The joint meeting of Ways and Means and Senate Finance Subcommittee on Capital Improvements was called to order at 8:07 a.m., on Tuesday,
February 23, 1999. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List.

ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Ms. Jan Evans, Vice Chair

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Richard Perkins

SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Matthews

Senator Raymond Rawson

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

None

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Chairman Arberry asked Eric Raecke, Manager, State Public Works Board (SPWB), to present budgets for the Capital Improvement Program.

Mr. Raecke stated he would begin with CIP 99-C4, Remodel of Carson City Courthouse for the Attorney General, because there were others wishing to speak.

Mr. Raecke explained CIP 99-C4 was the remodel of Carson City Courthouse for the Attorney General and advised the courthouse would be vacated in April 1999. He indicated the project included seismic strengthening and remodeling of the courthouse. As committee members might recall, CIP project 95-G8 provided $716,995 for the purchase of the Carson City courthouse. In 1996, SPWB conducted an advanced planning study. The results of that study strongly recommended the Attorney General’s office occupy the courthouse. In addition, the study recognized the need for mechanical and electrical systems upgrades, remodeling of the restrooms, and the addition of an elevator stair tower.

Mr. Raecke said SPWB had contracted a seismic engineer to review the cost of strengthening the old fire station to comply with current seismic codes. It was determined that to seismically strengthen the fire station would cost more than the building’s worth, and therefore it would be demolished. The Office of the Attorney General would utilize the new space obtained from demolishing the fire station for parking.

Mr. Raecke responding to Senator Coffin stated the building that housed the fire station was built in the late 1930s.

Chairman Arberry expressed concern that remodel costs included new furnishings and equipment, and asked if those costs could be removed from the budget because current employees already had furniture and equipment.
Mr. Raecke responded those costs were included as a percentage of the total construction costs, and he would review those costs with the Office of the Attorney General.

Mr. Raecke stated SPWB had partnered with the city of Carson City to both share and enhance downtown parking. He pointed out the city’s parking was utilized almost exclusively for the Attorney General’s (AG) Office.

Chairman Arberry stated the subcommittee was concerned how the parking situation would be handled until the fire station was demolished. Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, stated the office currently used two parking spaces behind the fire station. The remaining spaces were used by occupants of the courthouse. Staff of the Attorney General had access to the back lot on the south side of the building and off-street parking. Ms. Del Papa told committee members parking remained a challenge. It was her guess there were no more than 10 to 15 parking spaces that would become available after the remodel and was not sure how many more spaces would be picked up after the demolition of the fire station. She said Attorney General staff would utilize the entire complex and available parking space once completed.

Chairman Arberry requested Mr. Raecke review how the SPWB would deal with the parking situation until demolition of the fire station occurred. Mr. Raecke responded he, together with representatives from the city of Carson City, would develop a plan to review the capacity of those adjoining lots.

Mr. Raecke said 99-C8 was phase II of the Capitol Complex Conduit System. The first phase of the system provided conduit for inter-building communications connectors for the capitol complex. Phase II, that was a continuation of CIP 97-C26, would include copper strands and fiber optics cabling. A study conducted by the Department of Information Technologies (DoIT) indicated completion of phase II would meet user needs for up to
10-years in the future. Mr. Raecke told committee members of the
$2,433,610 requested for funding phase II, $561,220 would be shared by the Department of Informational Training and Rehabilitation (DETR), Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), Employers Insurance Company of Nevada (EICN), the City of Carson City, and the Commission on Tourism. He said he would ask DoIT for assistance regarding the technical aspect of the project.

Chairman Arberry asked if the cost of the project would be shared between other agencies that benefited from the system or if the cost of the project would be expended totally from General Fund. Mr. Raecke responded $561,220 would be shared by agencies involved with the project.

Chairman Arberry remarked he would take CIP projects out of order to benefit agencies present at the time.

Mr. Raecke explained this project replaced an existing chiller that provided backup for the primary cooling facility in Carson City. He said the chiller was 25-years old and there was no backup should it stop working. The existing chiller had reached its capacity and needed to be upsized and replaced.

Chairman Arberry understood there was an "Occupied Building Allowance" of Approximately $30,000 included in the project cost estimate and requested an explanation of additional charge. Mr. Raecke explained the computer facility could not be shut own and the "Occupied Building Allowance" represented costs SPWB anticipated to be charged by the contractor to keep the facility operating while the work was being done. He pointed out that type of charge was also included in projects performed for the Nevada Department of Prisons.

Chairman Arberry asked if the construction contingency cost of approximately $25,000 was included in the $30,000 and Mr. Raecke replied it was definitely outside the "Occupied Building Allowance." He told committee members a contingency had been placed on the "Occupied Building Allowance." Any funds remaining would revert to the General Fund.

Mr. Raecke explained the project was an adjunct to CIP Project Nos. 97-C26 and 99-C8. Those projects had provided for the installation of the backbone of the cable system that ran throughout the Capitol Complex. The current project would upgrade existing building wiring to allow for electronic communication tie-ins of various state buildings.

Referring to information provided to the subcommittee, Chairman Arberry asked if portions of the project cost could be recovered from the non-General Fund agencies if the project was approved. Mr. Raecke responded the agencies involved were EICN (formerly known as SIIS), DETR, PS, DMV, and NDOT and he would provide the cost breakout summary.

Chairman Arberry inquired if construction on the project could commence before phase II of the Capitol Complex Conduit System was completed.
Marlene Lockard, Director, Department of Information Technology (DoIT), replied a portion of the wiring could commence in identified buildings.

Ms. Evans requested clarification on the meaning of the Sawyer Building in Vegas needing fiber optics installed between existing data and telephone closets. Mr. Raecke responded when the Sawyer Building was constructed in 1993, the decision was made to take a value engineering reduction in price not to install fiber optics but use a different cabling system. SPWB determined the fiber optic cabling system was necessary due to the advancement of electronic data transfer. Ms. Lockard added the upgrade in the Sawyer Building was necessary to support the needs being requested by state agencies and other communication links to the building.

Ms. Evans asked if Nevada’s state-of-the-art buildings were being constructed with the most current wiring systems available at the time of construction to avoid future retrofitting. Mr. Raecke answered the new buildings included distributive wiring to handle new computers and electronic media transfers. He explained only the communication rooms in the Sawyer Building were being tied-in. The remaining wiring in the building was state-of-the-art.

Chairman Arberry asked if the old district courthouse was the same as the old county courthouse recommended for remodel for the Office of the Attorney General in CIP 99-C4. It was his understanding SPWB had requested
$40,000 for work to be performed at the old district courthouse. Mr. Raecke replied he believed the old district courthouse was the old state library, but he needed to verify if that were correct to avoid expenditure duplication.

Mr. Raecke explained 99-C10 requested funds to remodel and convert the interior of the old First Interstate Bank (FIB) building to museum space. In the 1997 session, the FIB building was purchased for the Department of Museums, but the purchase price was more than anticipated. He said the original cost estimate to purchase the building was $1,275,000 while the actual purchase price was $1,378,500. During the design process the building’s mechanical and electrical systems were found to be in need of repair. Mr. Raecke said there had been a good cost-sharing and partnering effort between SPWB and the city of Carson City. The city had provided $200,000 toward the conversion and long-term maintenance of the parking lot behind the building. Additionally, the city provided $40,000 from ICT grants to renovate the front of the building and closed Caroline Street for the purpose of constructing a plaza.

Mr. Raecke said funding in the amount of $286,077 was recommended for the remodel of the FIB building. From the original 97-C2 project, $45,000 would be reallocated for use in the remodeling cost. At total of $138,083 would be reallocated from 97-S4I for the total renovation cost of $469,100, and those figures had been presented to the subcommittee.

Mr. Marvel asked if litigation would occur over the closure of Caroline Street, to which Mr. Raecke replied the street had been vacated by the city, and deeded back to the state. No litigation was anticipated.

Mr. Marvel was concerned there had been discussion in the 1997 session that the motel located on Caroline Street would sue for loss of earnings due to the closure. Mr. Raecke responded the owner had been given additional ease of access to allow for continued business.

Chairman Arberry requested a project completion date. Mr. Raecke explained the design had been completed and, including the bid process, the completion date would be within one year. Chairman Arberry said committee members understood the completion date was March 29, 2000. Mr. Raecke confirmed March 29, 2000 was a "good date."

Addressing Mr. Raecke, Chairman Arberry remarked figures in the CIP book reflected a total cost of $286,077, while $469,100 had been mentioned and requested clarification of the difference. Mr. Raecke replied unexpended funds of $45,000 and $138,083 from projects 97-C2 and 97-S4I would be incorporated into the current renovation project for a total renovation cost of $469,100. Chairman Arberry advised committee members wanted the information presented in one project cost estimate and Mr. Raecke said that information would be provided.

Senator Coffin noted the project had improved the appearance of downtown Carson City, and asked what was being done to improve the appearance of the block across from the Legislative Building. John Berkich, City Manager, Carson City, responded there were aggressive plans under development he was not at liberty to discuss. He said the city shared those concerns of the legislature, and it was hoped the property would be developed into a project the community would be proud of prior to the next legislative session.

Senator Coffin asked if it was necessary to wait until next session. He was aware the city had ordinances that would allow for obnoxious surfaces to be cleaned and/or painted and those services would be billed to the property owners. Mr. Berkich replied the delay was that the property owner was aggressively seeking to develop a project on the site.

Senator Coffin asked if the owner’s aggressive approach would include demolition of historical buildings on the site. Mr. Berkich replied it was in the interest of the city to preserve its historical buildings. Redevelopment funds had been expended on analyses of the buildings and the city determined the buildings were salvageable, but were waiting on the owner’s redevelopment plans for the entire city block.

Mr. Coffin was concerned that the city had allowed the V&T buildings to be demolished and hoped it was not its intent to allow the historical structures on that block to receive the same fate. Mr. Berkich replied the city had an intense interest in the history of Carson City and considered the loss of historical buildings a tragedy. He said the city had an active historic district and there were plans to preserve historic buildings in the future. Mr. Coffin asked that he be provided with an update regarding the preservation of Carson City’s historical buildings and Mr. Berkich said he would provide that information.

Senator Rawson remarked he was surprised to discover a major mobile home park located on Roop Street and was curious about zoning for that area. He added it would be helpful to know the zoning requirements adjacent to the Capitol Complex and commented that zoning may influence future structure development. Mr. Berkich replied the city would provide that information.

Robin Williamson, Board of Supervisors, Carson City, and Chairman of the Redevelopment Authority, assured Senator Coffin and the other subcommittee members that the city was very interested in development of the downtown area and its continued partnership with the state. It was hoped Carson City would become an outstanding example of a small capital city.

Mr. Raecke explained CIP project 99-C20 was a cooperative parking arrangement between SPWB and the city of Carson City to gain additional parking on the northern end of the Capitol Complex. He told committee members SPWB had partnered with the city on several parking projects to include the FIB building, AG’s Office, and the Commission on Tourism. Since the Commission on Tourism had moved into the old state library building the state had relied on the city to supplement space for parking. He pointed out the new state library parking flowed over into the Nugget parking lot. Another cooperative effort with the city involved parking and sidewalks for the Capitol Building and the expansion of the Kinkead parking lot by approximately
200 stalls.

Mr. Raecke explained the cooperative parking project was a long-term commitment that would be maintained by the city. Two-thirds of the cost for this project would be donated by the state and one-third by the city. The Nugget would provide the use of its land the city would provide for necessary street closures.

Chairman Arberry requested a definition of the area to be developed for parking. Mr. Berkich replied Plaza Street that ran north of the Capitol and parking lots immediately adjacent to and east of Plaza Street to Stewart Street, continuing north and south behind the Nugget. A proposal had been made to close all city streets, repave, re-landscape, and install new lighting to create an additional
55 parking spaces. The new parking spaces were to be situated immediately adjacent to the new state-used facility.

Chairman Arberry asked who would own the parking lot once the improvements had been made. Mr. Raecke explained the project was an improvement to Nugget-owned land. It was the intent of the Nugget to allow the state to continue to encroach on its parking lot. He pointed out the Nugget could close its parking lot to state and city employees at any time. More of the lot would be used by the state as the Commission on Tourism was settled in the old state library building. Mr. Berkich added the Nugget ownership and management had been very gracious in allowing the state and city employees to use the lot free of charge. Due to the number of state facilities being developed in the area, namely the Commission on Tourism with 57 employees and Economic Development with 22 employees, the proposed project was determined to be an inexpensive alternative to a parking structure. For about $5,000 per space, continual open public parking could be developed as part of a long-term agreement with the Nugget.

Chairman Arberry inquired if the agreement was in writing and Mr. Berkich said that it was. Chairman Arberry was concerned if it was just a verbal agreement and the ownership of the Nugget was to change after the improvements had been made, would the terms of the agreement continue. Mr. Berkich stated he understood the concern of the subcommittee. Mr. Raecke added when the parking behind the FIB building was developed, there was a clear letter of intent that served as a binding contract between the city and the state. A similar letter of intent similar would be developed with the Nugget.

Ms. Evans commented there were limits imposed on surface parking and asked if actual parking structures were identified in the master plan. Mr. Berkich replied a parking structure serving the Nugget, the city, and the state would be considered in the future. Mr. Raecke advised it would be superfluous to build a parking structure at this time.

Senator Raggio asked who owned the lot directly north of the Capitol and
Mr. Raecke responded the Musser Street lot was owned by the state. Senator Raggio asked if the parking lot across the street from the front of the Nugget was included in this project and Mr. Raecke said that lot had been "maxed out."

Senator Raggio said it was his understanding state workers were already utilizing the Nugget-owned lot without an agreement and Mr. Raecke replied that was correct. It was also his understanding that city streets intersecting the project would be closed and Mr. Raecke confirmed that fact. The Senator then asked how the $500,000 would be expended. Mr. Berkich explained the funds would be expended on design and infrastructure to close the many city streets that connected the various parking lots behind the Nugget and to reconfigure, re-landscape and re-light the entire area. He said 50 to 60 additional spaces would be created.

Mr. Berkich said the project involved a long-term agreement and Senator Raggio questioned the definition of "long-term." Mr. Berkich replied 10 to 20 years. The details of that agreement were still being negotiated with Nugget ownership. The Senator did not want to expend that amount of money to improve a private business parking facility and not have some assurance of continued use. Mr. Berkich said the project had to make business sense for both the state and city.

Mr. Raecke explained the Caliente Youth Center was built in 1963 and consisted of seven hexagon-shaped single-bedroom dormitories. At the time the facility was constructed, the occupancy code classification was R-1. The R-1 code required only one exit from a building. The correct classification per the current Uniform Building Code (UBC) was I-3 or institutional occupancy. The I-3 classification stated if the occupancy of a building exceeded 10, the institution was required to have two exits.

In order to provide the second exit, Mr. Raecke said one bedroom per dorm had to be removed. The project would reduce the total dormitory space by seven beds and noted the Department of Human Resources had reservations about losing those beds. He said when the new secure juvenile correction center became fully functional it would relieve part of the bed situation at Caliente Youth Center. Mr. Raecke told committee members the State Fire Marshall had wanted to close the center for years. Mr. Raecke had promised funding for the second exit would be requested in the 1999 capital improvement bill to provide the second exit to conform to current code.

Chairman Arberry asked what right the State Fire Marshall had to reclassify a building built in 1963 and said if that were the "norm," Nevada had many buildings that needed to be reclassified. He wondered why the State fire Marshall had singled out the Caliente Youth Center. Mr. Raecke responded the code under which a building was constructed generally remained until a major renovation was made. He felt an error had made in the original occupancy classification in 1963. The State Fire Marshall had taken the same position and to correct the initial error had changed the occupancy classification to I-3 (institutional usage).

While Chairman Arberry was concerned a precedent was being set, he did not disagree with the reclassification at the center. He pointed out an incorrect occupancy classification may have been assigned to the center in an attempt to reduce costs. Mr. Arberry asked if the affected agency had been informed of the potential loss of beds. Mr. Raecke said there had been discussions with the Department of Human Resources concerning the loss of beds. Representatives from the department were in the audience and available to provide additional information.

Ms. Evans said the statement that had been made regarding the new juvenile facility relieving pressure on Caliente may not be correct. She pointed out the type of youngster in Caliente was not the same type of offender that would be housed in the new facility which had been designed for the chronic and violent offender. Ms. Evans was interested in other options to bring the center up to code and, at the same time, preserve as many beds as possible. Mr. Raecke told Ms. Evans he had been led to believe there were a number of youths that would be moved from Caliente to the secured juvenile facility as it was being built. He said if the youths had to be moved out of the state, the cost would be $100 per day times seven beds times seven days a week and ultimately total hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Bruce Alder, Deputy Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) stated the division had identified a core group of youths at NYTC who would be transferred to the new serious and chronic facility. He said the master plan was to vacate some space at NYTC, move one dormitory of male offenders from Caliente to NYTC, and free-up one dormitory at the Caliente facility to be used as additional space for female offenders. Mr. Alder said DCFS was indeed concerned about the loss of seven beds but did not want to compromise the safety of the youthful offenders housed at the Caliente facility. He told committee members an additional exit was located at the back of each dormitory; however, those exits were not wide enough and involved electrical equipment that would be costly to deal with. SPWB’s plan to convert a bedroom in each dormitory to a second exit was an inexpensive solution.
Mr. Alder said it may be more cost effective in the long run to fix the narrower exits thereby preserving the seven beds.

Ms. Evans commented it might be helpful for the subcommittee to review cost figures of the alternative exit. Mr. Raecke replied he would provide the subcommittee with those figures. He advised committee members the cost was very clear in stating there could be no alternative exit through an intervening room. The second option would only work if the electrical transformer, utilities, and water heater associated with each narrow door were relocated. He would look at those costs and provide the comparison to the subcommittee.

Chairman Arberry remarked an I-3 classification required a facility to have a fire sprinkler system and that the Caliente Youth Center did not have such a system. He said it appeared the costs of the project were beginning to multiply as a result of the occupancy code reclassification. Chairman Arberry was concerned the state was "opening a can of worms." Mr. Raecke said that when he had met with State Fire Marshall’s office regarding Caliente, he was informed that because the facility was staffed 24-hours-a-day, the requirement for a fire sprinkling system would be waived in lieu of installing a second exit. Chairman Arberry advised Mr. Raecke to reduce that agreement to writing because if he were not mistaken there could be no exceptions to the UBC. He wanted assurance the state would not be served with a lawsuit from a parent who lost a child because there were no fire sprinklers installed in the facility.

Mr. Raecke stated there was no fire alarm system in the front portion of the Belrose Building in Las Vegas and the system that was located in the two-story portion of the building was old and needed to be upgraded to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. He said the building would be "sprinkled" under the statewide sprinkler system project.

Referring to information provided to the subcommittee, Chairman Arberry asked if there was a duplication of costs in the furnishings and equipment item that included costs for demolition, a fire alarm panel, conduit and wiring, and devices. Mr. Raecke advised he would review his original estimate and report back to the subcommittee.

Mr. Raecke told the subcommittee the Marlette Water Treatment Plant was presently owned and operated by the state. He said the Marlette and Hobart Dam water distribution systems required upgrades in order to comply with current federal environmental laws.

Mike Meizel, Administrator, Buildings and Grounds Division, told the subcommittee the Marlette Water Treatment Plant was located in Carson City at the base of the hill closest to Northern Nevada Community College. SPWB had been working with Carson City for the last year to remove itself from the water treatment business and was close to an agreement. He explained the plant would be leased to Carson City for a number of years and the state would retain ownership of both the buildings and land. The state intended to preserve a discounted rate for state agency users.

Mr. Meizel felt the CIP projects related to the operation of the water treatment plant were justification enough for the state to get out of the water treatment plant business, especially in view of the fact the city now had a utility department to deal with water treatment. That had not been the case at the time the plant was constructed in the mid-1970s. He explained roughly
two-thirds of the requested funds ($200,000) for this project would be expended to improve the treatment plans. Close to $100,000 was associated with an emergency life-safety action plan for the two dams involved with the Marlette Water System.

If the SPWB was successful in working out an agreement with Carson City, it would not need the CIP funds requested for the water treatment plant. SPWB would, however, still request the $100,000 associated with the Marlette Water System. A consultant would be contracted to review the conditions and any potential problems that may be associated with the dams. The project would also include an engineering study regarding a gravity pipeline from Marlette Lake to Carson City. During drought years when there were additional demands on water, the state would benefit from an improvement to bring water from Marlette other than by emergency pumping which was presently the case.

Chairman Arberry said when the Federal Government required changes, it generally provided full funding or matching funds and asked if that were the case for this project. Mr. Raecke said SPWB anticipated a certain amount of matching funds. Chairman Arberry asked if SPWB knew the amount of federal funding and Mr. Raecke said that information would be provided to the subcommittee.

Ms. Evans requested a timetable as to when SPWB would talk to Carson City to work out terms of the sale and asked if it would be completed before the end of the 1999 session. Mr. Meizel responded talks could begin within a few weeks. The final details of an agreement were being worked out, and it was the intent of SPWB to return to the subcommittee well before the end of session.

Referring to the project cost estimate, Senator Raggio said he saw no indication of federal funding. Mr. Raecke replied SPWB had not yet received the amount of a federal-funded match. The Senator asked if the project amount would be adjusted as a result of either the agreement with Carson City or the receipt of federal funds. He wanted to avoid bonding as much as possible where maintenance was concerned and requested an update on both issues.
Mr. Raecke responded the only reason the CIP portion related to the treatment plant would be required was if the plant remained with the state, which was not the intent of SPWB. He assured Senator Raggio funding summaries would be reviewed and updated to incorporate a timetable. That information would be provided to the subcommittee.

Mr. Raecke stated the Buildings and Grounds Division had requested that the existing central steam boiler plant at the Stewart Facility be replaced due to unreliability. Individual hot water boilers would be installed in six buildings at the facility. Mr. Meizel said the project would generate a minimum savings of $18,000 per year in gas savings alone.

Chairman Arberry asked if other buildings at the Stewart Facility would be affected once the project became fully functional. Mr. Meizel responded there would be no other buildings affected.

Chairman Arberry asked If additional buildings would operate on the central steam system once the project was completed and Mr. Meizel said they would not.

Senator Raggio asked if the central steam boiler plant was a separate structure and if it would be demolished. Mr. Meizel said it would not be demolished and could be utilized as warehouse or storage space.

Mr. Raecke said CIP 99-M-5 was a Buildings & Grounds project that would replace a portion of the sewer system at the Stewart Facility. That system, that was built in the 1920s, had deteriorated and was at least 10-years beyond its useful life. He said the conditions at Stewart constituted a health hazard with a great deal of sewer backup that required regular maintenance. Mr. Raecke said the project would compliment Phase I, that had been completed in 1991. Phase I of the project was concentrated on currently occupied buildings. Phase II would access the sewer main and laterals that go to the buildings and would include the installation of new 8" sewer line, manholes, and associated street patching.

Chairman Arberry inquired if funds remained from Phase I. Mr. Raecke responded there were none.

Mr. Raecke said the project would replace an existing boiler and circulating pump at the Special Children’s Clinic in Reno. Both boiler and pump system were over 30 years old and were no longer reliable. He told the subcommittee the clinic was operated by the Department of Human Resources and was located on the Northern Nevada Mental Health Institute (NNMHI) campus.

Chairman Arberry said the project cost estimate did not include a construction cost breakdown. Mr. Raecke said that information would be provided to the subcommittee.

Chairman Arberry asked if the new boiler and pump would be adequate to handle the expansion of the clinic anticipated in the statewide advanced planning project. Mr. Raecke responded that advanced plan involved the clinic located in Las Vegas, not Reno

Mr. Raecke told the subcommittee the state currently owned and maintained the existing sanitary sewer line from the Clear Creek facility slightly upstream from Fuji Park. Phase I, 95-M7 was funded in the 1997 session for
$201,603. Phase II would complete the balance of the project.

Mr. Meizel explained the city (Carson City) had agreed to take over the maintenance of the Clear Creek sewer line once the improvements were made. Completion of the project would put the state out of the sewer line business and result in some cost savings in the future.

Chairman Arberry asked if any Phase I funds remained. Mr. Raecke replied Phase I was not completed. Although, once the project was completed, any remaining funds would be reverted.

Mr. Raecke told the subcommittee the Statewide Roofing Program had been a very successful endeavor for the state.

Mr. Raecke said SPWB had reduced by 1,000 percent the leak calls it used to receive and the loss of interior property. The Statewide Roofing Program was originally funded by the 1995 legislature in the amount of $4 million. That appropriation re-roofed 36 different roof structures. The appropriation of
$3.9 million during the 1995 legislative session funded 42 separate re-roofing projects. He said $264,398 would be reverted to the General Fund from the 1995 program. In FY 1997, funding slightly in excess of $2.5 million was used to re-roof 23 structures of which 10 were completed, 7 were in the process of being re-roofed, and design work on 6 structures was to begin in the spring. The 1999 request totaled $2.5 million and represented the repair of an additional 50 roofs. Mr. Raecke added the state currently owned about
1,800 to 1,900 structures, including those within the University System. He told the subcommittee the performance of major roof repairs was a never-ending project.

Chairman Arberry understood the Fiscal Analysis Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau had requested a detailed list of statewide capital improvement projects and associated costs that had received approval in 1993, 1995, and 1997. Information regarding whether or not those projects had been completed was also requested. He also understood that information had not yet been received. While he did not have the information with him, Mr. Raecke said he had provided Mr. Combs with a packet of information. Mr. Combs indicated that particular information had not been included in the packet. Mr. Raecke assured the subcommittee the information would be provided.

Chairman Arberry asked if some of the roofing projects could be maintained through agency funds rather than general obligation bonds. Mr. Raecke explained SPWB looked to cost-sharing with any project and would provide a funding breakdown of monies coming from other agencies.

Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Raecke to discuss the progress of 95-S4.
Mr. Raecke said 95-S4 was a statewide roofing inventory that was
three-fourths completed. He anticipated it would be totally completed by the end of June 1999, and would provide the subcommittee with information about the completed inventoried roofs.

Mr. Raecke stated CIP 99-S2 was the statewide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) program. He explained ADA prohibited discrimination on the basis of disability, services, programs, etc. When the Statewide ADA Compliance Program was first reviewed in 1991, there was an estimate of $14 million worth of work that needed to be completed in order to bring state buildings into compliance. The 1993 legislature appropriated $2.6 million to begin to remove physical barriers that made buildings inaccessible. The 1995 legislature appropriated $1 million. SPWB used those funds to enhance accessibility for the disabled. SPWB told the 1997 legislature it was far behind in both the 1993 and 1995 programs and, as a result, requested only $500,000.

Mr. Raecke said the most current estimate was $7 million worth of work still remained in order to bring buildings up to the requirements of the federal ADA. The total amount being requested to continue the program was $2 million.

Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Raecke to provide the subcommittee and Fiscal Analysis Division with a report of buildings that had been ADA retrofitted.
Mr. Raecke replied he would provide the report.

Mr. Raecke explained CIP 99-S3 was the statewide fire sprinkler program and had been ongoing over the past several years. In 1993, the legislature appropriated $2,093,000; in 1995 it appropriated $810,000 and in 1997, the appropriated amount was $174,000. The untimely death of one of the engineers had put the 1995 program behind and SPWB would revert $810,552.73 to the General Fund. SPWB had reviewed the 1995 projects and determined those buildings were compliant. CIP 99-S3 requested an appropriation in the amount of $512,644 for the installation of fire sprinkler systems in the Belrose Building in Las Vegas (34,000 square feet), the Lost City Museum in Overton (10,000 square feet), and four buildings on the Nevada Mental Health Institute (NMHI) campus.

The IFC authorized the SPWB to use funds remaining in the 1993 statewide fire sprinkler program to survey the number of sprinklers in the state buildings that were subject to the nationwide recall of the Omega brand sprinkler heads. The survey had been completed and found 2,600 Omega heads at 28 state-owned buildings. Omega had offered to replace the defective heads, and the state would receive a $5 replacement credit for each head. Mr. Raecke did not feel $5 would begin to cover the replacement cost because of what was involved in disassembling the sprinklers. Mr. Raecke told the subcommittee SPWB would like to hold the $256,000 appropriation until the Fire Marshall had received all agency surveys. To date, the following state-owned buildings had been identified to have Omega sprinkler heads:

• State Library – 300 heads
• Lovelock Prison – 1,600 heads
• Sierra Regional Center – 245 heads
• Southern Desert Correctional Center – 350 heads

Chairman Arberry asked if the 1999 appropriation would be sufficient to cover the replacement of the Omega heads and Mr. Raecke said the 1999 program did not include the replacement of sprinkler heads. The 1993 holdover dollars would be "dipped into" for those replacements.

Chairman Arberry asked if any of the buildings for which fire sprinklers were to be installed in the 1999 program were buildings that had been included in the statewide fire sprinkler program from previous years. Mr. Raecke said he would review the projects from previous years and provide that information to the subcommittee. Mr. Raecke stated the funds being reverted from the 1995 program were to be used for the Blasdel Building, UNR Medical School, and the tag plant at Nevada State Prison (NSP), which were determined by the State Fire Marshall to be in compliance with the fire code.

Senator Raggio asked if all Omega heads in state buildings needed replacing, to which Mr. Raecke replied only the heads that had been determined defective would be replaced.

Referring to additional information regarding replacement of defective sprinkler heads, Chairman Arberry inquired if any funds approved by IFC remained. Mr. Raecke replied he would develop a project estimate and provide the subcommittee with a copy.

Chairman Arberry asked if additional funds besides the $5 per head could be received from Omega. Mr. Raecke responded $5 plus the sprinkler head was the agreement.

Chairman Arberry asked if the state could counter-sue for additional funds, to which Mr. Raecke said the $5 replacement credit, plus new Omega sprinkler heads was the settlement that was approved in federal court.

Senator Rawson suggested hiring a team of plumbers and/or pipefitters rather than contractors to remove the defective heads and install the new heads. He added if there were two permanent staff members and the heads were provided, the salary cost would total less than $100,000 per year. Mr. Raecke replied that the state would have to pay for per diem, travel and overtime, in addition to the salaries of the two plumbers. Within a year, the state may discover that they had expended close to the $256,000 approved by the IFC, but he was open to reviewing a possible 1-year contract between the state and two plumbers.

Mr. Raecke said the Advance Planning Program was used for many years as a platform for all advanced planning of projects. The 1993 Advance Planning Program was closed out. In 1995, the legislature appropriated $300,000 for the design of the Henderson campus of which $297,000 had been expended. The balance would be reverted by March 1, 1999. The Wright Hall appropriation of $25,000 would be expended by the end of 1999. Advanced planning for the services office of DETR had been closed. Out of $40,000 appropriated in 1995 for the Carson City Courthouse, $39,000 had been expended and the remaining $1,000 was obligated to be paid.

Continuing, Mr. Raecke said advance planning of $20,000 for the Department of Information and Technology (DoIT) was closed. The statewide advanced planning project was funded at $110,000 of which $84,242 had been expended, $13,000 was still obligated, and the balance of $12,758 was to revert by March 1, 1999. Of the $50,000 in funds authorized for the statewide roofing inventory, $23,000 was expended and $14,000 was obligated to be paid. The roofing inventory project would be closed by the end of June. The Capitol Complex Master Plan was funded at $75,000 and the project had been closed. Funding for the 1997 Statewide Advance Planning Program included $476,000 for the Area Command Complex for the National Guard. Of that, $252,000 had been expended and no reversions were anticipated. The balance remaining from the National Guard Project would be combined with funds from the 99-C3 shared funding of the local National Guard facility. Mr. Raecke said the NMHI campus streamline study had been reviewed and $5,900 of the original funds authorized for the study was expended, and $25,000 was still obligated for payment. The sum of $24,419 was authorized for the NSP Central Boiler Plant Study. Of that total amount, $5,400 was expended and $19,019 was obligated for payment. He advised the project was currently on hold because cell blocks "A" and "B" could not be accessed to complete the project.

Continuing, Mr. Raecke stated funding for 97-S4D was in the amount of $149,700. The SPWB had currently expended $29,000 with $63,900 still obligated for payment, and the remaining balance of $85,788 would revert at the end of the 1999 session. In 1997, funds in the amount of $1 million were authorized for the review of the Redfield Campus. Of those funds,
$421,000 had been expended, $73,000 was still obligated to be paid, and the balance of $505,000 would be utilized for completion of design and off-site improvements. CIP 97-S4G provided funds for the Getchell Library, the Human and Community Sciences Building, and the medical school library at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR). Unobligated funds in the amount of $53,393 would be utilized for completion of the advanced planning of those projects. Funds appropriated for the computer facility addition for DoIT totaled $352,000. Of that amount, $242,000 had been expended, $34,000 was still obligated for payment, and $75,000 would be used to fund the completion of additional advanced planning for DoIT projects. Funds were appropriated in the amount of $200,000 for a museum study. Of that, $60,000 was expended and the remaining balance would be used to fund a portion of the costs for the FIB building remodel.

Mr. Raecke said $25,000 was appropriated for advance planning for a records center in Las Vegas. Those funds would be expended before the end of the 1999 session. Funds appropriated for the Boyd Law School totaled
$500,000 from which $96,235 was expended, and $397,500 still obligated under contract. The remaining $6,200 would be used to perform advance planning for the ongoing Boyd Law School project. The legislature appropriated advanced planning funds for the Science Life Building in the amount of $400,000, of which $188,000 had been expended. A total of $191,000 was still obligated to be paid, and the remaining balance of $19,800 would either go to planning or be reverted. Funds in the amount of $75,000 were authorized for the Pahrump Hi-tech Center originating from A.B. 111. Of those funds, $28,100 would revert to the General Fund.

Mr. Raecke advised five projects had been considered under the 1999 CIPs as follows:

• The first project requested $150,000 for the Department of Administration formulation of the 2001 CIP.

• The second project requested funding in the amount of $111,097 for CIP 99-S4B to perform advance planning for the construction of a new addition and remodel of the Special Children’s Clinic in Reno.

• The third project involved Human Resources, Mental Health & Mental Retardation and the Desert Resource Center and requested funding in the amount of $366,500 for a new central administration building for the mental health campus in Las Vegas.

• The fourth project, CIP 99 S4-D requested funding for the southern Nevada office and records building of the Department of Museums, Libraries, and Arts. There was a strong possibility that the Campos Building could be retrofitted and used as an office and records building for the Department of Museums, Libraries, and Arts.

• The fifth project was the Mormon Fort Visitor Center in Las Vegas. Funding was being requested in the amount of $100,000 for study purposes. SPWB intended to fund that project and it had remained on its active list of constructions up until the week immediately prior to session. In an attempt to cut down the amount of bonded debt it would incur, SPWB chose to consider this item as an advanced planning project that would include $75,000 for an architectural and engineering fee to review the plan. Additionally, $25,000 would be expended on an archeological study at the site.

Chairman Arberry requested that Mr. Raecke provide estimates for specific construction projects for which advance planning funds were recommended in the 1999 CIP program and Mr. Raecke replied that he would.

Chairman Arberry asked how many advanced planning projects from the 1997 CIP program were not included as construction projects in the 1999 CIP program. Mr. Raecke responded there were five projects from the 1997 advanced planning program that were not included in the 1999 CIP program. Those projects were the Getchell Library project for UNR, Human Resources, the Medical School Library, the computer facility addition, and the Pahrump High Tech Center.

Senator Rawson asked if the advanced planning for those five projects had been completed, but had been set aside. Mr. Raecke replied many of those projects were "advance planned" through design/development.

Mr. Raecke remarked the Statewide Paving Program was a success story likened to that of the Statewide Roofing Program. In 1993, 1995, and 1997, the legislature appropriated $1.2 million, $1.3 million, and $700,000, respectively. All 1993 projects were completed, and the 1995 projects would be completed by the end of FY 1999. The 1997 projects had been started late but would be completed within the next 18 months and well within the
4-year window established by the legislature.

Mr. Raecke stated he believed there was approximately $4 million worth of paving that needed upgrading or resurfacing. SPWB had looked at its anticipated manpower and time resources and had determined a request for
$1 million would allow SPWB to "catch-up" similar to the request in the ADA program.

Chairman Arberry asked if some projects included in the project cost estimate could be funded using agency funds rather than general obligation bonds.
Mr. Raecke replied that he would consider whether agency funding was available, but he did not believe any of the projects could be funded in that manner.

Chairman Arberry asked if there were projects that were deferred from previous CIP programs. Mr. Raecke responded SPWB had not completed all of the 1995 Capital Improvement Projects, and currently had an unobligated balance of $171,000. Small projects not completed included the Nevada Mental Health Institute (NMHI), Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the Ely Conservation Camp, and a project in Elko. He anticipated completion of the projects with the remaining funds from the 1995 program.

Mr. Raecke said the 99-S6 project included funding for asbestos and lead abatement, and indoor air quality. Over the past few years it had become evident that air quality in some buildings needed to be reviewed. Mr. Raecke commented many buildings had problems with "sick building syndrome." He told the subcommittee SPWB had an excellent person on-staff who provided a tremendous amount to many other agencies and worked very close with DETR and the Employers Insurance Company of Nevada (formerly known as SIIS) on its buildings. The asbestos problem had been in existence for years. SPWB had expended all of the funding that resulted from the John Mansfield lawsuit for asbestos abatement. He pointed out the state had carried the brunt of the burden for asbestos abatement.

Mr. Raecke said $1 million was appropriated by the legislature in FY 1995 for use in the program. Of that $1 million, $793,000 was expended, $87,000 was obligated to be paid, and the remaining unobligated balance of $119,000 was currently supporting work in the NSP Culinary and at NMHI. He stated those projects would be completed during May of 1999. Any remaining funds would revert to the General Fund. In 1997, the legislature approved funding in the amount of $1.5 million from which $335,000 had been expended, and $127,000 was still obligated to be paid. The remaining unobligated balance of $1,036,000 would be used in projects at NMHI, the FIB remodel, DMV, and DRI in Las Vegas, and any remaining funds would revert.

Mr. Raecke said the 1999 programs included a project list totaling approximately $2.5 million. The funding request for $2 million would match SPWB’s manpower and time allocation.

Senator Rawson asked if some of the maintenance, repair, and refurbishing would be bonded. Mr. Raecke told the subcommittee the 1999 CIP program totaled $155 million of state funds. The state budget director had suggested the entire program be bonded. Mr. Raecke said he was not happy with that option.

Senator Rawson asked if the subcommittee could be provided with a list of those projects that could be funded with General Fund dollars. Mr. Raecke replied the SPWB had traditionally attempted to General Fund all maintenance projects and statewide projects. Because of the shortage of funds in FY 1999, the recommendation had been made to bond the projects. He added the bonding capacity did exist to fund the 1999 projects.

Senator Rawson clarified that maintenance and statewide projects had always been funded from General Fund dollars in past years and Mr. Raecke replied he was correct. Senator Rawson questioned the amount to be bonded and
Mr. Raecke said $18 million.

Looking at project cost estimates, Chairman Arberry referenced the bottom line which read "Type of Funds: General Obligation Bonds & Reallocation," and said there was nothing in the narrative stating how funds would be reallocated.
Mr. Raecke explained the 1997 program had not been closed out and instead of reallocating, he would rather revert the funds. He indicated to the subcommittee that he would change the narrative to read "General Obligation Bonds."

Concerning the statewide asbestos projects, Chairman Arberry understood there were two projects that may have been duplicated. Mr. Raecke explained there may be a possible duplication with the asbestos allowance included in the project cost estimate for CIP 99-C12 and the UNLV Law School renovation. He advised there was a total of $600,000 available for the UNLV Law School project. He told the subcommittee he would make necessary corrections to correct any duplication.

Mr. Raecke stated SPWB had been working on the project since 1993 when the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required the state to remove underground storage tanks. Singled-wall tanks were being replaced with
above-ground tanks. He advised the subcommittee members the 1993 project was complete and closed. In 1995, the legislature appropriated $1,016,000 for the program. Of that amount, $771,000 had been expended, and
$129,000 was still obligated for payment. The remaining unobligated balance of $115,000 would be used to complete remaining projects, and any balance would revert. In 1997, the legislature appropriated $702,945 for the program. Of that amount, $162,178 had been expended, and contractual obligations totaled $129,858. The remaining unobligated balance would be used to complete the projects from the 1997 CIP Program. Mr. Raecke said the SPWB was requesting $100,000 from the 1997 program be reallocated to the 1999 program. He said that amount was included in the construction cost breakdown as petroleum working capital. Some reimbursement was received from the Petroleum Fund as the result of soil remediation, however, SPWB had to pay for the projects "up front." In some cases, he said, reimbursements were not received for 18-months.

Mr. Raecke shared one success story regarding seven underground tanks at the Nevada Youth Training Center (NYTC). He said the law stated if a tank was unused and filled, it did not have to be replaced if it was not connected to a working generator, boiler, etc. SPWB looked at the project and worked with a local natural gas company that agreed to run a gas line to the facility at their cost if the SPWB would convert the facility to gas. The cost to replace boilers totaled $192,000. The tanks were closed off and the payback on the savings alone from the conversion to natural gas would save the state $53,500 per year after the 3½ year payback period.

Chairman Arberry asked if it was a coincidence NYTC converted to natural gas or if it was a common practice for underground storage tank replacement projects to include the conversion. Mr. Raecke said he thought it was a coincidence, when SPWB went to review the tank situation, Ed Burgess, Administrator, NYTC, mentioned that he had talked with the gas company. He was told if a natural gas conversion was desired, the gas company would do it at no cost to the state. Mr. Raecke believed SPWB acted in the best interest of the state when agreeing to the conversion, and added that he was not proposing to add converting to natural gas as a part of every statewide underground storage tank removal project.

Chairman Arberry requested an accounting of the amounts that had been reimbursed to the state from the Petroleum Fund and Mr. Raecke said he would provide that information.

Mr. Raecke indicated the project was a lighting system retrofit of the Kinkead Building. The cost to retrofit the building would be paid back in roughly
2.75-years. Mr. Raecke wanted the subcommittee to know the SPWB had been working diligently with performance-based contractors and with energy service companies. He explained energy service companies would finance the cost up front and would be reimbursed from utility savings. SPWB would be allowed to enter into that type of program pursuant to the authority outlined in
NRS 341.1906, which limited the funds committed for such projects to not more than $5 million at any one time. Mr. Raecke told the subcommittee SPWB felt it could not afford not to go ahead with such a project.

Ms. Evans indicated the narrative that cited the program referred to the Kinkead Building, but also mentioned need for retrofitting within the Blasdel Building. She remarked in a building widely thought to be inferior, what amount would one consider "sinking" into that type of building in the future. Mr. Raecke explained when the CIP budget was reduced from $600 million to $150 million, a new state office building for the capitol complex went by the wayside in order to deal with more urgent needs of the state. He said SPWB would look at retrofitting the Blasdel Building using the same performance-based-type contractors as with the Kinkead Building.

Chairman Arberry asked why the retrofit of the Kinkead Building was being funded through the issuance of general obligation bonds rather than through the performance-based procurement method. Mr. Raecke responded he would review the possibility of performing the project in that manner, and added that during the past couple of months no procurement-based contract was in place. The SPWB went through an arduous selection process to find three energy service companies to work with the state. One company would concentrate solely on prison projects, one on university projects, and the third would work on the Capitol Complex. If any of the companies wanted to consider the procurement-based method for the Kinkead building, that would be reviewed and taken into consideration. If the Kinkead building was retrofitted in that manner, the funding in the CIP Program could be removed.

Mr. Raecke stated Public Works Board Administration, Budget Account 1560, was funded through an appropriation from the General Fund. There were currently nine positions, six classified and three unclassified. Mr. Raecke said SPWB had no new programs and the budget was basically a maintenance budget. No new positions had been requested and there were no additional
out-of-state travel funds requested. However, SPWB had requested in-state travel expenses associated with the pre-qualification program that went into effect in FY 1997.

Mr. Raecke said Decision Unit E-125 recommended funding to carry out the SPWB’s statutory requirement to qualify bidders for the construction of public works projects and provide a hearing and appeals process for applications that had been denied. Decision Unit E-710 recommended funding to replace the current fax machine with a new fax machine which would be shared with Budget Account 1562. Also included was recommended funding for replacement computers and printers. SPWB had a total of 48 computers and attempted to replace six computers per year.

Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Raecke to discuss the status of the Facility Audit Program. Mr. Raecke stated the legislature approved funding to implement a program to audit the 1,800 state-owned buildings for needed maintenance. Because of the time it took to appropriately train personnel, only 60 buildings were audited in the first year of the program. Mr. Raecke had hoped that
300 buildings would be audited each year, and added the SPWB chose to audit some "tough" buildings during the first year. Included in the audit were Jean Prison, the Mental Health Campus in Las Vegas, and five pilot buildings, but he indicated that he could not say that 300 buildings could be audited as was anticipated during his appearance before the committee in 1997. While he had hoped it would be possible to audit 300 buildings per year, Mr. Raecke said it had become evident that only 120 to 130 buildings per year could be audited. SPWB had gathered excellent information and, as an example, would be able to tell the subcommittee what would be necessary to bring the Jean facility up to shape in a 2-year cycle, 4-year cycle, 6-year cycle, or a 10-year cycle. The same information could be provided regarding the Southern Nevada Mental Health Campus. He concluded by saying the program was still in its infancy but SPWB was getting better at performing the audits.

Chairman Arberry indicated that the SPWB provided testimony during the 1997 session indicating that once the program was fully operational, the agency would be capable of auditing 300 buildings each year, and requested a definite number of buildings the SPWB could audit per year. Mr. Raecke said he projected a capability of 120 buildings per year. He alluded to the fact that the SPWB chose to start out auditing the toughest buildings, and expected SPWB’s audit speed would increase.

Chairman Arberry asked once the audit findings were completed how would they be incorporated into the CIP program. Mr. Raecke replied the auditing packaged the repairs on the basis of whether the repairs needed to be performed in 0 to 2 years, 2 to 4 years, 4 to 6 years, or 6 to 10 years. Those buildings that the program indicated would need to be repaired in 0 to 2 years, would be included in the 2001 Capital Improvement Program.

Chairman Arberry asked if the SPWB would address the audit findings if only the agency requests were affected. Mr. Raecke replied it was the first time the SPWB had the chance to address the findings in another way. In the past, the SPWB relied on the agency and the agency’s representative to present the problem. The Facility Auditing Program would allow SPWB to support the affected agency by also knowing what was wrong with the building. He added the program would provide a great tool to protect the assets of the state.

Referring to information provided to the subcommittee, Chairman Arberry remarked A.B. 547 of the 1997 Legislature required the SPWB to implement a program for qualification of persons who wished to submit bids on public works projects, and he asked if that person could be a hearings officer or other individual not affiliated with the SPWB. Mr. Raecke responded the SPWB reviewed the use of a hearings officer only in an appeals situation and had also looked at the possibility of using board members as hearings officers. He told the subcommittee he had learned legislation had been introduced that would repeal A.B. 547 of the 1997 Legislature in its entirety and replace it with new language.

Mr. Raecke explained Public Works Inspection, Budget Account 1562, was the construction side of the Public Works budget. Currently 49 positions, all classified, were under Budget Account 1562. Eleven of the positions required a professional license. The State Public Works Board Inspection Account was funded entirely through assessments against the projects included in the Capital Improvement Program and fees for reviewing plans for the construction of school buildings. Six new positions were being requested to include one Accounting Technician, and one Program Assistant to work with the
pre-qualification program created in A.B. 547 of the 1997 Legislature.

Mr. Raecke stated he had discussions with Marvin Carr, State Fire Marshall about the possibility of hiring two plans examiners. Since becoming the State Fire Marshall, Chief Carr had been able to aid in the turn-around of plans through the Office of the State Fire Marshall that was once 8 to 14 months behind in reviewing plans. Chief Carr had reduced that turnaround time to less than 30-days. Mr. Raecke also had requested funding for the position of a licensed fire protection engineer to avoid liabilities, and review projects in the state. While he had structural, civil, electrical, and mechanical disciplines covered, there was no licensed fire protection engineer anywhere in state government.

Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Raecke to discuss the necessity for the two requested pickup trucks. Mr. Raecke stated there were not enough pickup trucks for the 17 inspectors who covered the 140 active project sites. He pointed out inspectors were assigned to multiple projects and it was rare that an inspector would stay on one job site during an eight-hour day. Inspectors using personal vehicles did not think $.31 per mile was enough money to justify running the risk of getting hit on a job site. Mr. Raecke commented on an inspector whose personal vehicle had been hit by a backhoe.

Referring to Decision Unit E-125, Chairman Arberry requested clarification on the recommended funding in the amount of $8,550 for training courses.
Mr. Raecke replied the SPWB needed certified inspectors for projects concerning the environmental, roofing, and ADA Programs. The $8,550 reflected funds needed to send inspectors to training and certification courses in asbestos and lead abatement, and indoor air quality. He felt it was absolutely necessary those inspectors be certified and then re-certified as appropriate. He pointed out the majority of certifications would lapse within one year and re-certification was an ongoing process.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:58 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Debbie Zuspan,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

DATE: