extended beyond a one-year duration in order to create a fund that could be drawn upon in instances of failure beyond the first year. He explained, "Kind of like our self-insurance problems policy for those few problems that occur after the first year to get in there and fix those...."

 

Mr. Stephens urged:

 

      ...When we get bad contractors, we have to go to the low bidder, we have to accept anybody who is a licensed contractor today. Although we have the right to determine who is a responsible contractor, we have not had the procedures in place to determine responsible contractor. We recently amended the Nevada Administrative Code section pertaining to the [State] Public Works Board to set in place the basis for determination of what a responsible contractor is, we're proceeding with that....We're very much in favor of a little bit more prequalification, not eliminating half the contractors in the state....

 

 

Mr. Stephens suggested the concept of due process to legally bar contractors from bidding on other state work if their previous work performance was below standard.

 

Mrs. Evans asked at what monetary level would a full-time inspector be assigned.

 

Mr. Stephens responded:

 

      I think it's a judgment call on the project. For example, on a roofing project, I insist we have full-time inspection during the course of the roofing because that's the biggest failure....Anything that is covered up or buried, like poured concrete...other work you can go in and look at it after the fact....We would want a full-time inspector on a major building. The Las Vegas State Office Building...is a $25 million building, we're going to have two inspectors there....

 

Mrs. Evans asked what was the level of inspection on the $3 million project at the women's prison.

 

Mr. Stephens declared:

 

      It was a remodel project of a much larger facility. Some things were fixed and some things weren't. For example, the roof leaks that were pointed out in the gymnasium we hadn't done any work in that particular area....The roof leaks in the metal roof...were a problem with the detail that the contractor installed on the roof in the ceiling around the boot that goes around the penetrations.  The contractor is out there fixing that now.  The problem with the plumbing is they over-torqued the toilets when they put the porcelain toilets back, some of them were over-torqued and that's why they fell off....In most prison facilities that we have, our toilets are stainless steel...and in this particular prison they are porcelain and there wasn't enough money in the project to replace them....

 

Mrs. Evans expressed her concern the inspection area may be reduced below the level "where you can reasonably cover these projects."

 

Senator Rawson solicited assistance from the State Public Works Board to develop a list of bill drafts to assist legislators in dealing with the issues in a constructive way. He expounded:

 

      I like the idea that even though there will be criticism, that it is too restrictive that there should be some experience requirement for anybody subcontracting or contracting for the state. There ought to be some way to prevent their future work for the state, if they have performed poorly and not taken care of it....If they don't stand accountable for it, they should never work for the state again....Then maybe we should deal with their very license to practice....The reason I say it needs to come from the administration, if we had landscaping contractors that were serving here, it would be inappropriate for them to develop the legislation because there is a conflict of interest....

 

Mr. Stephens agreed and stated:

 

      It has been our view that we had that authority within the law currently which says we can only award contracts with contractors who we have determined have been responsible. Our problem has been, that we have had no criteria for determination of what a responsible contractor was. We're developing that criteria. We've changed the NAC [Nevada Administrative Code], it was just adopted 2 weeks ago by the board to set it up so we could develop that criteria....

 

Senator Rawson stressed:

 

      It seems to me if we have a prison design without locks in the doors, it should never be an issue that comes before this committee. That should be able to be dealt with and if you don't have the authority to deal with it, then let's give you the authority to deal with....Then whoever designed that has to be accountable for it.

 

Mr. Humke asked if the [State] Public Works Board was working in concert with the State Contractors' Board.

 

Mr. Stephens responded, "No."

 

Mrs. Williams asked if it was possible to assign a plan checker to eliminate the construction of gun towers without portholes from which to shoot as well as ensuring locks will be provided on prison doors. Ms. Williams supported the concept of extension of the warranty period beyond one year on construction projects. She also urged Mr. Stephens to ensure that water pressure is measured in future state projects.

 

Mr. Grable interjected to explain the water pressure conditions were known at the Fernley Veterans' Cemetery project.  He reiterated the water pressure was not the problem with the cemetery project.

 

Capital Improvement Program - Page A-27

 

Mr. Stephens distributed Exhibit C, Project No. 93-3G, Community College of Southern Nevada, West Charleston Campus Phase III, to the committee and advised it was a replacement page for the Capital Improvement Program binder.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to upgrade the fire alarm system for the Nevada Mental Health Institute (NMHI).

 

CIP 93-M1 - Fire Alarm System, NMHI - Pages 39-40

 

Mr. Stephens explained parts are difficult to obtain for the current Simplex 2l00 Multiplex Fire Alarm System used at the facility.

 

Mr. Arberry asked when would the project be finished.

 

Mr. Stephens responded the completion date is earmarked for the first year of the biennium "if everything goes smoothly."

 

Mr. Dini asked if the agency has made inquiries to lease fire alarm systems.

 

Mr. Stephens responded:

 

      ...I think the one is an operational cost. The agency themselves would have to request it in their budget and they would pay the leasing cost...and this is a one-shot appropriation out of the Capital Improvements Project....I think we can get someone out there to give us an estimate on what it would cost for someone else to install that, monitor it and pay for a lease....

 

Senator Raggio explained the problem that occurs when the state leases contracts in excess of 2 years. He cautioned the lease will be charged against the state debt limit.

 

Senator Rawson opined the percentage used for professional service fees was excessive, i.e., 9 percent for design services and 6.3 percent for inspection. He avowed, "...It seems to me that is not what you would do in the private marketplace."

 

Mr. Stephens declared a smaller project demands a greater percentage because of the cost of contracting and having an inspector travel to the site, rather than full-time attendance. He explained the percentages were generated by the computerized CAD system that uses previous like projects.

 

Senator Rawson suggested while working through performance indicators that some relationship of the private supervision and professional services versus what the agency is doing would be helpful to the committee.

 

Mr. Marvel expressed his concern in concurrence with Senator Rawson's statement regarding the excessive cost for professional services.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to upgrade the fire alarm system for the Nevada Youth Training Center (NYTC) in Elko.

 

CIP 93-M2 - Fire Alarm System, NYTC - Pages 41-42

 

Mr. Stephens explained this project was not recommended by the Governor.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Are you going to have a fire alarm system that is workable at the Youth Training Center...?"

 

Mr. Stephens responded, "That's our intent. We don't have the bid out yet, but that's what we're designing...."

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to replace the high mast lights at the Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC).

 

CIP 93-M3 - Replace High Mast Lights, SDCC - Pages 43-44

 

Mr. Stephens explained this project is a continuation of Project 9l-M36, Phase I, which had an appropriation in the l99l session of the legislature of $97,401.  During the course of design, however, it was determined that the $l0,000 per mast budgeted to replace the first 7 of the 22 poles was not sufficient.  Therefore, no construction contract has been let.  He advised the $288,000 construction request for this project will be added to the $70,000 construction budget from Project 9l-M36 to provide replacement of all 22 poles with associated lighting hardware at a cost of approximately $l6,000 per pole.

 

Mr. Arberry asked how often that type of light would have to be replaced.

 

Mr. Stephens declared the information was not readily available but he would respond in writing.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to replace the locking system and security cameras at the Nevada State Prison (NSP) and Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC).

 

CIP 93-M4 - Replace Locking System and Security Cameras

at NSP and SDCC - Pages 45-46

 

Mr. Stephens informed the committed that the Phase II project is a continuation of Project 9l-Ml3 funded by the l99l session of the legislature in the amount of $298,346 for replacing control panels, cell locks, monitors, cameras and outer gate locks.

 

Mr. Stephens testified many cell door locks and mechanisms are worn out. When the locks break they must be sent to the manufacturer in Illinois for reconditioning.  Worn out locks present security problems for staff. He explained the control panels must also be replaced.

 

Mr. Stephens reported the cameras and monitors are obsolete and constantly breaking down and are essential to maintain security coverage. Additionally, he pointed out, the existing manual locking system is in need of replacement.

 

Senator Callister questioned whether a standard exists for longevity of institutional locks and asked Mr. Stephens to research the issue.

 

Senator Raggio commented, "What you're suggesting to be done in Project 93-M4...are those projects in addition to those that were identified in the last session under Project 9l-Ml3. There is no overlap?"

 

Mr. Stephens deferred the question to the Project Manager, Mr. Dan Daily, Civil Engineer, State Public Works Board. Mr. Daily declared the project is in the design process.

 

Senator Raggio continued, "And now we're being asked to approve $492,000 more? Are those additional items, or is there some overlap on this?"

 

Mr. Daily responded:

 

      The funds on Project 9l-M4, when the l99l legislature met, they reduced 9l-Ml3 by approximately $270,000. So basically what we're trying to do in 9l-Ml3 is do as much as we can at the Nevada State Prison with the funds we were allowed in l99l, which includes replacement of doors and locks and cameras in units one through six. 

 

      What has developed since then is that we've had problems in unit l3 at NSP and also unit 8 at SDCC where the control panels were malfunctioning....We negotiated with the contractor to get funds back from those jobs because of the malfunctions in the control panel. What we did on this particular job was added those control panels to 93-M4....We basically got about $40,000 back from the contractor on that particular project....

 

Senator Glomb interjected, "So we should add $298,000 plus $492,000 for a total, or is $298,000 rolled into the $492,000?"

 

Mr. Stephens explained the $298,000 is from the previous biennium and is being done separately from this project. "...Then this project picks up from there and also goes into new buildings and new facilities that were not previously identified...," he declared.

 

Senator Glomb iterated, "So we have a total of $700,000."

 

Mr. Daily responded in the affirmative.

 

Mr. Marvel interjected, "Wasn't your question...how much is left of that $298,000?"

 

Senator Raggio responded, "Well, apparently it is pretty much all left because they're just finishing the design, as I understand it, they haven't started the actual building."

 

Mr. Daily interjected, "We haven't started the construction part of 9l-Ml3 yet."

 

Mr. Marvel asked what was the balance in that particular account.

 

Mr. Daily answered, "Right now...about $70,000...has been spent in that particular job so far. That's just the A&E fee...."

 

Mr. Stephens added, "He is designing this other work too...so the A&E design supervision services is something that we're going to have to take a look at there...."

 

Senator Raggio expressed his concern:

 

      It raises the question on a project like this on locks....It is clearly identified in the last session, it seems difficult to understand why at this stage, 2 years later, we are only in a design stage on something like this kind of a project....Why are we only at a design stage on a $290,000 project to...replace some control panels? It goes back to my other questions about the lag time in getting these projects on....

 

Mr. Stephens avowed, "I was not here, but looking at the prison program that Mr. Daily manages, it has been huge....This one did not get at the top of the priority...."

 

Senator Raggio reiterated, "Do you have sufficient personnel to do this and you're talking about reducing staff....It seems to me that you are going to have a lag."

 

Mr. Stephens countered, "We don't have these types of prison projects in this budget...."

 

Mrs. Williams asked, "...What I don't understand, when we're replacing control panels and locks, why we have to have A&E and the design phase and spend $70,000 for it."

 

Mr. Daily explained the function of the A&E:

 

      ...On this job it is pretty complicated....The Department of Prisons has hired a locksmith within the last 6 months. One of my projects was the women's prison project and what State Public Works [Board] provided was the guts of the individual locks. This particular locksmith from the Department of Prisons rebuilt everyone of those locks. We basically saved about $30,000 to $40,000, so we didn't have to bring Brinks people in....Since the Department of Prisons has this individual on board, we're actually using him to a lot more extent so we're going to have a lot more savings in the future....

 

Mr. Daily answered the control panel needs to be designed and explained, "You need to tie in the fire enunciation system...tie in all the doors. They want to know how the doors open...so it's a technical electronics situation...where you hire an electronics engineer to design the insides of this control panel and they write the specifications and things like that."

 

Mrs. Williams pointed out since the system is already in place, what would be the necessity in designing it again.

 

Mr. Daily advised, "...Some of the existing control panels are over 20 years old...and you can't find parts for them any more..."

 

Senator Glomb expressed her concern regarding priorities and declared "We have kids out there that need immunization....with women and infant and children programs that need supplemental food. In the meantime, this money just sits there. I can think of a lot better ways to spend the money...."

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to waterproof the underground electrical system at the Southern Nevada Correctional Center (SNCC).

 

CIP 93-M5 - Waterproof the Underground Electrical

System, SNCC  - Pages 47-48

 

Mr. Stephens testified the underground cables in the SNCC have deteriorated over the years due to exposure to water and have affected the reliability of the service.  Numerous long-term power and telephone outages have occurred causing security breeches, excessive overtime and financial impacts. He explained when it rains at SNCC, all junction boxes throughout the institution become flooded.  This has left most boxes unserviceable.  Continuing, he explained the junction boxes need to be cleaned out and raised or extended above the ground water flood level.

 

Senator Raggio asked if bringing the junction boxes above the ground level would eliminate the problem.

 

Mr. Daily explained, "What we're doing is just putting a grade ring on the existing electrical boxes and we're going to be reusing the existing covers...."

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the situation was being addressed to eliminate a recurrence.

 

Mr. Daily responded in the affirmative.

 

Senator Callister asked how long has there been a problem with the electrical system.

 

Mr. Daily replied it has been a long-term problem and the electrical conduit is now starting to deteriorate.

 

Senator Callister remarked:

 

      That seems to be such an extraordinary failure on the part of the initial designer. I can't believe that has not been addressed legally, let alone in terms of renovation resolution until now....One of the resolutions might be to...start looking at a far more efficient fashion at the contractors themselves and holding money out in retention....Some of these are such obvious design flaws, I'm astonished they haven't been raised in the first year that the...thing flooded, instead of 20 years later....

 

Mr. Stephens stressed, "...You've got to remember many of these things were built at a time when the State Public Works Board was much less capable than it is today....I do know the staffing levels were only a fraction of what we have today...."

 

Mr. Spitler declared it would be more economical to do the repairs at the prison while the site is not at full capacity as opposed to a later date.

 

Mr. Daily agreed.

 

Mr. Spitler asked if money was available to accomplish the repairs.

 

Mr. Daily responded in the affirmative and added, "There could be some money from l99l that could be transferred."

 

Mr. Stephens responded:

 

      The exact vehicle for doing that is we would request establishment of a new project from IFC [Interim Finance Committee] using funds from another prison project, because the last CIP appropriation you allow transfers of monies within agencies and we are having some savings. For example, the regional medical center has a considerable savings so you could do that. One of the problems is, that money is generally bond money and not General Fund money and this is being proposed as a General Fund project....

 

Mrs. Evans asked when would the Jean facility open to full operation.

 

Ron Angelone, Director, Department of Prisons, came forward to testify and answered the facility will open on July l, l993.

 

Mrs. Evans suggested painting the prison using inmate labor prior to it reaching full capacity.

 

Mr. Angelone agreed that any time funds are to be expended it is cheaper, easier and faster to do so when the prison is unoccupied.

 

Mrs. Evans asked the cost to paint the prison using prison labor.

 

Mr. Angelone expressed his doubt as to the capability of the inmates to accomplish such a major project.

 

Mrs. Evans asked Mr. Stephens to obtain a cost estimate to paint the Jean prison.

 

Senator Callister asked what Mr. Stephen's proposal would be for developing a closer relationship between legal counsel and the agency on extraordinary expenditures. Senator Callister posed the suggestion of a full-time attorney general to develop enforceable contracts and focus fully on the aforementioned legal issues.

 

Mr. Spitler asked if there may be a warranty problem with the Lovelock prison. He expounded, "Does this mean the guarantees on labor done on Lovelock will have expired before we ever have a prisoner in there?"

 

Mr. Stephens responded in the affirmative and advised the prison administration has been informed.

 

Mr. Spitler asked if extensions could be negotiated.

 

Mr. Stephens declared:

 

      We estimated that the warranty work would probably be in the neighborhood...of one percent of the value of construction of $400,000 once we moved in. As far as getting an extended warranty, we're certainly willing to explore that with the general contractor. There is money in the project that we could pay for an extended warranty using that money....

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the electrical junction boxes at the Lovelock prison have been checked to ensure they are not flooded.

 

Mr. Daily answered the on-site electrical boxes were installed in l990 and are all placed above the grade.

 

Senator Callister asked if the anticipated consolidation of the State Public Works Board and Buildings and Grounds Division also allowed for transfer of responsibility for maintenance of prison projects to the State Public Works Board.

 

Mr. Stephens responded, "No....I do know they [Prison] do have a centralized maintenance organization but a decentralized budget.  Each prison controls their own maintenance budget...."

 

Senator Callister avowed:

 

      ...That should be an issue of extraordinary concern to all of us here, given the amount of continuing maintenance costs we seem to be addressing that are clearly within the prison system.  They are one of our big capital spenders. I'm troubled they ought not be brought under the auspices of the [State] Public Works [Board] maintenance new consolidation package. I don't understand the rationale.

 

Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration, interjected to explain the prison maintenance issue:

 

      What we wanted to do in this proposal was combine Buildings and Grounds [Division] with the [State] Public Works Board with an eye toward moving toward maintenance of the outlying facilities and prisons and mental health institutions and those kinds of things in subsequent bienniums. The problem is...last biennium we talked to you about developing an inventory of maintenances and that was not accomplished for a number of reasons.  The [State] Public Works Board was charged with that and did not get to it. We have that included again because we agree with that and think we need to do it....However, with the maintenance inventory completed, we don't anticipate a problem with moving towards that next biennium....

 

 

 

 

Senator Callister expounded:

 

      ...It seems to me that all the areas of consolidation where really there are some immediate [emphasis] kinds of savings, as well as a focusing of intent, this whole area of maintenance and capital expenditures seems to be a key.  To exclude the prison system from an otherwise largely consolidated package of maintenance...seems to me...ought to be given some serious consideration.

 

Mrs. Williams requested a list of defaulted out-of-state contractors.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to replace the underground electrical lines at the Nevada Youth Training Center (NYTC).

 

CIP 93-M6 - Replace Underground Electrical Lines,

NYTC  Pages 49-50

 

It was reported that maintenance personnel at the NYTC discovered a deteriorated 480-volt line cable.  The direct burial cable system is approximately 30 years old, and it is necessary to rehabilitate the distribution lines to eliminate interruption in service.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to replace the cooling tower at the Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Institute (SNAMHI).

 

CIP 93-M7 - Replace the Cooling Tower, (SNAMHI) - Pages 51-52

 

It was noted for committee information the 80-ton capacity cooling tower at the SNAMHI is approximately 20 years old and is in need of replacement.  The dilapidated condition of the tower is beginning to cause the chiller to operate at excessively high temperatures. If the cooling tower is not replaced, premature failure of the chiller can be expected.

 

Mrs. Williams noted the project was requested in the previous session of the legislature and as a result of the budget cuts "they gave this up. I hope we haven't incurred greater costs by not having done it then."

 

Mr. Dini mentioned conversations with the previous administrator of the agency and elaborated:

 

      ...Putting some money into a fund to be able to do this kind of repair as you go along, instead of having to wait 2 years and come back to the legislature, it seems like we're not very efficient. We're always 2 to 4 years behind on repairs and replacement.

 

Ms. Matteucci responded she did not recall a discussion with the administrator "about essentially establishing a sinking fund in order to do this...." She emphasized there were repeated discussions with the legislature about establishing a maintenance inventory in order to set up a statewide preferred maintenance system.

 

Mrs. Williams declared some states have established a plan for capital improvement projects whereby they hold aside one-half of one percent of the cost of the project. The funds would only be used for repair, replacement and maintenance. She urged the committee to consider such a program.

 

Ms. Matteucci supported the concept but added:

 

      In order to know how much to set aside, we need to know how much we've got out there and we don't have that information for you....We've got some money set aside for a consultant to do that job right on deferred maintenance, and also the other suggestion is we need to figure out what kind of money you're going to fund maintenance projects with. This budget recommends that the maintenance projects be funded with General Fund. Last time the legislature used a lot of bond money to fund maintenance projects. We don't recommend that, because you should tie how long you're going to be paying on a bond to how long that maintenance project is going to last....

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to replace the heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) system in the office of the Adjutant General of the Department of the Military.

 

CIP 93-M8 - Replace HVAC, Military  - Pages 53-54

 

Mr. Stephens advised the building that houses the office of the Adjutant General of the Department of the Military was built in l975. The HVAC system installed at that time consisted of two mammoth air conditioning units on the roof and a boiler in the basement.  The system is worn due to age and use. Mr. Stephens asserted the boiler is very inefficient and costly to operate.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to renovate the HVAC system at the Department of Museums and History.

 

CIP 93-M9- Renovate HVAC System - Department of Museums

and History - Pages 55-56

 

Mr. Stephens explained the current HVAC system at the Lost City Museum, Overton, Nevada, is inadequate for the size of the buildings.  In the caretaker's residence the air ducts are too small and the area served is too large for the capacity of the air conditioner, which has put a strain on the already aged unit causing premature failures.  Mr. Stephens recommended a new, larger unit to replace the existing unit as well as replacement of the duct work with that of a larger unit.

 

Mr. Stephens drew the committee's attention to the exhibit building and explained during the l98l addition, two air conditioning units were installed. The units are unable to cool the large space they serve, therefore, he recommended a third unit be added to serve the eastern part of the addition.

 

Mr. Stephens also recommended to increase the insulation of the duct work throughout the museum, respectively as the poorly insulated metallic duct work delivers air that is no longer cool by the time it reaches the end of the system.

 

Mr. Stephens drew the committee's attention to the HVAC system at the Nevada Historical Society, Reno, Nevada. He maintained the existing system is in excess of 20 years old and is broken most of the time. Considerable funds have been spent over the years in an attempt to keep the system operative. However, the useful life of the existing system has been exceeded and the most cost-effective solution would be to remove the old system and install a new roof-top unit.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to modify the capitol boiler room at the Department of General Services.

 

CIP 93-M10 - Modify Boiler Room at Department of

General Services - Pages 57-58

 

This project encompasses modification to more efficiently heat the domestic hot water and to make other boiler improvements to the boiler room equipment for the capitol building and annex. Mr. Stephens reported the project was not recommended by the Governor and the funds have been distributed directly to the agency to complete the project.

 

Senator Raggio asked if the agency was capable of performing the project since modification is to be made to accommodate a dual fuel system.

 

Mr. Stephens advised, "In talking with their mechanical engineer he seemed to think that they...will be able to do that and it will be fine...."

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to renovate the Lake's Crossing Center in Sparks, Nevada.

 

CIP 93-M11 - Renovate Lake's Crossing - Pages 59-60

 

Mr. Stephens explained the project entails replacement of chipped porcelain toilets. Also, the laundry room needs more room to accommodate additional machines. It was pointed out the barber shop poses a security risk, as it is outside the highly secured area and needs to be relocated and combined with the expansion of the laundry room.  The dayroom will be expanded by enclosing a portion of an existing adjacent covered courtyard, he reported. Finally, an existing seclusion room needs to be padded to protect clients from unnecessary injuries at times of confinement.

 

Mr. Stephens advised the replacement of the porcelain toilets in the amount of $l69,701 was not recommended by the Governor.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to repair the showers, latrines and kitchens in the Nevada Youth Training Center (NYTC) in Elko, Nevada.

 

CIP 93-M12 - Repair Showers, Latrines

and Kitchens - NYTC - Pages 6l-62

 

Mr. Stephens proclaimed that during a site visit to the dorms, legislators expressed concern with respect to the condition of the NYTC.

 

Mr. Stephens proposed to repair the worst two of the seven dormitories. The dormitory buildings are nearly 30 years old and in need of major repairs in all shower, latrine and kitchen areas. The majority of the shower heads and faucets leak and cannot be properly repaired without cutting holes in the walls to reach the plumbing. Shower rooms have broken tiles and deteriorating ceilings. Latrine sink cabinets, as well as sinks, need to be replaced. Continuing, he asserted exhaust systems in the latrine areas also need replacing. Mr. Stephens also pointed out that urinals and commodes need to be updated so repair parts will be readily available. The kitchen areas in the seven dormitories are also outdated and repair parts are no longer available for stoves and refrigerators.

 

Mr. Stephens asserted the remaining repairs will be requested in future Capital Improvement Programs.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to rehabilitate the adolescent recreation yard, Child and Family Services Adolescent Treatment Center on the grounds of the Nevada Mental Health Institute (NMHI) in Sparks, Nevada.

 

CIP 93-M13 - Rehabilitate  Adolescent Recreation

Yard, NMHI - Pages 63-64

 

Mr. Stephens explained this project is to rehabilitate an existing adolescent recreation yard at the Child and Family Services Adolescent Treatment Center located on the grounds of the NMHI.  He asserted that currently the teenagers who attend school at the center have no suitable outdoor recreation area. The project includes the removal of an existing deteriorated surface which frequently ponds due to the fact it is in a depression without drainage.  The area also lacks the infrastructure for specific daily outdoor activities.  He pointed out the lack of a suitable outdoor recreation is a serious deficiency for the school environment which Child and Family Services Adolescent Treatment Center is attempting to maintain.

 

Mr. Stephens explained a new surface with adequate drainage will be constructed.  The finished area will provide a recreational yard to include basketball courts and other activity equipment in a fenced courtyard on the north side of Building 9.  The project will include designated areas for individual, small and large group activities. 

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to restore the exterior surface of the state capitol building and Governor's mansion in Carson City, Nevada.

 

CIP 93-M14 -  Exterior Surface Restoration

Capitol/Mansion - Pages 65-66

 

Mr. Stephens asserted the fiberglass dome on the capitol building suffered damage due to high winds and water seepage through the fiberglass system.  Although the l989 session of the legislature approved a one-shot appropriation to accomplish the project, it was discovered very few local licensed contractors qualified for bonding to perform the fiberglass work. Additionally, Mr. Stephens asserted the wooden cupolas and smaller dome on the annex are in need of immediate repair and painting.

 

Senator Raggio asked if there was a problem finding experienced technicians to repair fiberglass structures.

 

Mike Meizel, Administrator, Buildings and Grounds Division, Department of General Services, came forward to testify:

 

      Originally when we looked at that dome 4 years ago, we determined it had cracks in various places. We couldn't really find anybody we felt confident in that we felt would really know how to do it and it was a fair amount of money to do it. So at that time, we determined with [State] Public Works [Board], that we would just monitor it and really the cracks had not gotten worse....It's not deteriorated worse but, the fact is, eventually they should be capably repaired. What made the job more indicative to do now is the annex has reached a point those wooden domes should be totally redone....

 

Mr. Stephens testified the exterior restoration of the historic Governor's mansion has not been performed in many years. Instead, he asserted, myriad coats of paint have been applied causing a thick buildup effect. Due to flaking of paint, the wood is exposed to deterioration. The project will include chemically stripping away layers of existing paint and application of a seal coat and two finish coats of paint. Additionally, the two garages and caretaker residence will also be painted to provide a uniform appearance.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to include a freezer addition and loading dock modification to the central warehouse of the Department of Prisons (DOP), Carson City, Nevada.

 

CIP 93-M15 - Freezer Addition and Loading Dock

Modification, DOP  - Pages 67-68

 

Mr. Stephens explained this project consisted of expansion of the freezer unit at the central warehouse for the Department of Prisons and modification of the loading dock. Mr. Stephens advised this project was not recommended by the Governor.

 

Senator Raggio asked if a danger or inconvenience would occur by deferring the project.

 

Mr. Stephens deferred the question to the Department of Prisons representative Tom Glab, Chief of Plant Operations, Department of Prisons.  Mr. Glab testified, "There is a danger with not having some of the safeguards at the loading docks....The loading dock is unsafe...."

 

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Glab to report back to the committee if it would pose a hardship to the agency should the project be deleted.

 

Mr. Stephens pointed out the loading dock portion of the project would only amount to approximately $2,000.

 

Mr. Glab pointed out an OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] requirement to provide guard rails on the dock and cautioned that would have to be immediately addressed.  There is an icing problem as well, and he suggested a roof be built over the dock to eliminate the problem.

 

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Glab to research the items necessary to make the loading dock safe and functional and report back to the committee.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to upgrade the HVAC system at the Reno Correctional Facility (RFC) in Reno, Nevada.

 

CIP 93-M16 - Upgrade of the HVAC System at the Reno

Correctional Facility - Pages 69-70

 

Mr. Stephens reported the facility was obtained from Washoe County and was used for a women's prison until December l992. He explained although the RFP was designed with a closed ventilation system, health and safety inspections performed resulted in a directive to provide exhaust fans in the wings to improve ventilation.  Specifically, there is a health concern about the mildew growth in the shower areas. Housekeeping efforts have been accomplished utilizing mildew-resistant cleaners to attempt to control the problem. Inmates with breathing problems have been unable to be housed at the facility.  The HVAC upgrade would be accomplished in each of the five living areas and in the prison industry.

 

Senator Raggio asked if the upgrade was a requirement of the State Health Division or State Board of Health.

 

Mr. Stephens stated the State Health Division has pointed it out as a deficiency.

 

Mr. Arberry said he was under the impression the facility was being changed to a restitution center.

 

Mr. Stephens responded he did not have first-hand knowledge of the anticipated change in use.

 

Mr. Arberry asked if the cost of the project would be reduced since the facility would no longer be used as a prison setting, but would be used as a restitution facility.

 

Mr. Stephens answered, "That's something we have not looked at, but we certainly can....But is it going to be a full blown prison one year from now?"

 

Mr. Arberry posed the question to Ron Angelone, Director, Department of Prisons.

 

Mr. Angelone came forward to respond:

 

      ...That's correct. We are going to put between 86 and l02 male inmates in there and use it as a restitution center. In order to also save money on the rent, we are paying for the Northern Nevada Restitution Center we are currently using. 

 

Mr. Arberry reiterated why the cost could not be reduced in light of the reclassified use.

 

Mr. Angelone stressed, "For the air conditioning, it is still that type of complete, solid institution with no natural ventilation that we will have l00 inmates in there that we should have it up to the standards since the individuals will be in that building l6 out of the l8 hours per day."

 

Mr. Price referenced the Reno facility and asked, "I was under the impression...that a lawsuit was part of the reason we cleared that facility. Is that correct?"

 

Mr. Angelone responded, "Absolutely not. That parity lawsuit was an individual matter. A class action suit with women both at NWCC [Northern Women's Correctional Center] and the Reno Correctional Facility and before that went to court, we had already made the decision that money had to be saved."

 

Senator Raggio asked for an overview of which prisons would be utilized.

 

Mr. Angelone declared Lovelock will not be used for 2 years. The tentative plan for the prison at Jean is to open the facility on July l, l993 for use as a 96-male multi-dimensional classification system, he emphasized.

 

Mrs. Williams asked if a women's facility will be provided in the southern part of the state.

 

Mr. Angelone stated, "At the current time, the Governor's recommended budget is that none is being anticipated to be put in southern Nevada except the Southern Nevada Restitution Center will become completely female."

 

Senator Rawson asked if there was a possibility to use a portion of one of the correctional facilities and "turn it into an early- release incentive drug rehabilitation program for prisoners."

 

Mr. Angelone stated, "We could, given the right personnel to put on that type of program, use any one of the housing units in the south at Southern Desert Correctional Center or Southern Nevada Correctional Center to do a drug rehabilitation pre-out program."

 

Senator Raggio asked for clarification whether only two conservation camps would be operating.

 

Mr. Angelone stated there would be three conservation camps: Silver Springs, Indian Springs and Stewart.

 

Senator Raggio asked the status of the boot camps.

 

Mr. Angelone responded, "The boot camp program is at Indian Springs Conservation Camp which will stay open and that's one of the reasons that was designated to stay open."

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to replace doors in units one, two, three and five at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC), Carson City, Nevada.

 

CIP 93-M17 - Replace Doors, NNCC - Pages 71-72

 

Mr. Stephens declared the doors currently at the facility are wearing out from the continual opening and closing as well as being locked and unlocked.  It was pointed out doors are occasionally subject to a great deal of abuse by inmates. Many of the metal doors at the facility are so worn they cannot be locked. This is an unacceptable situation for a medium security prison and especially disconcerting for unit five, a lockdown unit, it was explained.

 

Mr. Stephens mentioned the project will replace 48 doors each in units one, two and three and 90 doors in unit five. The replacement hollow metal doors will be of a heavier gauge metal in the hopes they will endure longer than the existing type.

 

Mr. Heller asked what percentage of damage is done by inmates and expressed his concern the cost of the doors would be over $480 each. He asked if damages could be recuperated from the abusive inmate.

 

Mr. Stephens stated, "When you see doors with dents in them, I've got to believe that isn't normal wear and tear....I'm glad Director Angelone is sitting here."

 

Mr. Angelone declared the prison charges every inmate that ruins state equipment. Clarifying that statement, he said:

 

      We go after restitution in the civil courts. We usually receive the verdict in our favor and it sits on the inmate's books. Once an inmate has restitution charges against him, it's ironic that from that day on they never have any money coming in, they never get a job, so the most we get out of them is the labor we put them into as free labor, but it does not in any way generate money to pay for the restitution.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to upgrade the electric phase protection of the Nevada Mental Health Institute (NMHI) in Sparks, Nevada.

 

CIP 93-M18 - Upgrade Electric Phase Protection, NMHI - Pages 73-74

 

Mr. Stephens declared this project involves the automatic switching devices in the electrical panel of the emergency generators to spontaneously drop a generator or bring a generator on-line as the electrical load demands fluctuate. He advised this project has been recommended for deletion.

 

However, the installation phase protection on all large electrical/mechanical devices to avoid costly repairs and to ensure uninterrupted operation of the hospital's environmental systems has been recommended. The device will sense whether something is wrong with the power that is coming into the facility and will automatically break the circuit to protect the equipment, it was explained.

 

Mr. Marvel asked the cost of the project.

 

Mr. Stephens replied it has been budgeted at $ll5,000 in the Governor's recommendation.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to replace the state maintenance shop at the Department of the Military, Carson City, Nevada.

 

CIP 93-M19 - Replace State Maintenance Shop, Department

of the Military - Pages 75-76

 

Mr. Stephens declared this project has not been recommended and emphasized "I believe they're making a small direct appropriation to the military department telling them to buy the materials and build it themselves."

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to repair and upgrade the fencing at three of the Nevada State Prisons.

 

CIP 93-M20 - Repair and Upgrade Fencing,

Department of Prisons  - Pages 77-78

 

Mr. Stephens explained this CIP involved three Nevada prison sites, however, only one is being recommended by the Governor. He explained the situation at the Southern Nevada Correctional Center (SNCC) at Jean, Nevada, concerns an existing fence. He explained the current footing of the perimeter fence was constructed with rocks and dirt in order to reduce construction costs. Since the institution is located on a natural wash, vast areas beneath the fence wash out during inclement weather.  Subsequently, the footing of the fence must be backfilled following heavy rain.  Several washed out areas have been rather extensive and eventually could result in damage to the fence or provide the opportunity to make an escape much easier. The project will provide a new l2-inch wide, l8-inch deep concrete footing for 3,500 linear feet of fence.

 

Mrs. Chowning referenced the project at Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC) at Indian Springs, Nevada, and pointed out expenditures were requested to avoid the possibility of inmates escaping. She asked how much damage has incurred relative to prison industry projects from inmates and how high has the escape rate been to date.

 

Mr. Angelone provided the following explanation:

 

      That is a fence inside the perimeter fence. It is to keep the inmates out of our prison industry. We do the Imperial Palace antique cars there. We've had cars on the grounds that cost anywhere between $l and $l2 million each....When the cars are parked outside the building, but inside the prison area, inmates tend to do whatever damage they want to within our part of the program....So that's why at SDCC that area needs to be blocked off so that contraband...cannot [be] thrown...over the fence to a known associate and then...carried...into the housing area...The inmates won't know what's behind the wall, so that way they won't be able to damage any products....

 

Mrs. Chowning referenced the possibility of escape and asked, "I thought it would be helpful for us to know if this escape percentage has been especially high there or are we saving a lot of money?"

 

Mr. Angelone declared:

 

      To reduce the possibility of escape because those vehicles, as well as the buses that we do for firms in the Las Vegas area...are individual items that are taken outside of the perimeter at different times in order to be returned to their owner. Unless we have that area blocked off, there is always a possibility of an inmate getting inside one of those vehicles, hiding and escaping....

 

Mr. Angelone responded to Mrs. Chowning's question regarding the escape rate percentage at the SNCC at Jean, and proudly declared, "I've got a great percentage. We're one of the best in the United States. Zero percent success rate to escape. That doesn't mean they don't attempt to."

 

Senator Raggio pointed out the fencing project at the Southern Desert Correctional Center at Indian Springs has not been recommended.

 

Mr. Stephens clarified it was recommended by the State Public Works Board but not by the Governor.

 

Mr. Arberry asked Mr. Angelone to recall at the time the fence was originally installed at SNCC whether the cost of the footing and fencing were included.

 

Mr. Angelone responded in the affirmative and added, "I think at that time the State Public Works Board had an overrun and with the former director they made agreement they would forego the footings in order to get the fence completely secure and around the building. That was back in l987 or l988."

 

Mr. Arberry expressed dismay that a fence could be built without a footing and asked what held it up.

 

Mr. Stephens explained the fence poles were put in concrete but no footing exists to prevent escape from underneath the fence itself. The problem is compounded when the rain washes away the dirt from under the fence, he explained, subsequently, the footing of the fence must be backfilled following heavy rain.

 

Mr. Arberry asked for a breakdown of the cost per lineal foot.

 

Mr. Stephens stated he would forward that information.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab M and provided an overview regarding the project to repair the modular floor at the Jean Conservation Camp, Jean, Nevada.

 

CIP 93-M21 - Repair Modular Floor at Jean

Conservation Camp - Pages 79-80

 

It was reported the modular housing units have deteriorated from the high traffic generated by a full capacity of inmates. Inadequate spacing of floor joists and undersized plywood sheeting have resulted in movement and sagging floors. This has resulted in deterioration of both sub and surface floors.

 

Mr. Stephens advised this project has been deleted and the project may be corrected through routine maintenance per the Governor's recommendation.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab S and provided an overview regarding the roof replacement project.

 

CIP 93-S1 - Roof Replacement - Pages 82-83

 

This project is a continuation of the l99l CIP roof replacement for replacement of roofs on over 30 state buildings, Mr. Stephens announced.  Requirements including asbestos abatement total over $5 million with requested funding at $4 million, he reported.

 

The present roofing program relies heavily on single ply elastomeric roofing technology with a strong manufacturer warranty. After a building is reroofed, the goal is to conduct annual joint inspections by the specialized state roofing manager, the roofing manufacturer and the roofing contractor, it was explained.

 

Mrs. Williams posed the idea of hiring roofers to be employed by the State Public Works Board, respectively.

 

 

 

Mr. Stephens explained, "One roofer doesn't do all types of roofs." Given the myriad types of roofs it would take several specialized and qualified individuals to accomplish this goal and the cost would be prohibitive, he asserted. Further, he explained the manufacturer of the roofing material will only guarantee their product if it is applied by a certified roofer. "...And they get involved in the bonding. So now if the roofer disappears, we've got the manufacturer on the hook," he pointed out.

 

Mrs. Williams asked what was the length of a roof warranty.

 

Mr. Stephens declared the State Public Works Board agency selects the option of a l5-year warranty program.

 

The question arose as to the length of time the agency has been selecting the l5-year warranty. Mr. Stephens responded the policy of the State Public Works Board has been in effect for 2 years.

 

Senator Raggio asked if the roofing replacement project was recommended to be paid with General Obligation Bonds.

 

Mr. Stephens responded in the affirmative.

 

Senator Callister asked if it was the policy of the State Public Works Board to consistently select l5-year warranties on roofing projects.

 

Mr. Stephens responded, "No...A small percentage of the projects we don't get a warranty on. If you'd like an explanation on that, I'll have to go back and get it."

 

Senator Callister requested that information to be supplied to the committee. Senator Callister clarified the purpose of inquiry:

 

      "...In order to get the benefit of the warranty and to get the manufacturer of the product to stand by the warranty, it would have to be installed by a certified roofer. All of which makes sense, if we're getting the warranty....I want to make sure that's what's occurring, now that we're getting the l5-year warranty in each case, and that would then justify the extraordinary cost of continuing to contract these out....It's $4 million....

 

Mr. Stephens responded:

 

      I...would be somewhat remiss if I didn't mention there has been some discussion in-house. No decision or detailed analysis done about whether we might be better to go with a system such as Mrs. Williams described, with having a sinking fund that's available to go out and do roof repairs rather than...keeping all the money over to a warranty inspection program and that's something we're taking a look at....

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab S and provided an overview regarding compliance with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

 

CIP 93-S2 - ADA Compliance  - Pages 84-85

 

Mr. Stephens explained the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted in June l990, requires the removal of barriers to over 40 million Americans with disabilities. As of January l992, government agencies must ensure that disabled persons are not excluded from services, programs or activities because of inaccessibility. Starting in July l992, employers were also required to provide "reasonable accommodations" to the work place for their employees who have disabilities.

 

It was explained that all new buildings and renovations to existing buildings must be constructed in strict compliance with ADA requirements. The purpose of this ADA CIP project is to eliminate physical barriers in existing state buildings which are not scheduled for renovation. It is not expected that all barriers will be eliminated within 2 years, Mr. Stephens contended, but the goal will be to ensure that all program areas are accessible to the public and that reasonable accommodations are provided for all disabled employees. The project will require thousands of building modifications and significant parking and building access changes, he reported.

 

In l992, extensive surveys were conducted of each state agency to assess the cost to accomplish the ADA modifications, Mr. Stephens explained. The outcome of the survey resulted in the following estimates: $285,000 for the state Capitol building; $l0l,000 for the Kinkead building; $37,000 for the Bradley building and $22,000 for the Administrative building at the Southern Nevada Mental Health agency.  The average cost of the aforementioned buildings was used to develop the estimate formula of $l.30 per square foot in calculating the cost of accomplishing the entire project, Mr. Stephens testified.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if plans for new construction are submitted to a plan checker previous to construction.

 

Mr. Stephens stated his agency was working with the Governor's Committee to Hire the Handicapped and "they were responsible for the physical barrier portion of the program and that was reassigned by the Governor last summer and we were made responsible for that...."

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the legislative building was included in the project.

 

Mr. Stephens responded, "No....There is a legislative subcommittee that looks at those things...." Mr. Stephens offered the use of his agency staff regarding any questions or advice necessary to the ADA compliance.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab S and provided an overview regarding fire sprinklers for all state-owned buildings.

 

CIP 93-S3 - Fire Sprinklers  - Pages 86-87

 

Mr. Stephens advised the committee that the State Fire Marshal has ordered that all state-owned buildings over 5,000 square feet must be fire sprinklered.  Over 300 state buildings were identified to fall under this category, he declared. 

 

Continuing, he testified, "The fire marshal's office would tell you they would like every building in the state sprinklered....What this list is, are institutions where people do not have ready exit capability and we're sprinklering those buildings under this program...."

 

Mr. Arberry asked which fire marshal ordered all buildings sprinklered.

 

Mr. Stephens responded, "...I think to sprinkler the institutions is in conformance with all Life Safety Codes. Not only this fire marshal, but any code you'd want to go to. As far as all buildings, I think that was some kind of policy they came up with."

 

Mr. Arberry asked if it is the intent of the fire marshal to designate any building that is 5,000 square feet be sprinklered.

 

Mr. Stephen responded in the affirmative.

 

Mr. Arberry asked for clarification of the Life Safety Code.

 

Mr. Stephens responded, "I believe that's one they [State Fire Marshal] have adopted."

 

Mr. Stephens deferred the question to Mr. Jim Schneider, Electrical Engineer, State Public Works Board.

 

Mr. Schneider referenced the Life Safety Code and advised it is published by the National Fire Protection Association. "We have subscribed to it as well as the State Fire Marshal and in that code there are requirements that are retroactive on places where persons are confined or restrained." Depending on the type of restraint, different requirements exist on sprinklers. The general ruling is if someone is incapable of leaving a building without special assistance, then a sprinkler system is required. "We have a number of buildings that come under this requirement and it is retroactive," he declared.

 

Mr. Arberry expressed his concern over the blanket statement that "all state buildings which are over 5,000 square feet or more [be sprinklered]." He pointed out his interpretation was if the building was over 5,000 square feet and had an assembly area that it would have to be sprinklered. "But if you have office area, which is not the same as an assembly area....Can you explain it to me," Mr. Arberry asked.

 

Mr. Schneider answered:

 

      This is a requirement that the fire marshal wished to impose. We have currently about 310 buildings that are over 5,000 square feet and are not sprinklered. The cost of doing that is approximately $35 million. We have not requested that.

 

Mr. Arberry countered:

 

      Yes, but at some point you will probably come in and request that. I don't like the fire marshal's definition that any building with 5,000 square feet [must be sprinklered]. Because if you're not congregating people and they are in a business atmosphere then it's no reason to sprinkler the building. I think the fire marshal needs to go back and revisit this issue....

 

Mr. Schneider advised the fire marshal is reviewing the standard. He said, "I don't know if they're addressing it this year, or if they intend to do it the next time they review their regulations. It's my understanding that a lot of the counties on their own are putting this on to all new construction."

 

Mr. Stephens asserted he will forward a copy of the fire marshal's letter outlining the basis for his decision regarding the sprinklers. "Then we will write him a letter and ask him if that's still his current policy and note that the issue was raised here," he suggested.

 

Mr. Arberry also requested, through the State Public Works Board, copies of the referenced pages from the State Fire Marshal directing that any building over 5,000 square feet must be fire- sprinklered.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab S and provided an overview regarding advance planning of facilities.

 

CIP 93-S4 - Advance Planning - Pages 88-89

 

Senator Raggio asked for an explanation of the necessity of the advance planning function in light of the current budget restraint.

 

Mr. Stephens declared the most traditional part of the plan is the formulation planning for the l995 CIP.

 

Senator Raggio declared, "We have a long list of projects which we have been unable to fund, primarily construction, projects. Do we need the advance planning at this time?"

 

Mr. Stephens said:

 

      I think you need some level of that ability to hire a consultant to take a look at something....The second thing in the request is a state facilities survey. I think that is absolutely essential that we do that. We need to know how much square footage we have out there not only owned but leased. We need to know what condition it's in, we need to get some programs to track this....

 

Continuing, he expounded:

 

      I think this would include buying some hardware and software so that we could call up floor plans on any facility. We need to start matching vacant space...with new space requirements. There is no inventory of state facilities. We need to generate a deferred maintenance backlog through annual inspection that are pumped into the system that would be created. This would pay for itself many times over....

 

Senator Raggio asked if all those issues were accommodated by the recommended level of $750,000.

 

Mr. Stephens responded, "If we prioritized these things, we might not get, for example, to the prison facilities study. It may be that we don't need that study in this biennium because we're not planning to do anything more with prisons right away...."

 

Ms. Matteucci expressed her opinion regarding the importance of the maintenance inventory:

 

      ...When we get to discussing bond debt and redemption, I think you're going to see the importance of having the basis for the foundation...of the information that we need to develop a long-term capital plan. It's imperative that we order our priorities, probably in a 5- to 6-year plan for capital needs so we can speak to these phase projects....Not only for your understanding, and certainly for our guidance, but for Wall Street. We've got to start tying what we're doing on capital planning...particularly as we rely on bonding, more the long-term capital plan. That's a very important part of the information that we need to get out of this advance planning.

 

Senator Callister queried what does the plan tell you that you don't already know?

 

Ms. Matteucci stated, "We do not have...any type of a comprehensive listing of state facilities, what the deferred maintenance needs are, so that we can plan...."

 

Senator Callister commented, "Certainly you have a list of state facilities."

 

Ms. Matteucci responded, "Certainly we do. We do not know where they are....So every 2 years the legislature is surprised because we have all these roofs. We want to be able to tell you here's a roof, and then here's a projected time at which you are going to have to do a major patch job or a fix job...."

 

Senator Callister asked, "Then you haven't got a baseline today to tell you...what was the status quo of all of your physical plant facilities statewide."

 

Ms. Matteucci responded in the affirmative.

 

Senator Callister asked how the deferred maintenance baseline was established at $400,000.

 

Mr. Stephens answered, "We just had to make some judgment calls to see what we thought it would take for hiring firms to come in and do autocad floor plans...of all the buildings that would come up....You should locate each of your pieces of mechanical equipment on a floor plan...."

 

Senator Callister asked, "You can't do that in-house. You think you have to take that $400,000 and hire consultants to do it?"

 

Mr. Stephens replied:

 

      No one has even been doing regular annual inspections of state facilities by hand....Even just the gross square footage of facilities, I found difficulty getting that out of our current system....Some of that is kept by Buildings and Grounds [Division]. This whole thing needs to come together so that you have a complete handle of building management system....

 

Senator Callister stated he was not troubled by the need, he was troubled about how the agency "arrived at the $400,000 price tag. I'd like some detail on that...."

 

Ms. Matteucci expounded:

 

      ...This is the third biennium that we're asking for advance planning money. What the [State] Public Works Board does is if there's a proposal and they need to go out and get a better idea of what the cost is going to be...they go out and hire consultants even though you haven't authorized that particular plan. Remember up until recently, the legislature has been fairly reticent to approve the advance plan for a project....You simply approve a CIP and Senator Raggio wants to know why aren't we getting it done fast enough and we have to start from scratch. This gives us a running start to get some of the information so we can give you better estimates....

 

Ms. Tiffany supported the concept but elaborated:

 

      ...The private industry...owns a large amount of facilities that it's time to get in control of your facilities....What my concern is, not the $400,000....I would really like to see the plan on exactly what you're trying to accomplish as far as what you're automating, how it's tied into the big picture, what's your productivity payback.

 

Mr. Stephens responded, "Some of that can only be provided after we hire a consultant to tell us what we do need."

 

Ms. Tiffany disagreed and declared, "...If you don't know in-house where you want to go, how is somebody going to tell you that is out-of-house where to go?"

 

Mr. Stephens countered, "The final result, yes, but as far as the individual and what kind of software are we going to choose, I would assume the consultant would do a review of the types of software that was on the market."

 

Ms. Tiffany replied, "That may be true, but I want to see where you want to go, what you want to do, why you want to do it, where you expect the gains to be...."

 

Mr. Stephens advised he would provide the information.

 

Mr. Spitler declared:

 

      Something that would shed some light on this is if you would do the l99l allocation...for advance planning. If you did a recap of that for us it would be helpful to see exactly how you used that money so that we're looking at something that has actually been done, instead of using something that is on the drawing board. Was there any of the $750,000 left?

 

Mr. Stephens stated, "It was cut."

 

Ms. Matteucci reported, "The [State] Public Works Board lost a lot of their advance planning money....But we can get you with what they had, what they did."

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab S and provided an overview regarding asphalt paving repairs and upgrade for state-owned facilities.

 

CIP 93-S5 - Asphalt Paving Repairs and Upgrade- Pages 90-91

 

Mr. Stephens advised this project will provide new asphalt paving, overlay or recondition to existing asphalt paving at state-owned facilities.  Access roads and parking lots are deteriorating and unpaved areas need immediate attention. He cautioned that deferment of repairs often results in the need for complete restoration. 

 

Senator Raggio asked about damage from the heavy rains and snow and queried whether it will increase the problem with repairs and asked, "Is this adequate to deal with all that?"

 

 

Mr. Stephens said:

 

      We have not done a thorough evaluation of that but I think I say without fear of finding out something different that you are absolutely correct. Every piece of pavement in the northern part of the state has been affected by the recent weather.  The way the paving program is set up, we do have some flexibility within the program to switch priorities around and we will do that to the greatest needs....We're planning to do about half the backlog in the next biennium.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab S and provided an overview regarding the asbestos abatement.

 

CIP 93-S6 -  Asbestos Abatement - Pages 92-93

 

Mr. Stephens declared the asbestos abatement is required to accommodate the remodel and/or renovation projects.  He drew attention to the Miscellaneous category and advised it is intended to allow for unforseen asbestos-containing materials which are frequently encountered during remodel and/or renovation projects.

 

Mr. Stephens referenced CIP 93-S7 and advised there is no handout material on that project. He declared the project is replacement of some underground petroleum storage tanks for the Parks Department in the amount of $200,000 to meet federal environmental requirements.

 

Ms. Matteucci added:

 

      ...It doesn't have to be done immediately, but they do have to start. They have a list of all the tanks. We will share with you a copy of it. It's Lahontan District V, Rye Patch, Valley of Fire, Cave Lakes, Spring Mountain Ranch, Floyd Lamb Park, Wildhorse, Lake Tahoe Sand Harbor, Washoe Lake and Beaver Dam....They wanted $320,000, we thought $200,000 was enough to get them started on the tank replacement program.

 

Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at noon and reconvened the meeting at l:l8 p.m.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab U and provided an overview regarding the campus improvements.

 

CIP 93-U1 - Campus Improvements - Pages 95-96

 

Mr. Stephens asserted the University of Nevada System "has had $l0 million appropriated to it for the biennium to do all their maintenance requirements." Continuing, he explained:

 

      Within the system they would divide up the projects. They have divided it up among the university system and we've asked them to list their projects. We have not been involved in the exact estimation of the projects, or the review of that....

 

Ron Sparks, Vice-Chancellor, University of Nevada System, provided an overview of the projects to the committee. He asserted the projects are classified as minor repairs and maintenance projects throughout the university and community college system. Mr. Sparks explained:

 

      They are intended to be the return of the $5 million slot tax revenue that used to be dedicated to higher education for capital construction. Ever since you redirected those funds to the state General Fund in l983, you have, in turn, reappropriated to us an equal amount for the various bienniums and this is $l0 million for the l993-95 biennium.

 

Continuing, Mr. Sparks declared:

 

      ...From the l99l legislative appropriation you made to us, the $l0 million,  we returned approximately a little over $9 million to add with our $38 million in budget cuts. So these are funds reappropriated back to us mainly for the same projects that we had gone over with you at the last session and indeed another list of projects...of about $60 million worth of minor repairs and improvements. We basically allocated these funds throughout the system based on the age of the facilities of each of our institutions and therefore you see the larger amount, $4.8 million, being recommended for the University of Nevada at Reno.

 

      There are two noninstructional recommendations in here, one being the campus improvements at the computing center. At the last session of the legislature, you appropriated $500,000 to us to remodel that building. It was never designed for a computing center and needs to be remodelled. This time we're asking that you appropriate $300,000 to us. We will scale that project back and not do the scope of the project that we had originally intended.

 

      The other noninstructional request is the Desert Research Institute which...are for improvements at both northern and southern Nevada operations.

 

      ...The majority of these funds are used for the mechanical and electrical systems at the institutions for structural repairs, painting and carpeting and things such as that.

 

Senator Raggio asked if there were any ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] projects included in the budget request.

 

Mr. Sparks declared, "There are funds in here that can be used for ADA and yes, if that is the highest priority that the institutions have, yes, there are ADA funds in here."

 

Senator Raggio stated it is his understanding that most of the reductions in the university budget were in the area of maintenance projects.

 

Mr. Sparks countered, "No...our budgets were cut for this current biennium a total of $38 million, $l0 million came from minor repairs...the $28 [million] came out of the instructional budget."

 

Mr. Stephens drew the committee's attention to the remark on the cost sheets and stated, "...It basically indicates that the university, if other priorities come up, can shift money around...."

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab C and provided an overview regarding renovation and addition to the State Health Laboratory.

 

CIP 93-C1 - State Health Laboratory Renovation

and Addition - Pages 7-8

 

Mr. Stephens reported this project is an addition to the State Health Laboratory to accommodate additional staff and requirements on the campus of the University of Nevada near the Medical School. The facility is reported to be inadequate to meet the present demands for service.

 

Donald Kwalick, M.D., State Health Officer, Health Division,       Department of Human Resources, testified staff have doubled since the construction of the laboratory.  Dr. Kwalick advised the agency is reaching the critical level relative to the safety and health of employees who work in the laboratory. 

 

Mr. Stephens reported that every square inch has been allocated for use, including the hallways where file cabinets have been housed due to lack of space.

 

Mrs. Williams asked, "There are several large dairies in southern Nevada. How do they have the milk tested when the lab is up here?"

 

Dr. Kwalick replied it was his opinion they may be doing their own testing "but they have to have a qualified laboratory. In order to have that qualified laboratory, they have to be certified by us so therefore we have a certification process...."

 

Arthur DiSalvo, M.D., Chief, Bureau of Laboratory Services, Health  Division, Department of Human Resources, interjected to explain:

 

      At the time the state laboratory in Las Vegas was closed, a contract was put in effect with a laboratory in Las Vegas that does that, and then we certify that they are performing that.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab C and provided an overview regarding the car wash facility at the Las Vegas Motor Pool.

 

CIP 93-C2 - Motor Pool Car Wash Facility  - Pages 9-10

 

Mr. Stephens explained this project is important because of the environmental requirements of washing cars.  He explained the State Motor Pool office in Las Vegas needs a drive-through car wash system and building to support it.  Presently, the Las Vegas Motor Pool facility has a simple stationary wand mounted outside.  The current process is labor-intensive, wastes water and it is extremely difficult to keep effluent from running into the storm drain system.

 

The request is for a small drive-through structure of approximately 500 square feet containing a new automated car wash system similar to that utilized by rental car agencies.  The system would require an air supply and environmentally approved water recovery system with associated piping. The completed facility would be self-contained and self-serve operated. Concluding, he declared the project will save labor, conserve water and protect the environment.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab C and provided an overview regarding the state office building furnishings/equipment and site improvements.

 

CIP 93-C3 - State Office Building Furnishings/

Equipment and Site Improvements  - Pages 11-12

 

Mr. Stephens advised this project is to furnish the new state office building in Las Vegas, Nevada. The initial construction budget is approximately $25 million. It is the largest state building ever built, with the exception of the two event centers, he asserted. The facility will house almost all state offices in the Las Vegas area under one roof.

 

Mrs. Williams asked if legislative office space will be made available in the new state office building.

 

Mr. Stephens responded in the affirmative and added that a large hearing room will be provided as well.

 

Senator Raggio asked what was the anticipated completion date of the building.

 

Mr. Stephens declared January l995.

 

Senator Raggio asked if any funds in Project 9l-C9 were available.

 

Mr. Stephens responded, "No....If the building comes in under budget, we will be putting some of these things in under the construction contract and, therefore, we will come back to you and tell you to reduce the amounts that we're requesting in this biennium...."

 

Mr. Stephens advised the committee that bids received in the Las Vegas area have been very favorable. Continuing, he declared the bids have been l0 percent under the construction estimate and pointed out if that trend continues, at a $25 million cost estimate, a savings of $2.5 million could be realized.

 

Senator Raggio asked when the project would be put out for bid.

 

Mr. Stephens responded in May l993.

 

Mr. Arberry asked if the fence would be chain link.

 

Mr. Stephens deferred the question to Terry Sullivan, Director, Department of General Services, and Bruce Nipp, Mechanical Engineer, State Public Works Board.

 

Mr. Sullivan declared it will not be a "6-foot chain link fence." The type used would be a barrier-type fence to channel the flow of foot traffic.

 

Mr. Nipp declared the fence would be a 6-foot high iron fence similar to the fence around the state capitol building.

 

Mr. Arberry asked, "What are you doing about the telephone system in this building?"

 

Mr. Nipp reported the system is allocated in the 1991 CIP.

 

Mr. Marvel asked if prison industries would be given an opportunity to bid on the iron fence.

 

Senator Callister asked for ongoing reports as to the status of the construction of the Las Vegas office building as well as any structural changes.

 

Mr. Stephens advised he will provide the committee with a presentation at its convenience.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab C and provided an overview regarding the culinary renovation and addition at the Nevada State Prison.

 

CIP 93-C4 - Culinary Renovation and Addition - Pages 13-14

 

Mr. Stephens declared the present culinary at the Nevada State Prison was built in l967 when the inmate population was approximately 300.  The average inmate population during the last 6 months of 1992 was 737.  The kitchen and food storage areas are undersized making it difficult to maintain health standards, he insisted.

 

Mr. Stephens reported the project will provide more storage for food and supplies. The construction will be accomplished in stages to reduce the impact on the continued operation of the facility. 

 

Senator Raggio asked how the inmates would be accommodated since no remodeling was to be done in the dining area.

 

Mr. Stephens declared, "They're either going to have to eat in shifts or stand longer in line as far as getting through the dining area. The same way they're doing now. What we're trying to do is correct the health problems in the cooking, dishwashing and storage areas...."

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab C and provided an overview regarding the Community College of Southern Nevada, Cheyenne Campus, Phase V.

 

CIP 93-C5 - Cheyenne Campus, Phase V - Pages 15-16

 

Mr. Stephens stated this project would consist of constructing approximately l00,000 square feet of building area and developing l2 acres of site.  The project includes an interactive computer learning center, a drafting and graphics area, business classrooms, computer sciences labs, general classrooms, lecture halls, offices and a hotel/culinary arts program.  Mr. Stephens advised there may be a need to have a separate structure for culinary arts because of its intense equipment demand on the existing HVAC equipment.

 

Senator Raggio asked what was the amount budgeted for furnishings and equipment.

 

Mr. Stephens declared, "We had a request for almost $3 million worth of computers and I believe $l.5 million worth of furniture...."

 

Senator Raggio asked if there was a possibility that the project may come in under bid to accommodate some of the furnishing and equipment request.

 

Mr. Stephens responded, "We're already hoping it will come in under bid because we've got some additive alternates identified here for additional parking lot space and additional remodelling of the existing facilities and that amounts to another $l.8 million...."

 

Mr. Arberry questioned the estimate in the amount of $l.8 million for the parking lot lighting and added, "...There's only $270,000 recommended. Can you talk a little about that?"

 

Mr. Stephens responded:

 

      That's an additive alternate down there for the rest of the parking lot, $865,000. I think the lighting is one thing that would be a difference. Perhaps the landscaping of the parking lot. It might become a very basic parking lot for the $270,000 and also not as large as what they requested. They requested l200 paved and lighted spaces. What they requested was that l2 acres of site be developed....It isn't parking just associated with this building, but with the whole complex. What we're suggesting is that what is needed for this building, absolute minimum is 500 unlighted parking spaces. What they'd like to have is l200 paved and lighted spaces....

 

Mr. Price recognized the potential security problem with that type of parking scheme and suggested to put the underground conduit in during the construction of the parking lot to allow for installation at a later date.

 

Mr. Stephens declared, "Just the conduit...But no wire, no posts, none of that...."

 

Mrs. Williams objected to the unlighted parking areas and declared the situation was too dangerous to the security of women.

 

Mr. Stephens offered to provide an estimate on lighting the 500 spaces to the committee.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab C and provided an overview regarding the Stewart Conservation Camp Reconstruction, Carson City, Nevada.

 

CIP 93-C6 - Stewart Conservation Camp Reconstruction - Pages 17-18

 

Mr. Stephens declared the Stewart Conservation Camp (SCC) has a current inmate capacity of l88, providing housing for inmates assigned to the Nevada Division of Forestry Conservation Camp Program and to work for various state and local agencies in Carson City. This project will replace existing facilities with new facilities and expand the capacity to 230 inmates.

 

Mr. Stephens explained the SCC was originally constructed around l970 from donated trailers. Additional used trailers and buildings have been donated and used as expansions. Health inspections have confirmed the deteriorated stage of this camp.  Moreover, he advised, health inspections have noted deficiencies that can only be corrected by a total reconstruction/renovation of the conservation camp.

 

SCC has deteriorated to the extent that the living quarters must now be replaced.  The current dining/culinary facility is too small  and has sanitation deficiencies.

 

The proposed facility will be a Tonopah Conservation Camp prototype with the capacity to house 230 inmates. The total building area will be based on the prototype currently being used for conservation reconstructions at Pioche and Indian Springs.  A separate multi-purpose building, office/training building and culinary unit will be constructed.

 

Mr. Marvel questioned the rationale to close down the other conservation camps in the state, yet to request funding to completely rebuild the Stewart facility. He declared, "I think this is really very poor money management."

 

Mr. Stephens declared, "I don't make those decisions...."

 

Senator Raggio asked when the facility could be occupied.

 

Mr. Stephens stated June l995.

 

Mr. Price commented on closing of the conservation camps and the negative impact on the small towns throughout Nevada.

 

Ms. Matteucci referenced the SCC:

 

      ...Both these committees are aware that the Stewart Conservation Camp has needed reconstruction and when the decision was made to go with the proposal to close down the other honor camps, we looked at the very question you asked. But the fact of the matter is, all the work at the honor camps, the primary work is here....

 

Mr. Marvel interjected, "There's work all over the State of Nevada."

 

Continuing, Ms. Matteucci stated:

 

      ...With all due respect...that's not the information that we have from either the prison or the forestry folks. That's why it was decided to go ahead and renovate this camp....

 

Senator Coffin asked what was the capacity of the Tonopah Conservation Camp.

 

Ms. Matteucci stated l52.

 

Senator Coffin declared, "I may be missing something, but I'm sure there's a lot of work in central Nevada. I don't think we should spend $4 million. I think we ought to just think about that when we have a new camp at Tonopah that we could move the people to."

 

Ms. Matteucci pointed out:

 

      ...You and Mr. Marvel bring up a good point and we did consider that. But the fact of the matter is the bulk of the work projects, as well as the need for the forestry fire camp crews, which you all have expressed your concerns about, are here. This is a need that is not going to go away. If you put it off, you're going to have to do it eventually....It is by far the one that generates the most activity and the most revenue.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab C and provided an overview regarding the advanced technology center and library at the Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC) in Reno, Nevada.

 

CIP 93-C7 - Advanced Technology Center

and Library, TMCC - Pages 19-20

 

Mr. Stephens advised this project was not recommended by the Governor. Continuing, he explained, "If by some chance it should be recommended by the legislature, I think we need to clarify that the money that was appropriated for the design of this project, some of which is left, can be used for some of the construction supervision as well...."

 

Senator Glomb asked how were the projects prioritized.

 

Mr. Stephens clarified the State Public Works Board received the priority list from the University of Nevada System and the top four priorities on the list were the community colleges. The top two priorities were the Cheyenne campus addition at the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN) and a West Charleston campus addition at the CCSN. The third priority was Truckee Meadows Community College and the fourth priority was a Winnemucca center for the Northern Nevada Community College (NNCC). He explained that after review by the State Public Works Board they recommended one project at the CCSN, one for TMCC, and one for the NNCC.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab C and provided an overview regarding the Winnemucca Branch of the Northern Nevada Community College (NNCC).

 

CIP 93-C8 - Winnemucca Branch, NNCC - Pages 21-22

 

Mr. Stephens asserted this project was not recommended by the Governor.

 

Mr. Marvel reminded the committee "last session we appropriated $92,000 for design and planning and of course the budget crunch, $30,000 was left for the planning, how much of that money was used?" Mr. Marvel continued:

 

      I testified before the Interim [Finance Committee]. It was my understanding you stated before this committee that you did move the priorities up and the Winnemucca Community College was put in a higher position....In the 20 years that it has been in existence, I don't think we've spent any money whatsoever on that branch....Just recently the school board has given 5 acres of land just across from the high school....This seemed to me to be a very modest request to be honored during this session since everything is ready to go....I would like to avert another tragedy.

 

Mr. Stephens responded, "I'm not sure that wasn't rhetorical, but we do believe that is a meritorious project, obviously we wouldn't have recommended it if it wasn't. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear there is enough money in the program to recommend all four community college projects."

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was classroom space that could be used at the Lovelock Prison.

 

Mr. Stephens asserted, "...I wouldn't characterize it as community college classroom space."

 

Ms. Matteucci provided comments regarding the facility priorities:

 

      Tom [Stephens] can give you a copy of the letter that was sent to the folks that were interested about the prioritization that came out of the [State] Public Works Board process.  During review of the university projects, the [State] Public Works Board asked each one of the university institutions if they could look at their projects with an eye toward scaling them down so that the [State] Public Works Board could fit in as many as possible. With one exception, the [State] Public Works Board was told that the amount of money that was shown was the absolute minimum. I say that and I believe that the first project we just went over...you can see now is at $l2 million.

 

      The Governor's thinking was...there was a great outcry from the Regents [Board of] that the [State] Public Works Board has disregarded their list and they were in fact in better position to know what were the needs. The most pressing needs are the university system and the Governor, after thorough review of all the proposals, chose to adhere to the Regents [Board of] list.

 

      In so doing, because we are limited in the amount of bonds we can sell....The two lower priorities necessarily fell out from the other projects so the Governor's recommendation includes Project 93-G3 and 93-C5....

 

Mr. Stephens distributed Exhibit D, December l7, l992, letter to the Board of Regents, to the committee and explained the attached chart was the information provided to the university in September l992. Continuing, he explained the colleges were asked if they wished to reduce the CIP requests and they declined. He declared, "...As Manager of the Public Works Board, and in keeping with the Regents [Board of] priority, I recommended that one project be built. That was the Cheyenne campus project at $24 million...."

 

Mr. Arberry asked if anyone who serves on the [State] Public Works Board is a professional in the construction, architectural or engineering industry.

 

Ms. Matteucci advised the board members do not have anyone in the construction industry. She explained, "All of them have business experience that is very helpful in taking a common sense approach. We rely on our staff to provide the expertise, the construction engineering expertise upon which these decisions are based."

 

Mr. Arberry declared, "...But I thought it might be best with someone there that say if they were lying...someone that might be a little knowledgeable could be able to give you, as the chairperson, and the other committee members another inside...."

 

Ms. Matteucci responded:

 

      When I first started with the state, the board had all sorts of ex-construction people on it. It was a very ineffective board...because they actually thought they knew more than the staff did and it really did not work out well. I would not recommend that we return to any sort of professional requirements. I think the business orientation of the people that are on that board serve the purpose for that board well, the staff. Believe me, if the staff is misleading the board, we do find out. I think we have a fairly recent example of that and I think the board dealt very responsibly with that particular situation that came up.

 

Senator Jacobsen expressed his displeasure that no State Public Works Board members were present at the hearing. He asked if the State Public Works Board members visited any of the CIP projects and queried whether the State Public Works Board was earmarked for continuation under the reorganization plan.

 

Ms. Matteucci declared that one State Public Works Board member was present in the audience. She stressed:

 

      I think the reorganization that was led by the legislature to tie the [State] Public Works Board in with the Department of Administration has worked very well. I think you will recall when the planning board essentially operated in its own realm. When the board went through the priorities that were cleared by the staff, many of the same questions you asked were answered and there were adjustments in the prioritization and where they stood....In normal times, the board is invited and does go on the tours. They go look at the projects, they go look at the construction in progress....They [the State Public Works Board] have pushed, along with me...to get standards that we can legally deny...contractors and architects that do a bad job.

 

      I'll tell you the previous Secretary-Manager did not want to do that. He did not want to give the board that information and we actually had an ongoing discussion about can't you give us the rating sheets on these people...so we can evaluate for ourselves whether or not these people are doing a good job.  Tom [Stephens] has already had a hearing to establish the Nevada Administrative Code so that we do have a legal basis upon which we do not have to grant work....We have notified the board members, and I think some of them have intended to accompany you on some of your tours so you'll be getting to meet them there.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab A-4 Governor's Recommendation and provided an overview regarding the remodel of the Fremont School, Carson City, Nevada.

 

CIP 93-A-4 - Remodel Fremont School 

 

Mr. Stephens declared the State of Nevada recently acquired the Fremont School from the Carson City School District. The facility is not useable for offices in its present condition, however.  All of the elementary school-sized restroom facilities will have to be remodeled not only for adult use, but also to comply with ADA requirements.  Additionally the buildings will have to be installed with fire sprinklers. The design will be accomplished by agency staff and can be out to bid in the fall of l993 with a construction completion no later than July l, l994.

 

Senator Raggio asked what has the Department of Administration proposed to be placed at the site.

 

Ms. Matteucci answered the Department of Education.

 

Senator O'Donnell asked if asbestos removal would be necessary.

 

Mr. Stephens answered, "I think there is a very minor amount. Not anything significant. Mr. Nipp took a look at it from that point of view."

 

Senator O'Donnell commented, "So there won't be a substantial increase in cost."

 

Mr. Stephens responded, "No. We think this is a complete package. Our folks went over and analyzed it. We had a consultant that did a plan for us....We plan to do this remodel as an in-house design and I guess we want to start the design almost immediately...so that we can get these people in here by June of next year...."

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab A-4 Governor's Recommendation and provided an overview regarding the remodel of the old state library on Carson Street.

 

CIP 93-A-4 - Remodel  Old State Library

 

Mr. Stephens explained this building could be used by other state agencies with modest repair and remodelling work to include making provisions for ADA.  The facility is expected to be used by the  agency of the Nevada Magazine and Department of Tourism, he announced.

 

The old library building, constructed in l888, is a historically significant structure, as well as one of the most attractive l9th century buildings in Carson City, Mr. Stephens pointed out. While this project at less than a half a million dollars is not a historic restoration, all modifications will take into consideration the historic nature of the building so as not to interfere with any future restoration projects.

 

This project will include repainting, new carpeting and some new ceiling tile to the first three floors. There will be spot asbestos stabilization and panic hardware will be added to some fire exits. Some electrical outlets will be added for computer loads but the existing electrical system will continue to be utilized.  The existing heating system will be cleaned and tested. Existing window air conditioners will be overhauled and replaced, if necessary. Movable partitions will be provided instead of permanent walls to preserve the historic nature of the building.  The restrooms will be modified for ADA and a new elevator will be installed. Additionally, the attic and basement areas will be cleaned up but are not scheduled for remodelling. It is expected the attic and basement may be used for file storage by the occupying agencies.

 

Design will be done by the State Public Works Board staff and the project is expected to be put out to bid in the fall of l993, with a construction completion date no later than July l, l994.

 

Senator Raggio asked if the project was necessary at this point in time.

 

Mr. Stephens responded, "We have the building, it's currently vacant, there would be a savings associated with moving those agencies in there from their current leased spaces...."

 

Mr. Spitler stated:

 

      I recall some conversation, I think in l99l, that there was a question as to the structural soundness of the building. Has that ever been tested out and made structurally sound...?

 

Mr. Stephens said, "It's been there for l00 years. It hasn't been reinforced for earthquakes the way some buildings have. This is not the structural remodel that was envisioned in the previous study....The building had quite a bit of work done on it a few years ago to the exterior...."

 

Mr. Heller asked if the building has been inspected by a seismologist.

 

Mr. Stephens stated he would respond in writing as to the structural soundness.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab A-4 Governor's Recommendation and provided an overview regarding Phase III of the West Charleston Campus at the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN).

 

CIP 93-A-4 -  Phase III, West Charleston Campus, CCSN

 

Senator Raggio invited representatives from the university to speak on this project later in the meeting.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referenced the l993-l995 Recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) binder, Tab H, and provided an overview regarding the renovation of the Galletti Way facility of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, Reno, Nevada.

 

CIP 93-H5 -  Renovate Galletti Way Facility - Page 36-37

 

Mr. Stephens stated part of the Galletti Way facility will be vacated when the new regional Highway Patrol facility is completed.  This is a major renovation of the Galletti Way facility, he announced. They are going to maintain the operation of the facility while the remodeling is being done, therefore, the project will be accomplished in phases, he explained.

 

Senator Raggio asked if the project had been completed.

 

Mr. Stephens declared it is in design and nearly complete and he expects a June or July bid date.

 

Mr. Spitler asked if asbestos removal is scheduled for the Galletti Way facility.

 

Mr. Stephens responded in the affirmative.

 

Mr. Spitler questioned whether the building should be closed during the asbestos removal.

 

Mr. Stephens replied, "I think they're going to try and phase that too. We're not planning to close the building at this point, so it's going to be a shifting of operations...."

 

Senator Raggio drew attention to the fact the Galletti Way facility is the only full-service building the agency has and asked how the renovation would be accomplished while accommodating Washoe County residents during construction.

 

Mr. Stephens introduced John Turcich, Computer Systems Programmer III, Highway Patrol, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety.  He advised that most of the work to be done is in the current Highway Patrol area and some of the administrative office area. He declared there would not be major impact on the full service of the Driver's License or Vehicle Registration counters.

 

Senator Raggio asked for input regarding the project 93-Hl.

 

CIP 93-H1 -  Upgrade Emergency Power System, Motor Vehicles

and Public Safety - Page 28-29

 

Mr. Turcich stated that code violations have occurred due to overloading of the electrical panels. "We've had four major outages due to power in the last year...." he declared. New emergency generators, an upgraded electrical system and an uninterruptible power supply are needed to ensure the Nevada Highway Patrol Dispatch Center can continue to operate, that the two computer centers will not shut down and the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety can sustain important services to the public during power outages.  The existing generators have deteriorated by exposure to weather, he testified.

 

It was explained the Nevada Highway Patrol Dispatch Center provides critical law enforcement information to 24 state and federal agencies. The data bases maintained serve as the focal point for inquiries of criminal history information from all state and local law enforcement agencies and are connected to federal and state agencies nationwide.  The functions of this facility must be maintained during episodes of power fluctuations and outages as a matter of public safety, Mr. Turcich insisted.

 

Continuing, it was pointed out the east wing, which houses the license and registration desks, uses battery-backed lights for exit only. The computer-based licensing and registration terminals have no backup and the emergency lighting is minimal.

 

Senator Jacobsen asked, "Is there any possibility of tying our systems together....Or is the distance too great?"

 

Mr. Turcich responded:

 

      One of the proposals that this was eventually supposed to tie into was power for the capitol complex. The building was being sized so that the generators, with additional switch gear, would be able to provide what is called uninterruptible power through Sierra Pacific Power where during the summer particularly when there is additional drain on the power grid. Sierra Pacific Power could basically shut off power to our area and we would generate our own power. That is not actually in this project, the switch gear for that, but the generators and the space for that is there....This, as originally perceived, would have powered the State Industrial Insurance System, [Department of] Motor Vehicles [and Public Safety] and potentially Department of Transportation....

 

Senator Raggio asked for input regarding Tab E, Energy Conservation Program.

 

CIP - Energy Conservation Program  - Page 23-26

 

The subcommittee of the Interim Finance Committee composed of seven legislators, studied the subject of financing energy conservation measures in existing state facilities as well as in new construction.  Energy conservation measures for new state facilities are already provided by building codes, policies and procedures enforced by the State Public Works Board.  Therefore, the major thrust of this subcommittee was the study of energy conservation in existing state facilities.  The execution of this proposed program is anticipated to encumber the state's debt limit by approximately $5 million. Attention was called to item 7 and it was noted the funds mentioned are not funds to be spent, but reserved out of the bond limit for financing of energy conservation retrofit projects.  The State Public Works Board supports this program and concept.

 

Mr. Stephens explained the concept is based on a new program currently being employed by the Washoe County School District and its use of "package" requests for proposal which require interested contractors to audit, design, build and finance guaranteed conservation measures.  The contractors would be paid for conservation measures over a period of time from the energy savings. 

 

Mr. Stephens drew the committee's attention to Appendix 1 - Funding, page l-l, and declared, "Those are previously sold bonds that will not be used by the end of this current biennium....That money is being programmed to go into the l993 CIP."

 

Senator Raggio referenced page A-40 of the Governor's Executive Budget and stated, "We have the amount of $l7,432,000 for General Obligation Bonds issued but unused....And in addition to that, what has been recommended, as I understand it, is $35.2 million additional bonding."

 

Mr. Stephens interjected:

 

      And that includes the $5 million for energy. It's $30,272,000 without energy and then they add $5 million....The only thing I wanted to show you in Appendix I was which projects are not being constructed....The forensic center from l989 has $8.9 million left. That's not been committed. The design has been done and it doesn't look like there is...a current need for that in competition with the current projects.  There's $l45,000 we expect will be left over from the design of the women's prison. We're not recommending the women's prison although we're going to have the design on the shelf. So there's $9 million left from l989.

 

      If you go down to l99l, the general services warehouse, the reorganization gets a stake largely out of the warehouse business, that doesn't need to be built. The regional medical facility has about $800,000 left....The architectural building at UNLV [University of Nevada, Las Vegas] has almost $l0 million left, we're not [emphasis] recommending that be reprogrammed. We're recommending that stay exactly where it is and when the legal problems are resolved, we go ahead with the architecture building at UNLV....

 

      Likewise, the Nellis site improvement land acquisition, almost $2 million is not [emphasis] being recommended for reprogramming into this year....Out of that, that's $26 million. Out of that $l7 million...is what's being reprogrammed.

 

Mrs. Evans asked, "Of these various programs that are not going forward, how many of them...have been through the design phase?"

 

Mr. Stephens responded, "On this list we're looking at, the forensic center, the general services warehouse. Those two. The other projects have money left over in them....The women's prison also is a design [program]...."

 

Mrs. Evans declared, "...It seems like we authorized $460,000 for the design of the forensic center. Now what happens to that?"

 

Mr. Stephens explained the procedure:

 

      We got the design and it goes on the shelf and then if and when the project is ever resurrected, then we will update the design for the forensic center and then get the money to get to construct it. You will appropriate that in some future session of the legislature if you want us to go forward with that project. Otherwise, it sits on the shelf.

 

Mrs. Evans asked, "...So the [State] Public Works Board decided that this was not needed at this time, is that correct? We were first told back in l989 the need for this facility. Then we really got it going in l99l and now all this time later, suddenly it's not needed...."

 

Mr. Stephens explained, "This was a l989 appropriation, but I wasn't here when the decision was made not to go forward."

 

Ms. Matteucci interjected:

 

      ...The [State] Public Works Board didn't decide that at all. When we received, from the [State] Public Works Board, their final list, we asked them to look into which projects had been authorized for bonds for which the bonds have potentially been sold for which there is either remaining bond authority of significant magnitude and the project was over, or those projects that had not moved forward. So what we're presenting to you is those projects, minus the two that Tom [Stephens] talked about, the architecture school and the Nellis site improvements as being one we think should be reprogrammed....The forensic facility has not moved since l989, and we were told the same thing you were that it was a critical and crushing need. Frankly, the mental health system has dealt otherwise with it, and it simply is not the priority that we thought it was when everybody rushed to approve that particular project.

 

Mr. Stephens concluded his testimony on the CIP. Senator Raggio drew the committee's attention to agenda item page 67 and invited testimony.

 

Bond Interest Redemption - Page 67

 

Bob Seale, State Treasurer, testified:

 

      ...It is our responsibility in the treasurer's office  to see that all the bonds that have been issued by the state are repaid in a timely fashion....The various and sundry taxes are allocated for that purpose...We bring those into the fund and, in turn, then put out the appropriate payments at the appropriate time.  There are some differences you will note on the budget between the agency request and the Governor's recommendation....

 

Mr. Arberry stated it was his understanding some of the previously unused bonds will be used to help fund some of the new projects. He asked for clarification.

 

Mr. Seale deferred the question to Ms. Matteucci.

 

Ms. Matteucci testified:

 

      ...I can walk you through the budget as it sits...and we will get to that particular piece....The budget you have before you, in the Base amount, anticipates the selling of $35 million worth of new bonds over the biennium. The use of $l7.4 million in previously authorized, but unused bonds, plus $24.6 million of bonds to be sold which is the remainder, as most of you know, on the Question 5...bond sale.  That is included in the Base budget. The biggest change in the Base budget...is in Fiscal Year l994-l995 when you see the Operating category go to $4.5 million, that is the $4.2 million in...payments that we received.

 

      ...Let me walk you through the program statement relative to bonding and debt authority. Then I have Jana Wesley who is with the Public Resources Advisory Group with me today. As you recall, those of you that were on the money committees last time, we talked about doing debt affordability study.  Debt affordability study is different from what you're unused bonding capacity is, and I think Janna can clue you in as to what the important facets of debt affordability are, what Standard and Poor's and Moody's look for when we go to the market and how important our bonding activity is to our rating.

 

      If you would turn to page 68, there is 2 percent of assessed valuation, and this is taken from page A-l4 of your budget...of $525.6 million.  The bonds outstanding as of June l993 are $336.5 million....

 

Ms. Matteucci distributed Exhibit E, listing of all outstanding state bonds, to the committee.

 

Continuing, Ms. Matteucci declared:

 

      Of those amounts, $336.6 million of them are bonds that count against, or subtract from, your unused bonding capacity. You also have to subtract out the university system including the pavilion bonds. They were projects in l985 which was a refunding of the pavilion's l988, l989, and l99l for $67.4 million....You have unused bonding capacity as of July l, l993 of $l2l.6 million.

 

      Theoretically, if you wanted to, you could bond for a total of $l2l.6 million and, I think up until this current biennium, we have essentially used the bonding capacity sort of as a measure as how far we should go, trying to keep in mind what it is we need for the next biennium. Do we have another big prison coming up, or some more university buildings or something like that. However, with the situation that happened during the interim, all that has changed.

 

Ms. Matteucci introduced Jana Wesley, Managing Director, Public Resources Advisory Group, Los Angeles, California, and stated Ms. Wesley would address the concerns of the rating entities relative to the past bonding levels for Nevada. Additionally, it was pointed out Ms. Wesley will also address suggestions for future Nevada bonds given the state's economic situation.

 

Ms. Wesley distributed Exhibit F and provided an overview of the debt affordability analysis completed by the Public Resources Advisory Group. She explained debt affordability analysis is a mechanism for maintaining or improving credit rating. She declared Nevada is currently rated AA from Moody's and Standard and Poor's.

 

Continuing, she highlighted the credit strength of Nevada:

 

      ...The state has a moderate level of tax-supported debt. You used to be known to be a low debt state, but since issue of $l93 million in October of last year, you've gone from a low debt state to a moderate debt state. The state is known to have a quick growth in population and your population is known to be above average in income....The state is also known to have a tradition of conservative financial management which has become really important the last year with the downturn in revenues and both rating services feel that the state has done a great job and making the necessary cuts to conform with the decline of revenues. There is a possibility that if the state had not reacted as quickly as they had, that there would have been a negative implication on the credit rating.

 

Ms. Wesley maintained that some of the concerns of the rating agencies are the fact that the debt levels have increased. "That concern is really going to want to prompt you to be more involved in multi-year planning and setting up priorities and flowing your priorities through your capital plan," she cautioned. Continuing, Ms. Wesley declared:

 

      In addition, what has happened with the downturn of revenues...You've gone to issuing more debt when historically you have been more of a pay-as-you-go state.  There is an expectation that when revenue stabilizes on the upturn, that the state will go back to doing more paying for capital planning on a pay-as-you-go basis.

 

Senator Rawson stated:

 

      We passed in the last legislative session that is to take effect in January of this year, that actually limits our spending to 95 percent of revenue and creates a fund for management of our bonding for capital improvements....I'm just wondering if you've evaluated that as this statement is made here....It looks to me like we've made a policy decision that puts us back into managing that more securely.

 

Ms. Wesley responded, "I think the rating service has looked upon that legislation very positively. I think that the bond, as I understand it, will be used primarily to assist you if your revenue projections are incorrect and there is not enough revenue so you don't have to make as many cuts as you...have had to do in the past year."

 

Senator Rawson commented, "As I understand that fund, it essentially establishes a rainy day fund but it also establishes a capital improvement, or one-shot...."

 

Ms. Wesley countered, "That would be great, but it won't be able to supply the revenue for all your capital projects, but it will help...."

 

Senator Raggio asked for definition of debt ratio.

 

Ms. Wesley responded it is the amount of debt that is outstanding relative to the amount of revenues you have available to pay for that debt.

 

Senator Raggio stated, "It's my understanding from the material we've been furnished that the standard is 5 percent?"

 

Ms. Wesley responded in the affirmative.

 

Senator Raggio asked if Nevada was currently at 8 percent.

 

Ms. Wesley responded, "You are 7.8 [percent] in Fiscal Year l993."

 

Senator Raggio clarified:

 

      What I'm looking at is the capital improvement book they gave to us....In that, it makes reference to this....The statement is that currently we have a AA bond rating, but the state's debt service as a percentage of revenues is at 8 percent, which is well above the financial industry's medium of 5 percent. So you are saying that one of the concerns that you have is if our debt ratio exceeds that industry's medium?

 

Ms. Wesley responded, "Or if it continues to exceed."

 

Senator Raggio declared, "So we're at 8 percent, which is a danger signal."

 

Ms. Wesley pointed out:

 

      It's a signal for concern. The reason it may be more of a concern for this state, than for other states, is because of the way the rating agencies view the economy of the state.  It's a one-industry state and that industry happens to be gaming and it's concentrated in two geographic areas: Las Vegas and Reno.  Most other states that are rated A have a much more diverse economy that is spread out throughout the state.

 

      There are a number of pockets of revenue generation, number of large cities that contribute to the economic base. This state does not have that. That is perceived to be a negative. What has always neutralized that negative has been the fact that the state has been very conservative in budgeting and operating on their fiscal management. That means you did not have a lot of debt. That's changing, so that means that people are going to be concerned. You couple that with the fact that other states or municipalities are looking at liberalizing their gaming laws, which means there may be competition. That has not been a problem to date, but there is no guarantee there won't be in the future. The question is how is the state going to diversify their economy?

 

      Considering the strengths and concerns of the rating industries, we establish a base-case data-affordability analysis....That looks at the existing debt that you now have outstanding, any projected debt that has to be issued and in this case there expects to be about a $25 million bond issue in April of l993. That establishes the base-case debt for the state. You look at the revenues for the state as they exist today and Judy's [Matteucci] projections on revenues. Then you also look at certain other things like population and property values and things like that and we then create some debt ratios that the rating services look at....The most relevant ones are debt service of the percentage of revenues, debt per capita and debt as a percentage of full value....

 

Mrs. Williams asked if there were several states holding AA ratings.

 

Ms. Wesley responded in the affirmative.

 

Mrs. Williams asked, "When you do these analyses, do you take into consideration the tax rate of the people of the state, whether people pay low taxes or high taxes?"

 

Ms. Wesley responded, "It does in the debt per capita, a ratio, that takes into account the amount of debt that the state has outstanding. The national average is 345. In Fiscal Year l993 the State of Nevada was at 485, so it's a little bit above the average."

 

Mr. Spitler asked, "On the liberalization of gaming in other states being a concern here, is anything taken into consideration that many of the resorts are becoming destination resorts? So that's actually wrapped up in how you've looked at these things, too?"

 

Ms. Wesley said:

 

      When I talked to the rating analyst and they said what is the state doing to diversify its economy...that's one of the things I bring up, the fact that the state industry has tried to mold itself more into a family entertainment center and that should neutralize some of the impact that additional gambling might have in other places.

 

Senator Rawson asked, "...We are projected to grow 3 percent annually from l995...As we look back over the last l0 years, we've had ups and downs, but 2.9 [percent] has been the lowest we've had in the worse recession that I can remember. It seems to me that is extremely conservative, that figure of 3 percent...."

 

Ms. Matteucci interjected:

 

      ...It is a conservative number and I think it gives you a good measure for what's going on. I think you need to focus in on what is a big concern of all of us is what is going to be the impact of legalized gaming on the state as it gets a foothold in other states. This just takes your current revenue base and says it will grow 3 percent a year trying to factor in those decisions well far beyond what we're looking at.

 

Senator Rawson countered, "In that sense, this is pretty favorable because...even with a conservative projection we see the percentage coming down."

 

Ms. Matteucci pointed out, "That's with no debt...which is not what we're proposing. We have a proposal for about $35 million in additional debt."

 

Senator Rawson declared, "You could hardly say that is a run-away debt to take on another $35 million."

 

Ms. Wesley responded, "No, that's equal to about the amount of principal that you would be retiring."

 

Senator Rawson queried:

 

      In this ratio analysis, I've wondered about this debt as percent of personal income since our income is a little higher in this state. Do you have an average figure in the country for that....? You've given this national average of 345 for the debt per capita and I'd like to know the debt as a percent of personal income, on national average.

 

Ms. Wesley said, "The median is 2.2 percent."

 

Mr. Arberry asked, "The bottom line that you're trying to tell us that we just need to stop spending."

 

Ms. Wesley responded:

 

      ...I don't think that's what I'm saying. I think the bottom line of what I'm alluding to is that the state should spend the next 2 years deciding what the priorities of the citizens of the state are. They should come up with a capital plan that meets those priorities and a capital plan that would probably be 5 or 6 years and decide how they want to finance those capital improvements, pay-as-you-go debt....But to have some sense that there is a mission here and I think that's what the rating service would like to see. They would like to see some multi-year planning, they'd like to see some priorities and they'd like to see the state sit back and see how the economy recovers....

 

Mr. Arberry added:

 

      What I understand in history is that other states have had gaming before and they failed. What I understand is that in Colorado they have gaming but it's peaking off....I have a lot of confidence in the gaming establishment here in this state to say that they have set good roots in the gaming industry and they have proven themselves. They have sustained in the highs and the lows so I feel they are going in the right direction. So I feel they have really proven themselves and some of the things they're doing now should be things to be able to show they are at the best interest of the people of the State of Nevada."

 

Ms. Wesley countered:

 

      ...This is the capital of gaming in the country and it always will be. I don't think anybody is questioning that. I think the question is, how much is the industry going to grow? It's been that growth that has sustained the state for the last l0 years. If that growth is not there, if it stabilizes at something like 5 percent, what does that mean to the revenues of the state?"

 

Mr. Heller asked, "This Public Resources Advisory Group, is this a one-shot during the interim this time, or do we have an ongoing contract with them?"

     

Ms. Matteucci said, "We have them as co-financial advisors. We use Howards and Associates and Public Resources Advisory Group as co-financial advisors...."

 

Ms. Tiffany asked, "Can you tell me if the county and the city bond issuance is that included in this and if not, how are we going to control our destiny or does this never figure into our state economy?"

 

Ms. Matteucci responded:

 

      ...Both Standard and Poor's and Moody;s has county debts or local debts that they try and look at all your combined debt in the state. But this number here is all state debt issued just by the state on behalf of state entities. It does not include municipalities, municipal bond banks, for example this is run through a different account and is essentially exempt from this particular issue....

 

Senator Raggio asked:

 

      Based on the information you've given us and the realization that it is essential to our state that we maintain at least AA bond rating....Obviously we don't want to issue new debt to the extent we're authorized to do so under our constitution....We're talking about an additional $35 million...if we follow just the Governor's recommendations in this case, and I don't know how much we're paying off in principal during this time that we're going to service an additional $35 million....So over the biennium we will be reducing our principal on existing debt by $46 million and we're adding $35 million. So if we're adding less than we're reducing and our revenues we're proposing, then we're in no real danger of jeopardizing our existing bond rating....Are you able to tell us then could we issue an additional $l5 million or $20 million over and above the $35 million...without jeopardizing that bond rating?

 

Ms. Wesley said, "We believe that the $35 million figure will not create problems with the rating agencies....I would say that would be the maximum amount you should consider issuing."

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Are you saying we're on the cutting edge right now that we're right on the edge of jeopardizing an AA rating?"

 

Ms. Wesley opined if it were not for the "quick action on the budget that would have been a problem."

 

Senator Raggio said, "I assume we wouldn't be issuing the $35 million all in the first year."

 

Ms. Matteucci said:

 

      No...we're...anticipating that the remainder of the park bonds issue, the $24 million that is still outstanding, you have several issues that you authorized but we haven't issued yet. That debt is not all built into here. We have put it in Fiscal Year l993 the remainder...of the park bonds. We have, from both wildlife and parks, about $l0 or $ll million, and the remainder belongs to Clark County. We have to contact them because since the voters approved that, I would anticipate that one has first call. You authorized $25 million in water bonds for small counties. You also authorized, but there is obviously constitutional problems, $20 million in cultural bonds to be sold at over a l0-year period of $2 million at a time. That one I know is back here before you because of the errors to be corrected but those two...if you want to have those, you have to measure those in somewhere to how much debt you want to sell.

 

      We're then proposing you've got the $22.9 million worth of debt in the first year....to be issued in Fiscal Year l994...and then the $l2.6 million for the Clark County Community College of Southern Nevada, West Charleston Campus Phase III, $l2.6 [million] in Fiscal Year l995. So that's the way that we've got this debt structured. And knowing that you've got those other debt authorities out there and how much you want to do on that, you need to temper what it is you're looking at as you go through here. We can all figure out what...the priorities of the legislature and state are as far as issuing debt, that you have some authorized debt that is not included in here for sale.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "What's the bottom line on property tax rate if...we do everything you're suggesting, it goes to l5.75 [percent]?"

 

Ms. Matteucci responded in the affirmative and added, "...We put a l5.75 [percent] rate in for each year of the biennium, it's flat at both years."

 

Human Resources, Director - Page 6l3

 

Jerry Griepentrog-Carlin, Director, Department of Human Resources, distributed Exhibit G, Nevada Department of Human Resources, l993-95 Budget Presentation, to the committee and testified while referencing that document.

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin expounded the Department of Human Resources budget summarizes the key issues of the agency: the continued reliance on a provider-based tax to help fund the Medicaid program, welfare reform, development of a managed-care program for Medicaid population and the Governor's reorganization.

 

Referencing the provider-based tax program, on page 3 of Exhibit G, Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin declared:

 

      ...The current program collects taxes from two main sources [noninstitutional providers]...and hospitals....As you can see, we collect about $36 million for the biennium from outpatient providers. That is transferred over to our hospital tax account. We, in turn, take...half of that and match it with federal funds and return the $36 million to the providers through increased rates. The effect of that is the state benefits by $l8 million that we keep in the hospital tax account....

 

      You will note the counties pay also for indigent care to the hospitals directly with no match money being involved, and that's important consideration for how the program is scheduled to work this biennium under our proposal. The net effect of these taxes...is we collected $70 million more than we paid out. That was the net benefit to the state that was left in the tax account after we made all the payments back to the providers. We took that $70 million...and used that for additional Medicaid services as was required by the law. In actuality, that $70 million is matched by another $70 million, so this program, this biennium, paid for $l40 million worth of Medicaid services, which is why we believe it's critical that we continue to operate this program in the degree we can....Keep in mind that Medicaid is an entitlement program. It's one the federal government basically dictates the rules to and the state pays for half of the program.....

 

Referencing the changes in federal regulations, outlined on page 4 of Exhibit G, Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin declared "through this kind of financing scheme, they [the federal government] were ending up paying for l00 percent of the increased mandates that they were mandating so they wanted to put some limits on it." The major changes incorporated into federal law dictate that no federal program will be approved if there is a "hold harmless" provision "like we currently have in ours where we're guaranteeing back to every provider more money, or an equal amount they have paid into the program," he declared. Additionally, the tax must be broad-based, he pointed out.

 

Continuing, Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained:

 

      By this, they mean you can't just tax certain providers. For example, in our outpatient program, we tax doctors only who use the Medicaid program....This is not allowed under the new program. You would have to tax all doctors on all revenues. You can't just focus in on those doctors who serve Medicaid and you can't just tax the Medicaid dollars. So the net effect of that is it would be very difficult to make that part of the program work unless you really wanted to impose a real tax on outpatient providers.

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained the vehicle by which hospitals are reimbursed:

 

      The federal government has placed limits on and basically that is l2 percent of your Medicaid budget, you cannot exceed that amount for states that are over that amount. Nevada is one of those. We are at about 22 percent. We have a hold harmless provision in the law. We are simply fixed at $73.6 million until our percentage would drop to l2 percent. So that's the cap we're working with for the next...actually 4 or 5 years if the program were to continue.

 

Referencing page 5 of Exhibit G, he explained:

 

      ...A very important point in terms of how we make the program work this year in our proposal, intergovernmental transfers which are tax revenues that are generated at local levels was agreed that those could continue to be used as match money for the federal dollars. So that money the counties have been paying in to hospital care without benefit of any match, represents a major opportunity for us to recoup some federal match dollars....

 

      Under our proposal, [noninstitutional providers] would no longer pay into the program because we cannot find a way to make them work even the new federal regulations, so they've been dropped from the program. In order to meet other requirements in law, a limit has been placed on how much we can tax hospitals without triggering some thresholds that we can't meet....We have to reduce down the level of taxes that we're collecting from hospitals. So the tax we collect from the hospitals under our proposal...were dropped to $79 million for the biennium...and that would be spent the same way we did before. We'd take most of that money and match it with the federal dollars and pay it back to the hospitals.

 

      Where we can make some additional ground...is using the approximate $47 million that has been paid through county governments, county indigent fund, or through direct subsidies in some cases through county hospitals. We can bring that in to the state Medicaid program and we would...absolve the counties then from making those direct payments for county indigent that they're currently responsible for and we would make those payments as long as they participated in the program.

     

      What that means is we, then, would pay the hospitals through the disproportionate share payments to ensure they would cover that amount of money.  The net effect of all of this...is that the state would benefit by $47 million for the biennium. That's down from the $70 million which we are budgeting into the Medicaid program as state revenues to match with the additional federal dollars so that will pay for $94 million in services over the next biennium....The key factor here is we need to be very flexible in how we make this program work because we can't guarantee the hospital will make ends meet under this....

 

      Also the counties benefit by about $3 million in that we will be able to reimburse them for making the eligibility determinations for the indigent that would have gone into their program that they would have been responsible for because we're using that population to make part of the disproportionate share basis on. We can still keep track of how much the counties would have been liable for had they continued their program so that any point in time this program were to be disbanded, the counties would know where they stood in terms of their ongoing liabilities....

 

Summarizing, Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained it would be beneficial for Nevada to continue to participate in the program, but it will not be as lucrative as in the past. In summary, he stated, "President Clinton, when he met with the nation's governors last week, did indicate he was interested in having this program revisited, and his comments were interpreted in the context he might make it more liberal for states again...."

 

Ms. Giunchigliani referenced page 5, Nevada Provider Tax Program,  Exhibit G and asked, "...What does that reduce percentage, from 22 percent to what?"

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin responded, "We're still considerably above it. We will drop around to about l8 to l9 percent."

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked, "Do we have to show any kind of a plan that gets us to l2 percent by any specific year?"

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin said, "No, we don't have to show any plan, it's just that we're held at that $73.6 million figure."

 

Senator Rawson reiterated that more funds are returned to the hospital than what is actually paid, "but there is no hold harmless and I can't see from this flow how you're going to get it back to them...."

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin disclosed the formula that would be determined regarding how much reimbursement would be received. The reimbursement would be based on how many Medicaid patients were served, which is the current formula, and how many of the people served that would have been paid for by the county indigent program. Continuing, he declared:

 

      The way that we can have some flexibility and do some manipulations to ensure that hospitals don't get hurt... we can influence Medicaid admissions into different facilities....We would have to influence less than l percent of the total Medicaid admissions in order to make each hospital break even....There would be several major winners, here, again. Predominately the University Medical Center and Washoe Medical Center...because they tend to serve the majority of indigent populations. We believe we can provide that assurance to the hospitals that they will not suffer any financial loss.

 

Senator Rawson replied, "You see what their objections are, but have you had any communication with anyone? Do you have a presumption that this will be accepted? Is there a contingency plan if it is not accepted?"

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained the contingency plan "would be very limited because we basically are in an entitlement program. The only major optional program left in Medicaid is long-term care and that was the issue that was put before you, a policy issue last time." He opined if the contingency plan is dropped then the counties would be liable for that service. It was his opinion the only alternative would be in finding other reductions in the state budget or raising taxes.

 

Senator Rawson asked if a plan was in place in case the federal government does not accept Nevada's changes in the plan.

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin replied, "It is more than just a presumption [the federal government will accept the plan]. These ground rules have been well-established and resulted in those negotiations, and we have every reason to believe that this program will continue. We do not have to submit this for approval, we just implement it...."

 

Senator Raggio asked what is the total anticipated cost of Medicaid services for the biennium.

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin replied $650 to $700 million for the biennium.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "So this will provide a lesser amount than we received through this process?"

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin responded, "This will pay for roughly about $l00 million of that...."

 

Mrs. Williams referenced page 3, Nevada Provider Tax Program, Exhibit G, and asked, "...Where you have the counties, is this $46.9 million the cost to the counties that you say we are eliminating, they will then have a $3 million windfall....?"

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin declared:

 

      We're simply saying, instead of you paying them $47 million directly to the hospitals, put into our hospital tax account so we can match it with federal dollars, we will take care of your $47 million liability with the hospitals through disproportionate share and we will give you back $3 million out of that tax account to compensate you for use of this money, really.

 

Senator Raggio reiterated, "And $l million of that you anticipate as a federal match?"

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin replied in the affirmative.

 

Continuing with his presentation, Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin directed the committee's attention to page 7, Nevada Welfare Reform, (Exhibit G) and testified while referencing that document. He explained, "This is not in your budget, this will be coming as a separate bill with a fiscal note attached to it. Although the fiscal note will be a redistribution of funds within the budget, there will be no additional funds requested as a result of the program...."

 

Continuing, he testified the agency intends to address five major goals in welfare reform. First, to encourage better preventative health care among the welfare population. He pointed out over 50 percent of the welfare population are not taking advantage of the free medical care and free transportation to immunize their children or to be medically screened. He stressed the concept is essential because every $l spent on this type of preventative health care, saves money in the Medicaid program. The solutions proposed were to provide some type of financial incentive to get Medicaid mothers into prenatal care and to get them to come to their prenatal visits on a regular schedule; and to propose a financial sanction for those parents who will not cooperate in getting their children into the free medical screenings and immunization program.

 

Explaining the second major goal, Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin urged the necessity to encourage that the welfare children participate adequately in educational programs. A cooperative study was conducted with the Clark County School District and Washoe County School District regarding unexcused absences, and it was found that on average, children in welfare families are missing school l0 percent of the time. He asserted:

 

      When you compare this with the general population, welfare family children are absent 39 percent more often than the general population. This is a real key in all the studies you look at to eliminating inter-generational dependency on welfare, is getting a good education....We're proposing a financial sanction only on the benefits for the child who is not going to school. I'm penalizing the parent, I'm not penalizing the other children, but a financial sanction for the benefits of that child that is being truant from the program.

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin highlighted the third primary goal is to encourage people moving off welfare, not seeing welfare as a way of life.  Twenty-four percent of families on welfare in Nevada receive benefits for more than 24 months, some past l0 years, he asserted, and "President Clinton's recommendations are that if one is not off welfare at the end of 24 months that you must do some type of community service work," he proclaimed.

 

      Our particular recommendation is that you can continue in the program and go through your training and education, but if you haven't found employment after 24 months, except when we are in periods of recession or it's very difficult to get jobs, that there would be a reduction in benefits for a period of time to ensure that people don't see this as a way of life.

 

The fourth goal explained by Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin would be to encourage job retention. Studies show that 28 percent of the people on welfare have voluntarily quit a job within l month of their application without a good reason. Similarly, persons who have been found to already be on welfare who make an effort to return back to work, 27 percent of those people quit the jobs they were able to secure without a good reason. "We believe there should be some dis-incentives built into the program so that people recognize if they do quit a job without good cause that they will not immediately be eligible for welfare," declared Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin.

 

The final objective is to ensure adequate employment and training activities, day care, and that transportation be provided to welfare recipients, Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin declared. Continuing, he avowed:

 

      With reference to the new department being recommended in the Governor's reorganization which will consolidate for the first time, the major efforts the state does to find work for people, that welfare recipients as a matter of social policy, would be given top priority for helping them to find employment, which is not currently the case.

Senator Glomb asked about limiting the length of time a family can receive full welfare benefits.

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin replied, "That was what we were thinking of, is that whenever we are in a situation of the state is determining if there should be extended unemployment benefits offered, if that would be a good indicator for us to use to make the exemption here."

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked when the school districts tracked the percentage of absenteeism, if they also were able to track age and grade level of the students.

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin advised the information was available and would be provided to the committee.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if it would be more appropriate for the role of the Welfare Division job program to be transferred to the new Division of Employment and Training.

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin declared that was his recommendation, however, the federal requirements are that program must be retained by the single state agency responsible for welfare issues.  He declared, "What we propose to do is develop an inter-agency agreement with the new department if it's created to ensure that those people do, in fact, have priority."

 

Mr. Humke asked, "What about dropouts? Will there be a sanction of the parent for a child if he does formally drop out of school?"

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin opined if children are dropping out to go to work because they have to help support the family, that might be an exception. "We would treat dropouts as extended absences....The sanction that we would recommend be imposed...would go to that portion of the welfare grant that was going to that child's portion of the grant. It wouldn't be a sanction against the parent or the other children in the family," he declared.

 

Mr. Humke asked if a change would be recommended in the mandatory attendance statute.

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin responded it would be considered.

 

Mr. Humke pointed out parents are compelled to comply with participation in employment-training activities when a child is 1 year or older.

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin stated currently that compliance applies to a child 3 years of age. He asserted:

 

      Data shows...those people who have a child between [age] 1 and 3, only l4 percent of them are voluntarily participating in any employment or training program. They're staying at home, which is a luxury that many working mothers don't have and we believe there is a social equity issue here that we are trying to address and balancing it out by putting in additional resources for child care and transportation to make sure they can get to these activities. I believe if we're going to expect single parents who are out there working, who have a child l or 2 years of age, that we should make the same expectation of people who receive public benefits.

 

Mrs. Williams expressed her concern regarding the financial sanction and declared, "...When you say it's only on that child, well families that are living right at this line every dollar is an impact on the entire family....Sometimes even the best of us can't control our children from playing hooky....I would like to know how you're going to define good cause when somebody quits a job."

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin stated a proposal that addresses that very issue will be developed for presentation to the legislature.

 

Senator Glomb asked when a family is sanctioned and their benefits are either denied or reduced, are they then eligible for county general relief.

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin advised the intent is to get the kids to go to school, not to penalize the family.

 

Continuing with his presentation, Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin directed the committee's attention to page 10, Medicaid Managed Care, (Exhibit G) and testified while referencing that information. Four populations are included in the Medicaid population: Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), Child Health Assurance Program (CHAP), child welfare, and the aged and disabled populations.

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin expounded:

 

      We're currently processing a waiver for the first two populations. Immediately that represents about 50,000 of the little over 70,000 recipients that are currently on Medicaid and we are simultaneously evaluating the aged and disabled populations that are much more difficult population to go out to bid for on managed care....

 

Continuing, he explained that during the biennium he is proposing that all people would enter into a managed care program.  He explained:

 

      In order to make this a mandatory program, you must offer two optional managed care plans in each area of the state so they can pick...and that's where we plan to continue the program that is currently in operation with the University Medical Center by having them affiliate with what is called a Federally Qualified Public Health Clinic. We have a couple of those in Nevada. They, by law, are always a player in the Medicaid program by federal mandate....

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin opined a big savings will be realized in managing hospital care. That is the drawback of the current program, he asserted, "The university program only manages outpatient care."

 

Continuing, he avowed the Request for Proposals [RFP] will be concluded April l, l993 and bids awarded some time in June. The program is planned to be fully operational for the first phase of the ADC and CHAP population by October l993.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked who was going to let the RFP.

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin responded he has contracted with a consulting firm with experience in that area, and they will draft the RFP with input from the Department of Human Resources.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani called attention to the fact there is no definition in statute to define a managed care organization and "no regulatory controls in any way, shape, or form. If something comes out this session, it could very well have an impact as well as on whatever is developed in this RFP."

 

Ms. Tiffany asked if podiatry was one of the services which was deleted.

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin answered, "It's cut, so it's not in our program so that would not be a covered service...."

 

Ms. Tiffany referenced emergency room Medicaid patients and pointed out those individuals must be seen by doctors on call. She stated, "There's hundreds of thousands of dollars written off by private physicians. If you go under managed care, does that eliminate those physicians having to take these patients in emergency room?"

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin responded in the affirmative.

 

Mrs. Evans asked what are the anticipated cost savings and are they built into the Medicaid budget.

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin stated:

 

      From the department's perspective, they've been built in indirectly. We have this biennium obligation to pay for Medicaid bills that will come in over the next 2 years after this biennium closes. We know the rate of those bills is far exceeding the amount that was budgeted. By statute we are precluded from coming back for supplemental appropriations to the Medicaid program. We estimate that amount of unfunded liability to be about $20 million. We believe that is the amount of savings that we can incur as a result of managed care over the biennium.  We believe the budget will balance, provided managed care is put into place.

 

Continuing, Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin testified the reorganization incorporates several changes. First, restructuring of the existing elements within the department. Currently, there are six divisions, and he is concentrating agency services under two broad categories of health services and human services. Additionally, the recommendations incorporate a centralization of a number of administrative service functions. 

 

Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin stated some agency services would be removed from the Department of Human Resources. The new Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation and everything currently within the division of rehabilitation, with the exception of the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, would be incorporated into the new department. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin strongly supported the concept of combining the departments as he felt it would result in a more efficient use of the state's resources which currently have been spread across a number of divisions and departments in terms of getting people trained and back to work.

 

 

Additionally, there are two other entities scheduled to be removed from the department, he pointed out. Emergency Medical Services would be incorporated into the Department of Public Safety and Consumer Health Protection currently within the Health Division would be transferred to Department of Environmental Protection.

 

The third change is the incorporation of the Department of Education into the overall larger department, he summarized.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked where the Distributive School Account funding was located.

 

Mr. Scott Mayne, Chief Accountant, Department of Human Resources, responded it was under the Education Services category.

 

Senator Raggio asked what was the theory for the Office of the Public Defender being commingled with the new Department of Education, Health and Human Services.

 

Ms. Matteucci answered:

 

      There was no theory on this particular one. We had him originally planned to be in the Department of Public Safety, and he felt it was a conflict so we're trying to find a place where it really wasn't a conflict for the Public Defender to be....That budget recommends that the county portion of public defense be returned to the counties. However, we indicated to those counties that are concerned that if they want to make a plea to the legislature that it be reinstituted, that we would have no concern, and I think there are four or five small counties that do want to do that.

 

Division of Aging Services  - Page 927

 

Susan Ernst, Director, Aging Services Division, Department of Human Resources, distributed copies of Exhibit H, Dependent Care Resource Directory for Nevadans, (Exhibit H - Original on File in the Research Library) to the committee and testified while referencing that document. She noted the agency has the primary responsibility of acting as advocate for senior citizens in Nevada. From l980 to l990, the census shows the increase in seniors in Nevada was greater than any other state in the union. According to the l990 census, the age 60-plus population that the agency targets is l80,967 individuals. An estimated growth rate of the age 60-plus population is 9.4 percent per year. By the end of l992, 2l6,656 seniors will be living in the State of Nevada, she recited.

 

Ms. Ernst stated that under the Governor's reorganization plan, the Aging Services Division "will remain the same."

 

Senator Raggio asked how the Ombudsman position was functioning.

 

Ms. Ernst responded the Ombudsmen Unit has been in effect since August l992 and "...You'll see in our statistics that our Ombudsmen Unit is one of our most important units and one where we're asking for some growth."

 

Senator Raggio requested information concerning the Meals on Wheels program and asked why it was being discontinued in Washoe County. He questioned how the issue of seniors not receiving meals in Washoe County could be addressed.

 

 

Ms. Ernst explained that the Care and Share program was not funded by the division. Continuing, Ms. Ernst explained the funding formula that determines the amount of funding distributed to each county for nutrition and social services.  Ms. Ernst explained the seniors in Washoe County are receiving meals at home, but from a different nonprofit group.

 

Senator Rawson asked if the number of calls received by the hotline could be tracked, as well as the number of meals served to senior citizens. He also asked to be supplied with the turnaround time for the number of complaints waiting resolution. Senator Rawson then complimented Ms. Ernst on the service being provided by the Aging Services Division to the senior citizens of the State of Nevada. 

 

Senator Rawson asked Ms. Ernst to address senior abuse prosecutions and opined he felt it was a very important issue.

 

Ms. Ernst testified one of the greatest problems with abuse prosecutions of the senior population is the inability to get speedy justice. "We end up not having the victims to testify, or their conditions deteriorate so much they are not able to testify," she clarified.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked the status of the new positions provided to the Ombudsmen Unit.

 

Ms. Ernst answered, "The request we have for two Ombudsmen are simply because of a tremendous growth in complaints and complexity of complaints....We are having tremendous complex cases in nursing homes that are taking us about 8 to l0 hours of just basic investigations...." Ms. Ernst thanked the legislative body for providing the Ombudsmen position and added "this person that is the community Ombudsmen, we've only had him for 5 months, has handled 60 complaints from frail at-home elders who cannot get out and had a hard time having their voices heard...."

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the program were expanded to the northern part of the state would an additional Ombudsmen position be required. "If we looked at that, we would have to look at it as an additional position and not something that's reflected within the budget," she asked.

 

Ms. Ernst responded in the affirmative.

 

Mrs. Evans asked the status of the Retired Senior Volunteer Program.

 

Ms. Ernst responded, "That is the state share and we would just grant it to them and they were transferred, their federal dollars, to the UNR [University of Nevada, Reno] gerontology program, that's where they're stationed now, all of that money went with them. So it hasn't decreased."

 

Mr. Arberry referenced page 927 of the Governor's Executive Budget and asked for an explanation relative to the Dependent Care Grant and pointed out the agency requested $6,000, but the Governor recommended $24,800.

 

Ms. Ernst said:

 

      Originally, we had taken part of this grant...and put part of it under Salary. Then it was really not enough to have a position so we moved it back under this and we are going to contract for the person who will do this.

 

Senior Services Program - Page 933

 

Ms. Ernst distributed Exhibit I and stated in l987, the Nevada State Legislature directed the division to establish the CHIP (Community Home-based Initiatives Program). The program provides nonmedical supportive services for seniors 65 years of age and older to prevent or delay nursing home placement.  The current average cost for a CHIP client is $440 per month, as opposed to nursing home care which ranges from $l,500 to $2,400. The estimated savings to the state is $3,800,000. "One of the most proud figures that I have in this program, our administrative cost is 6 percent...." she declared.

 

Continuing, Ms. Ernst testified that the Nevada State Welfare Division has asked, in collaboration with the Aging Services Division, to apply for a Medicaid waiver to move clients now in nursing homes to group care facilities. She explained:

 

      ...The reason we are appropriate to do this is...we are the primary agency that is now [visiting] in group care [facilities]....We are in case management with our present CHIP, and we would feel we would be a good advocate to go to the nursing homes and find those clients who would rather be in a more home-like setting...so this placement would be in their best interest.

 

Senator Raggio asked how many potential clients does the agency envision.

 

Ms. Ernst said 250 by the end of the next biennium. "That's why we're asking for the new positions in order to manage a caseload of 40....," she concluded.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the statistics of the number of seniors that are not being served due to disqualification could be provided to the committee.

 

Ms. Ernst reported there are currently "300 on a waiting list that are trying to receive service...."

 

Senator Raggio invited public testimony.

 

Harry Clemons, Lobbyist, American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), distributed Exhibit J, 1993 Facts and Legislative Priorities pamphlet and l993 Position Paper, to the committee.  Mr. Clemons asserted "the CHIP saves taxpayers money." He  maintained the program served 550 seniors in l992.

 

Mr. Clemons highlighted the AARP legislative priorities and declared the organization recommends the expansion of the CHIP as an alternative to costly long-term care institutionalization.

 

It was pointed out the CHIP provides a continuum of home, community and institutional services that meets the needs of persons with functional impairments.  The Aging Services Division, through the CHIP, provides a wide variety of nonmedical services to seniors in need of assistance. That assistance may be daily living activities, bathing, house cleaning, shopping, laundry and meal preparation.  Adult day care, transportation, companions and respite care is also provided to family caregivers.

 

Mr. Clemons emphasized the fastest growing population group in the state are the elderly. The number of seniors 80 years or older is estimated to grow at a rate of 44 percent between l990 and l997. "Based on that demographic information, we would conclude that there has not been an adequate number of dollars requested for this budget. We would expect, in order to provide the necessary care for people to stay in their homes that it would require more funds than that amount," he declared. 

 

In conclusion, Mr. Clemons pointed out the biggest form of support to elderly are informal caregivers, and he urged an increase in financial assistance be provided to caregivers.

 

"It was originally $50,000, but during budget reductions, we had to reduce it back. Again, it was one of the few places where we had state dollars and we did reduce it to the $l0,000," Ms. Ernst emphasized.

 

Mr. Perkins asked if law enforcement officials are used on a frequent basis with respect to complaints against the elderly.

 

Ms. Ernst said, "The southern Nevada has very strong elder abuse units, and we work very closely with them...."

 

Mr. Perkins asked if Ms. Ernst could detect any trends in elder abuse today "that we don't have...statutory tools to address that we might be able to create?"

 

Ms. Ernst replied there is a lot of abuse against the elder population and opined it is driven by growth trends.

 

Mr. Perkins inquired why a lack of reporting exists in cases of elder abuse.

 

Ms. Ernst said statistics show that most elders are being abused by family and close friends, and "sometimes it's very hard for them to take that step and go to law enforcement because they seem to think that situation is better than no situation at all, and sometimes their access isn't very good to that kind of support...."

 

Chairman Raggio adjourned the meeting at 5:46 p.m.

 

            RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                                    

            Dee Crawford,

            Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                                   

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

 

 

DATE:                              

 

 

 

                                   

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman

 

 

DATE:                               

 

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Committee on Finance

Assembly Committee on Ways and Means

February 8, 1993

Page 1