The Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance Joint Subcommittee on
Capital Improvements was called to order at 8:13 a.m., on Thursday,
April 1, 1999. Chairman Morse J. Arberry Jr., presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List.

ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Morse J. Arberry Jr., Chairman

Mr. Joe Dini

Ms. Jan Evans

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. David Perkins

SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Coffin

Senator Mathews

Senator Rawson

Senator Raggio

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

The Chair recognized Eric Raecke, Manager, State Public Works Board (SPWB). Mr. Raecke told committee members the capital improvement projects they would be hearing were primarily those of the University and Community College Systems.

On the construction side, Mr. Raecke told committee members projects came to SPWB for consideration based on campus needs. Those projects were then considered by the campus presidents and the Chancellor. Finally, the list of projects were sent to the Board of Regents for review and final prioritization. The prioritized list was then provided to SPWB. He said the Board of Regents developed a two-tiered priority list for FY 1999-01 of 35 projects which totaled $246 million. SPWB had historically honored the University Board of Regents’ priority list.

Mr. Raecke explained that the total had been shaved to seven projects worth
$95.2 million. $71 million of that total represented general obligation bonds from the state, and $23.5 million was University-donated, or grant funds.

Mr. Raecke provided a brief history of the Special Higher Education Capital Construction Funds (SHECC) funding of $10 million allotted for campus improvements. SHECC funding came from slot tax revenues. He recalled in 1979, the slot tax was moved around to fund a revenue bond to build Lawlor Events Center and the Thomas Mack Center. At that time, the legislature agreed to replace that money in-kind from General Fund dollars channeled through SPWB. He explained SPWB required a spending plan by each University campus to receive those funds. SPWB asked the University System to update their spending plans whenever campus priorities changed and to maintain those funds in a unique account for auditing purposes.

Mr. Raecke felt there was a good process in place to distribute the $10 million.
$7 million was distributed on a pro-rata share, while the balance of
$3 million was placed in a challenge pool and generally distributed for
life-safety, mandated, and regulatory projects.

Mr. Raecke explained CIP 99-U1 recommended $100,000 to fund various repairs to the Chancellor’s office building in Reno.

The Chair asked for a definition of "various repairs" and recognized
Thomas K. Anderes, Vice Chancellor, Finance and Administration, University and Community College System of Nevada, to respond. Mr. Anderes explained the funding over the last several biennia had been used for a variety of improvements to existing buildings. CIP 99-U1 would include improvements to the University computing center and the system administration office in Reno and included maintenance of the HVAC system, paving, re-roofing, and addressed ADA issues. The Chair recognized Mr. Raecke who said committee members and staff would be provided with a detailed list of the repairs to be performed.

Mr. Anderes told committee members the University had requested and received
$15 million during the 1997-99 biennium and was continuing to seek that level of funding for campus improvements during the 1999-2001 biennium. He explained $10 million would come from higher education capital construction funds (HECC) and $5 million would come from SHECC funds. He referred committee members to pages C-7 through C-9 of Exhibit C that reflected the specific projects for each campus.

Mr. Raecke explained that historically, the $10 million had been a set amount. SHECC funds had been used to complete projects that exceeded $10 million. He said four years ago, the total amount the University had requested was
$12 million, and two years ago the total amount requested was $15 million. SPWB had always recommended the $10 million and then left it to the legislature to increase that amount with available SHECC funds.

The Chair recognized Senator Raggio who questioned the availability of SHECC funds. Mr. Anderes told the Senator the University System would expend the
$5 million in SHECC funds by the end of the 1999-2001 biennium. He said a small balance would remain and that the University had planned to build a reserve in the upcoming biennium of approximately $1 million in SHECC funds. That amount would be in excess of the $5 million additional expenditure. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Anderes to provide committee members a detailed breakdown of expenditures of both HECC and SHECC funds. Mr. Anderes said that information would be provided to committee members by the end of the day.

Mr. Anderes explained to committee members there was a methodology used by the University Board of Regents to derive the priorities list that currently included 38 projects. At one point, he said, the University System had proposed $500 million in projects. While he understood committee members were under time constraints to consider the proposed projects, it was the University System’s intent to have each institution provide a brief overview of its tier I projects.

The Chair recognized Dr. Richard Jarvis, Chancellor, University & Community College System of Nevada. Dr. Jarvis referred committee members to page C-3 of Exhibit C that identified the points the University Board of Regents considered in the development of its priority list. He said clearly, the project status in the prior biennial request was important as those projects generally had a long gestation period in the planning cycle. If a project was included in the lower tier during the last biennium, it was strongly considered for inclusion in the tier I projects list for the current biennium. Space requirements were the second issue considered, particularly if there were specific space deficiencies that needed to be addressed. He said campus projects were matched against the University Board of Regents’ priorities to include safety, access, cost containment, etc. Great attention had been paid to institutional priorities and he felt the institutions themselves were the best judges of rankings within the campuses. Very rarely did the regents alter the priority of the institutional rankings.

Due to the limited time, the Chair asked that only those items on the agenda be addressed. Dr. Jarvis referred committee members to page C-4 of Exhibit C and pointed out the regents’ original request had been for $155.5 million to complete 17 projects. The request presented to SPWB had been refined down to $117.9 million. He pointed out the majority of the tier I projects had substantial non-state matching funds.

Mr. Raecke told committee members the next set of projects were those scheduled at the University of Nevada Las Vegas campus.

- and -

Mr. Raecke explained CIP 99-C11 recommended funding for furnishings for the Lied Library complex currently under construction and scheduled for completion in late November 1999. The 1997 Legislature approved CIP 97-C15 to construct the Lied Library. At that time, SPWB informed committee members it would seek additional funding for furnishings and equipment during the 1999 Legislative Session. Mr. Raecke said he would provide committee members and staff with the latest update of projected costs that, he said, had changed approximately $100,000. He said $2 million had been reallocated from
CIP 97 C-15 and UNLV was requesting the authority to order long-lead furniture items at this time in anticipation of the library’s opening.

The Chair recognized Dr. Carol Harter, President, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). Dr. Harter referred committee members to Exhibit D (Original on file at the Research Library, Legislative Counsel Bureau) and explained Page D-3 listed UNLV’s tier I projects, to include the completion of the Lied Library. The Chair interrupted and asked Dr. Harter to discuss only those projects identified on the committee’s agenda. Dr. Harter explained the first project would be the physical relocation of the Lied Library and to purchase the furnishings, network drops, equipment, and telecommunications equipment. The project would also include construction of some site parking near the library for visitors from the community. The new library would be a magnificent resource for the entire community. She said page D-4 of Exhibit D displayed a picture of the project as well as the dollar amount of $7,564,395 for its completion. Page D-5 of
Exhibit D displayed a picture of the work in-progress. She explained the library was at the heart of the UNLV campus. Construction was progressing at a rapid rate and the anticipated opening of the library was scheduled for January 2000.

The Chair recognized Senator Raggio who told Dr. Harter staff had only received the list of furnishings the evening of March 31, 1999 and that committee members had not seen the information. He asked that some detail be provided.
Dr. Harter advised she had not seen the list either. Mr. Raecke indicated he had received the list some time ago and thought it had been sent to committee members and staff. SPWB had just discovered March 31, 1999 the list had not been distributed. He told committee members the initial breakdown reflected $2.834 million in equipment, $1.198 million in shelving and stack material, and $3.4 million in pure furnishings. Dr. Harter assured committee members the $7,564,395 would complete the library. Without those furnishings and equipment identified in the project, however, it would be very difficult to make the library useable. Mr. Raecke told committee members that when the project had been started 4-years ago, SPWB determined half of the existing furnishings at the Dickinson Library would be moved to the Lied Library. A reevaluation, however, had determined a reuse of only slightly over 30 percent.

Mr. Raecke explained this project dovetailed into the law school project in that the law school would move into the Dickinson Library and use much of the existing furniture.

The Chair recognized Senator Coffin who assumed the furnishings had been part of the original request in 1997 and asked if a list of those furnishings did not already exist. Mr. Raecke explained the 97 C-15 project of 1997 included, as he recalled, a request for $26 million, with a matching fund from the Lied Foundation of $15 million. SPWB had specifically included an estimation for furnishings in the amount of $7.2 million in the 97 C-15 project. That figure was predicated on the use of 50 percent of the furnishings from the existing Dickinson Library. A note had been made in the 97 C-15 project that the furnishings portion would be deferred until the current biennium.

The Chair questioned the date of February 21, 1999, as the date SPWB had received the list of furnishings from the University, when staff had only received the list the evening of March 31, 1999. Mr. Raecke explained SPWB received the list of furnishings on February 24, 1999, and thought it had already sent the information to committee members and staff. He said it was an absolute oversight on his part that the information was not provided at an earlier date. The Chair recalled Senator Raggio had requested a detailed list of furnishings during a January 1999 hearing. At that time SPWB had committed to committee members that information would be provided. The Chair hoped there would be no miscommunication of that type in the future. Mr. Raecke advised SPWB would do everything in its power to ensure an incident of that type would not happen in the future.

Dr. Harter explained UNLV’s second project was connected to completion of the Lied Library in that as the new library was completed and the current library was vacated, the existing James Dickinson Library would be renovated to house the William S. Boyd School of Law. She said the plan, recently completed by the law school, Welles Pugsley Architects, and SPWB staff, represented a 148,000 gross square foot facility for the law school and law library. Shelving in the existing library would be maintained for use by the law school. Page D-6 of Exhibit D displayed a drawing by UNLV architect students which showed the rectangular portion of the current library and the round building that would house classroom and moot court space for the law school. The rectangular building would house faculty offices and the library. The new law school would also be centrally located on UNLV’s campus.

Mr. Raecke explained the project estimate committee members had before them included an asbestos allowance of $600,000 from UNLV maintenance funds. He said CIP 99-S6 was the 1999 statewide asbestos removal program and
$1.7 million had been allocated to remove asbestos from the proposed law school. Mr. Raecke clarified the $600,000 and $1.7 million did not represent a duplication of asbestos removal.

The Chair asked for a status report regarding the design omission on the Lied Library. Mr. Raecke said the architect had been told by library staff that compact shelving would be installed in one location on the second floor, and one location on the third floor. Vendors had recommended a floor load of
250 lbs. per square foot as opposed to a 150 lb. floor load. SPWB had authorized the installation of stiffener beams to support the weight of the compact shelving and had requested the architect and design team either share or pick up the cost.

The Chair recognized Senator Raggio who asked if there was a potential savings of $2 million on the construction portion of the project. Mr. Raecke explained
$2 million remained unspent from CIP 97-C15. SPWB had requested those funds be reallocated to the furnishings budget of the current project.

The Chair questioned the difference in the furnishings cost of $7.2 million as indicated by SPWB, and that of $7.9 million provided to committee members.
Mr. Raecke told committee members his information on the project reflected $7.432 million for furnishings and equipment. When computers and networking were added to that cost, the total request for the project would be
$9,362,008. SPWB would provide that recalculated information to committee members and staff.

The Chair asked if there was a duplication in the request for asbestos abatement dollars from CIP 99-S6 to CIP 99-U2. He pointed out a total of
$1 million was being requested for asbestos abatement at the
James R. Dickinson Library ($500,000) and for replacement of rated ceilings at the James R. Dickinson Library ($500,000). Mr. Raecke clarified the law school would not occupy 100 percent of the building and that approximately 1½ floors would be occupied by the administration staff of UNLV. Half of the $1 million would be available for asbestos projects in that portion of the building occupied by administration staff.

The Chair recognized John Amend, Associate Vice President for Administration, UNLV who explained the $600,000 represented UNLV maintenance dollars to be used should the $1.7 million in asbestos funding not be sufficient to rectify the total asbestos abatement problem. He explained one fourth of the rectangular building would be renovated with University funds and used for other purposes. The Chair asked for clarification of "other purposes."
Dr. Harter explained UNLV’s executive offices were currently located on the 7^th floor of the Flora Dungan Humanities Building. That building had originally been designed for classrooms and faculty offices. It was the University’s plan to move faculty back into the humanities building. The college of urban affairs would also be moved into the humanities building while the administrative offices would be moved to a more accessible location, that being the first floor of the law school complex.

The Chair recognized Senator Coffin who asked if it would be costly to move the administrative offices. Dr. Harter said it was hoped the move could be made as minimally as possible and believed a donor may exist to assist with that move. Senator Coffin asked if the University anticipated the use of additional space for its administrative staff. Dr. Harter told committee members she had a lean and mean administrative staff that would take the space in the new law school complex and it would not be expanded.

The Chair questioned the elimination of parking spaces due to construction of the new library. Dr. Harter explained approximately 200 net parking spaces would disappear. The project would create 30 new parking spaces for people from the community to visit the library. She told committee members the University was about to start a project to construct a parking garage that would net approximately 800 new spaces on the campus. Mr. Amend said the loss of parking spaces would be closer to 300. Thirty of those spaces would be recovered in the visitor’s spaces. The potential also existed to recapture some space from the old locations used to hold the NFR rodeo pens.

The Chair asked Mr. Raecke to explain the purpose of the $250,000 plus inflation of 10.25 percent site allowance for the law school when the University knew the site location. Mr. Raecke explained his records reflected a site allowance for JDL I (the circular building) of $100,000 and for JDL II (the rectangular building) of $150,480, that resulting in a total site allowance dollar figure of $250,480. He clarified "site allowance" included those changes being made to building access.

While she was aware committee members did not want to be presented with projects beyond those outlined on the agenda, Dr. Harter referred committee members back to Exhibit D which outlined three additional projects, namely, the student services addition, phase I of Wright Hall (the addition of a technology building), and the dental school.

Mr. Raecke explained the University of Nevada Reno (UNR) had one capital improvement project, phase I of the Redfield Campus. That phase would consist of a 75,000 square foot classroom building. He reminded committee members SPWB had, under its advanced planning category, placed $1 million into the development of the Redfield site. CIP 99-C13 represented the first building of a multi-building campus.

The Chair recognized Dr. Joseph Crowley, President, University of Nevada, Reno. Dr. Crowley referred committee members to Exhibit E (Original on file at the Research Library, Legislative Counsel Bureau), the cover of which displayed a picture of Lincoln Hall, built in 1896. He said Lincoln Hall was a testament to the importance of building maintenance. The hall remained a dormitory for men and was the center of UNR’s honors program.

Dr. Crowley explained the Redfield Campus project had received funding during the 1997 session for planning and development and ultimately involved three institutions. UNR was partners equally with Western Nevada Community College (WNCC) and Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC). The project also involved collaboration with K-12 Galena High School. He advised a new high school would be built in the vicinity of the project in the not too distant future, and the new Bishop Manogue Catholic High School would also be up and running at the same time as the anticipated completion of the first building. Health facilities would be in the vicinity both for Washoe Medical Center and St. Mary’s Hospital. Dr. Crowley explained UNR would look toward collaborative programming with both of those medical entities. He pointed out the project was public/private in nature. UNR was seeking $5.2 million from the state and would raise $7.4 million from the private sector. He told committee members the Redfield Foundation had already pledged $5 million.

Dr. Crowley referred committee members to page E-4 of Exhibit E that identified the project location in relation to residential projects in the area.

Page E-5 of Exhibit E provided demographic information regarding anticipated growth in that area. An additional 75,000 people were anticipated in southern Washoe County between the years 2012 and 2015. He said the growth anticipated in Douglas, Lyon, and Carson City Counties reflected 240,000 more people in total by the year 2020. Housing developments were moving faster than originally projected, as were commercial developments. That commercial development would generate approximately 50,000 new, non-gaming jobs.

Pages E-6 and E-7 of Exhibit E reflected the project site in relation to the adjacent counties as well as anticipated population growth. The site was ideally located for access by residents of Reno, Incline Village, Virginia City, Dayton, Carson City, and Minden/Gardnerville (the US 395 corridor). Demographics showed the population in adjacent counties would climb to nearly 700,000 by the year 2020.

He explained the project was an opportunity for the institutions to work collaboratively to offer educational programs to the residential population as well as services, basic research, and educational programs to commercial and industrial entities. He pointed out the project site was an area in northern Nevada that was developing rapidly from both a commercial and industrial point of view. Residents of the US 395 corridor would benefit from the programming and services those three institutions would provide in both the upper-division and graduate levels.

He told committee members additional facts regarding the Redfield complex could be found on pages E-25 through E-38 of Exhibit E. Exhibit E also contained information on three additional projects. Dr. Crowley advised the University System would likely withdraw its request for $7 million to construct a chemistry building on the UNR campus due to lack of private donations at this time.

Regarding CIP 99-C13, Senator Raggio requested confirmation there would be donated funds of $7.44 million, $5 million of which had been pledged by the Redfield Foundation and Dr. Crowley responded in the affirmative. Senator Raggio asked the status of the remaining $2.4 million in donations. Dr. Crowley told committee members UNR had hired an experienced fundraiser who was actively at work seeking those additional donations. Senator Raggio asked the time frame involved for the collection of the additional donations. Dr. Crowley said the target date was September 1999.

Senator Raggio asked if the off-site costs included in the project were in addition to the $500,000 for site development. Dr. Crowley explained there was originally a $1 million appropriation, half of which was dedicated to development work. That development work included a utility tunnel under the Mt. Rose Highway, as well as development of the Wedge Parkway, an entrance to the complex. Senator Raggio requested a document outlining expenditures for specific site improvements be provided to committee members. Dr. Crowley said that information would be provided. Senator Raggio asked if other entities would benefit from the off-site improvements and, if so, were they paying their share of the costs for those improvements. Dr. Crowley advised committee members those improvements were being developed in partnership with
St. Mary's Hospital and other commercial and residential entities.

Senator Raggio asked if the CIP 99-C13 request contemplated funds for furniture and equipment and Mr. Raecke responded it did not. Senator Raggio asked the dollar amount anticipated for furniture and equipment. Dr. Crowley said that amount would be somewhere between $2.5 million and $3 million. Senator Raggio asked how that need would be met and Dr. Crowley said the University hoped to generate about half the amount and ask the state for the balance at the next legislative session.

Senator Raggio asked the target date for utilization of the complex and
Dr. Crowley said the fall of 2002.

Mr. Raecke referred to Senator Raggio’s question regarding off-site utility costs and explained those costs were contained within CIP 99 C-13. President Crowley had been correct in that SPWB brought the utilities to the site. The utility cost identified in CIP 99 C-13 would allow for the distribution of utilities within the site.

The Chair referred to campus improvements at UNR, CIP 99-U3, and questioned the duplication of cost for ADA elevators campus wide. Mr. Raecke deferred the question to Buzz Nelson, Director of Facilities, UNR. Mr. Nelson referred committee members to page E-21 of Exhibit E and explained the ADA elevators project had originally been submitted as a single item. The project involved the upgrade of approximately 12 elevators on campus to meet ADA requirements.
Mr. Raecke would provide committee members with a list of the 12 elevators and their locations on campus.

Mr. Raecke explained CIP 99-C14 requested funding in the amount of $27,241,821 for the construction of a new 71,628 square foot science building. $10 million of those dollars would come from other CCSN funds, to include foundation grant funds.

The Chair recognized Dr. Richard Moore, President, Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN). Dr. Moore explained the proposal was for three buildings that would radically change the Charleston campus to provide the basic core instructional program in science. While the Charleston campus currently featured the instruction for all health programs for CCSN, it did not have adequate science instruction. CIP 99-C14 would provide a science complex consisting of a laboratory building, a classroom building, and a faculty building.

Dr. Moore clarified the foundation request for this project was $12.7 million, not $10 million. He explained the foundation request was in its final stages of authorization. The $12.7 million would compliment the three buildings planned in CIP 99-C14 by adding a fourth building with very special accrudements, to include a 3-story tall DNA staircase, a one-block long wall which replicated Zion National Park in terms of its cliffs, a neon display of the periodic table, and a planetarium. He said the complex would provide Nevada, and perhaps the nation, with its most interesting science building. The project was a combination of a $17 million proposal before committee members and a
$12.7 million request to a foundation. He pointed out there were two foundations bidding to be the partner with the state in the project.

Dr. Moore told committee members the Board of Regents had originally recommended a $20 million contribution from the state, but had cut three laboratories from the project that reduced the total square feet to 71,000. He said if the state wanted to fund three more labs initially approved by the Board of Regents, the construction costs would increase from $15 million to
$17 million. The original proposal from the board included 13 labs, not 10 labs.

The Chair asked how much of the total donations had been collected to date and Dr. Moore responded none. He said the final response to donations would be in June 1999 and that the donor’s contribution would not hinder the funding for CIP 99-C14. He commented there was a second donor in the wings that wanted the first donor to fail. The Chair asked if any of the donated funds could be used for classroom or laboratory purposes and Dr. Moore responded they could not. The donated funds were designated solely for the building and equipment of the auxiliary fourth building and exterior properties.

Dr. Moore referred committee members to page F-3 of Exhibit F that displayed an overhead picture of the campus and identified the project as the center building. Page F-4 of Exhibit F was another overhead picture that displayed a blue sphere, the planetarium, also to be funded by the outside donor. The planetarium was a 5-story-tall dome that included 250 seats. The facility could also be used as an I-MAX for the introduction of science materials. While the project did not add additional science classrooms, it added complimentary items that were in line with the direction the State of Nevada was headed in the science arena. Dr. Moore said when he was a child, only bright people received a science education. Today, the legislature demanded that all people have a fundamental understanding of the sciences. CIP 99-C14, with the auxiliary building, would entice far more people to go into the sciences.

The Chair requested a breakdown of funds for the several projects identified by
Dr. Moore. Dr. Moore explained the funding was broken down into three buildings that the state was being asked to fund, namely, a laboratory building, a classroom building, and a faculty building. The Chair asked the dollar amount for the laboratory building and Dr. Moore explained the funding for the three buildings totaled $17.2 million and the funding for the fourth building would come from an outside source. The Chair again asked for the individual cost of each of the three buildings. Dr. Moore said that information would be provided to committee members and staff.

The Chair recognized Senator Raggio who said he thought committee members had misunderstood that the private donations would be limited solely to the fourth building. The Senator asked if the $17.2 million would complete the construction of the three buildings and Dr. Moore said that it would. That amount did not, however, include furnishings and equipment. Senator Raggio asked what dollar amount would be requested in the future for furnishings and equipment and Dr. Moore responded between $2.8 million and $5 million. Senator Raggio asked for a completion date of the three buildings and Dr. Moore explained the buildings would be constructed at the same time with an anticipated completion date of January 2002. Senator Raggio asked if the complex would require additional faculty and Dr. Moore said existing faculty would suffice.

Regarding the Redfield project, Senator Raggio asked the number of additional faculty contemplated at the opening of the facility. Dr. Crowley explained the faculty would be available from the three existing campuses to teach the courses offered at the complex. There would not be a separately-hired faculty. If there were a need for additional faculty, those positions would be factored into the existing student/faculty ratios. Senator Raggio asked if that scenario could then be applied to all campuses that had requested CIP projects and
Dr. Crowley responded that would be a fair assumption.

The Chair commented on the manner in which SPWB had provided the information on CIP 99-C14 to committee members. It appeared there was only one building to be constructed for $17.2 million. The Chair asked if the estimates had been made on one building or three buildings. Mr. Raecke explained the estimate was made on building 71,600 feet of new structure. The three buildings actually sat in a complex and were interconnected with hallways. In essence, he said, you could walk in one door and go through all three buildings before you exited. Mr. Raecke would provide committee members and staff with a sketch of how the three buildings tied together into a complex, including the square footage and cost of each.

The Chair recognized Senator Rawson who said he had reviewed the early design of the project and it was a single building. As the architects started changing the roofline, modules were developed. He said it was more accurate to say the complex included a faculty module, a classroom module, and a laboratory module. The foundation and roofline of the three modules remained the same.

The Chair recognized Senator Raggio who asked if for some reason the foundation money did not come forward, and the state had authorized the $17.2 million, would that amount be sufficient to provide the functional structures for the purposes indicated. Dr. Moore replied in the affirmative and added CCSN would not approach the legislature for funds the foundation had not provided.

Mr. Raecke explained Great Basin College had made the request to construct a high tech center. He told committee members those projects had been very successful. Two high tech centers had already been completed and one was scheduled to be opened in the near future in Carson City. SPWB recommended authorization for funding in the amount of $5.725 million. The state funding request was $5,225,000, and $500,000 would be funded by the using agency.

Mr. Raecke told committee members the Summerlin High Tech Center had been opened in August of 1998, the Western Tech Center had opened in January of 1999, and the Carson City High Tech Center was due to open in May of 1999. All projects had been very successful.

The Chair recognized Dr. Ronald Remington, President, Great Basin College.
Dr. Remington referred committee members to Exhibit G and explained the project was number 5 on the University Board of Regents’ priority list. The
$5 million project would provide a 35,000 square foot shared facility endorsed by the Elko County School District. He pointed out the GBC campus was adjacent to school district property and would provide easy access to high school students and faculty.

Dr. Remington said the project would include a learning center. He told committee members that due to its vast service area, GBC provided a great deal of distance learning. It was hoped, through technology, the facility would be brought up-to-speed in the delivery of distance learning, and that district personnel would be included in that effort. The center would include three computer classrooms housing 30 computers each and an interactive video room.

Dr. Remington explained interactive video had become a very effective way of distance-education delivery. It was hoped the center would include an elementary education resource room, also referred to as an electronic library. As committee members were aware, GBC wanted to proceed with an elementary education baccalaureate program. Finally, the center would include two science labs, one for physical science and the second for biology or life science, seven regular classrooms, and a compliment of faculty offices.

The Chair recognized Mr. Marvel who asked if the Elko County School District had committed funds for the operation of the GBC high tech center and
Dr. Remington said not as yet. GBC anticipated being in conversation with the school district and felt a good relationship existed between the two entities.

The Chair recognized Senator Rawson who commented the picture displayed at the top of Exhibit G was an excellent representation of a high tech center.

The Chair requested an explanation of the architect and engineering design
(A/E design) costs of approximately $276,000 and asked how those costs were being merged into the existing project. Mr. Raecke explained the high tech centers involved a prototype structure. SPWB had made small modifications to each of the centers to fit program requirements. For instance there would be some redesign involved for the Elko center to change the roof snow load. Because a prototype was used, Mr. Raecke was hopeful the design would come in at half of the estimated amount of approximately $276,000.

The Chair recognized Senator Raggio who questioned a duplicate charge for new parking campuswide in CIP 99-U6, one for $51,000 and one for $104,412. The Chair recognized Carl Diekhans, Vice President, Administrative Services, GBC, who said there were actually three line items regarding parking. The first would provide for an expansion of parking around the child center. The second would provide parking for the health/science building completed during the last biennium, and the third would provide for parking at the Ely facility. Mr. Diekhans clarified the line items were not duplicative.

Senator Raggio expressed his feeling that it was essential for those individuals making presentations that involved non-state funding, to provide committee members with information resulting from discussions and/or negotiations in as timely a manner as possible.

Mr. Raecke explained CIP 99-C16 recommended funding for a student development center at TMCC. SPWB was asking for authorization for construction and renovation of approximately 100,000 square feet;
55,000 square feet of new construction, and 45,000 square feet of renovation. He said the state funding request was slightly over $5 million, with the possibility of a Reynolds Foundation Grant of $3 million. Depending on the availability of the grant, SPWB had developed an alternate plan to work solely on the new construction portion of the project.

The Chair asked if that scenario represented a standing commitment by SPWB on all higher education CIP projects. Mr. Raecke reminded committee members of Dr. Moore’s earlier testimony wherein he stated if foundation funding were not received, SPWB would proceed with construction of the 71,000 square feet. Dr. Crowley had testified that $5 million of outside funding had already been pledged for UNR’s project and the balance was expected by September of 1999.

The Chair recognized Dr. John Richardson, President, Truckee Meadows Community College. Dr. Richardson introduced Dave Keebler, Vice President of Administration, TMCC. He referred committee members to page H-2 of
Exhibit H (Original on file at the Research Library, Legislative Counsel Bureau), which described the growth that had occurred at TMCC in recent years. The college had grown nearly 30 percent over the past three years and its projected growth was 7 percent per year for the next biennium and beyond. The college was attempting to maximize the use of its facilities in view of the growth pattern.

Dr. Richardson told committee members TMCC had started a weekend college at its Dandini and Old Town Mall campuses and had generated a student headcount of approximately 1,300. An inter-session program had also been instituted. Dr. Richardson said TMCC believed the state had a significant investment in its existing facilities and it was ensuring the maximum use of those facilities. Page H-3 of Exhibit H reflected a bar graph of TMCC student growth. He said it was important to note the college was providing education to approximately 650 students beyond its funding.

Dr. Richardson referred committee members to page H-4 of Exhibit H that outlined the college’s request for funding of phase I of the student center. He pointed out the project was number 4 on the University Board of Regents’ priority list. The total project cost was estimated at approximately $9.5 million. While the board had requested $6.5 million, SPWB had reduced that request to $5 million, with the possibility of an outside grant. There would be
32,500 square feet of new construction, and 67,500 square feet of remodeling of existing space in the original building on the campus. Page H-5 of Exhibit H provided committee members with an artist’s rendering of the facility as viewed from the north side of the campus (Dandini Boulevard side). He noted the rendering was done at dusk rather than during the day because approximately 50 percent of enrollment was generated in the evenings. The facility was used from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. Page H-6 of Exhibit H provided an overhead view of the facility. As committee members were aware, the college had opened a technical institute on Edison Way, east of the airport in Reno which had been funded by the legislature during the current biennium. The large technical programs to include automotive technology, diesel technology, heating/ventilation/air conditioning technology, and electronics technology would be moved to the technical institute. The student center would be built in the space vacated on the Dandini Campus by those programs. Referring back to page H-6 of Exhibit H, Dr. Richardson explained the brown-shaded area represented new construction and the blue-shaded area represented an atrium for vehicle storage. Page H-7 of Exhibit H provided committee members with a
three-tiered perspective of the campus. Pages H-8 through H-10 of Exhibit H provided schematics of each floor of the center.

Dr. Richardson explained the $5 million provided in phase I would complete the exterior of the entire facility and build out the second floor that would house the culinary arts program, the fine arts program, the second floor of a bookstore, and executive meeting rooms. He said TMCC currently lacked adequate meeting facilities. While the third floor of the plan, page H-10 of Exhibit H would not be included in phase I, Dr. Richardson said one of the primary purposes of remodeling was to provide an additional 50 faculty offices in the Red Mountain Building. Given its enrollment, TMCC hoped it would grow in terms of faculty positions. Page H-11 of Exhibit H was the proposed technology center that was not recommended by SPWB.

The Chair recognized Senator Rawson who asked if CIP 99-C16 included the improvement to the dental hygiene program. Dr. Richardson explained the remodeling for the dental hygiene program scheduled to open in January of 2000 was partially funded from the $220,000 the legislature provided in the last biennium and the balance of $80,000 would be derived from institutional capital improvement funds.

Mr. Raecke explained CIP 99-C17 requested funding for a library and student center at WNCC totaling 37,000 square feet. Total project cost was
$6.659 million.

The Chair recognized Ms. Michelle Dondero, Interim President, Western Nevada Community College. Ms. Dondero introduced Bill Davies, Executive Dean and Assistant to the President, WNCC. Ms. Dondero explained the proposal, a combined library and student center, would make a tremendous difference at the Carson campus. She pointed out WNCC had the smallest college library in the state, at 8,500 square feet. She referred committee members to Exhibit I, a listing of community college comparisons of library size in square feet. The
6,000 students at WNCC warranted a library facility three times as large as their current facility.

Ms. Dondero said the request was being made to benefit the students of WNCC and would be the first free-standing library space at the college. Media services and the existing library were currently located in a 8,500 square foot wing of an instructional building. The Association of College and Research Libraries, which published formula-based national standards for college libraries, indicated that WNCC’s full-time enrollments required at least 35,000 square feet. CIP 99-C17 would bring the college closer to that standard but it would not be exceeded. WNCC’s collection of approximately 29,000 volumes was far below the minimum of 40,000 volumes. The existing space would not allow the college to add the additional required volumes. She said the need for additional space was greatest in the area of collections, student study areas, group study rooms, training rooms and additional space for computers and hands-on training. As committee members were aware, libraries were becoming increasingly electronic.

In addition to the library space proposed, Ms. Dondero explained WNCC was seeking to incorporate student space for student government/participation.
CIP 99-C17 would provide important, appropriately-designed space for the first time for the student body at WNCC and ranked number 7 on the University Board of Regents’ priority list.

The Chair questioned funding in the amount of roughly $484,000 for furnishing and equipment for the new library and student center. Committee members had been told the project cost description indicated an additional $520,000 in expenditures for furnishings and equipment that would be requested as part of the 2001-03 Capital Improvement Program. He requested an explanation of those combined costs that totaled roughly just over $1.1 million. Mr. Raecke explained the $483,000 identified in CIP 99-C17 was comparable to the normal cost of furnishing a library. SPWB was aware some computer needs and furnishings would be deferred until the project was close to completion.
Mr. Raecke said the furnishings and equipment list had been refined and the deferred cost into the 2001 CIP would be $285,000. The Chair asked
Mr. Raecke to provide a detailed list of that information to committee members and staff.

The Chair asked for clarification of the improvements required to Combs Canyon Road and recognized Bill Davies, Administrative Services, WNCC for the response. Mr. Davies explained Carson City had requested several campus improvements be made to Combs Canyon Road at the time he requested the last special use permit two years ago. At that time, Mr. Davies requested those improvements be deferred to the college’s next project. CIP 99-C17 represented that project. The special use permit required a secondary access road, installation of curb and gutter the entire length of Combs Canyon Road on the north side of the campus, and a new parking lot and access road. The Chair asked if the design of the access road would accommodate future student needs. Mr. Davies explained the access road would be designed to accommodate the traffic flow from the north side of the campus and would also provide necessary fire access.

Mr. Raecke explained funding for CIP 99-U5 would come from Special Higher Education Capital Construction Funds (SHECC).

The Chair recognized Dr. Stephen Wells, President, Desert Research Institute.
Dr. Wells introduced Peter Ross, Director of Facilities, DRI. Mr. Ross explained within the minor repairs and improvements budget DRI had a total under the
$15 million allocation of $433,600. He told committee members the projects included remodeling of laboratories, security systems, a required back-flow prevention valve to protect the city water system, an elevator in the Northern Nevada Science Center, replacement of curb and gutter on campus roads, a fire sprinkler system, and sealing of parking lots.

The Chair questioned a duplication of funds for curb and gutter replacement.
Mr. Ross explained there was actually one project that had been split into two different budget categories as the result of the DRI allocation.

Dr. Wells referred committee members to Exhibit J, a request for $2.5 million to fund a 10,000 square foot expansion of DRI’s science center

Mr. Raecke referred committee members to Tab A1 in the Nevada State Public Works Board 1999 – 2001 Recommended Capital Improvement Programs binder which listed alternative projects. He said the list included worthy projects that had been approved by SPWB but had been cut on a funding cycle. Mr. Raecke also told committee members SPWB had many projects that required small adjustments. Those adjustments had been made as the result of legislative direction, SPWB direction, or agency direction. Adjustments sheets would be provided to staff no later than Tuesday, April 6, 1999.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Debbie Zuspan,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE:

APPROVED BY:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

DATE: