The joint hearing of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Finance Subcommittee on Capital Improvements was called to order at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 18, 1999. Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Richard Perkins

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chair (Excused)

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Matthews

Senator Raymond Rawson

Senator William Raggio, Chairman

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

None

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Rick Combs, Program Analyst, began his presentation of the budget closings for the Capital Improvement Projects. Mr. Combs began with Project 99-C1.

He indicated that this project was the construction of phase 2 of the Cold Creek State Prison, which was also known as Prison Seven. He explained that the Fiscal Division had reduced the amount of general obligation bonds that would need to be issued for the project from $43,500,000 to $34.7 million due to the increase in the amount of federal funds available for the project.

Also, Mr. Combs reported that certain components of the project had been deleted or reduced by fiscal staff. First, inflation costs were reduced based upon the subcommittee’s decision to negotiate the contract with the current contractor. Second, the funding for the placement of a water tank had been deleted, as it had already been approved as part of the contract for phase I of the project.

However, he stated funding was added to the project to support the construction of an additional guard tower that had been left out of the original project estimate. Additionally, the costs for each guard tower had increased from $206,000 to $314,000 each.

Next, the costs for design and supervision fees and project management inspection fees were also reduced by roughly $1 million.

Speaker Dini then asked Eric Raecke, State Public Works Board why the water tank had been deleted from the project.

Mr. Raecke answered that when the original project had been planned, the agency had funding for the water tank assigned for Phase I of the project and the funding would not be necessary in Phase II.

Mr. Combs indicated that the Governor had recommended $756,986 for this project. He stated that the project had been deleted however due to the Department of Prison’s most recent master plan. That plan had indicated that additional beds would not be necessary

Mr. Combs stated that the new supply administration facility for the Nevada National Guard, Project 99-C3, funded the construction of a maintenance building and a state command complex. Mr. Combs articulated that language would be placed in the 1999 CIP legislation to transfer $310,000 from Project 97-S4 (8) to this project.

He then informed the subcommittee that the current site had been appraised at $6 million. He reported that an alternative use for the site had not been determined at that time.

Mr. Combs explained that this project would provide 50 new offices for the Office of the Attorney General. The project’s costs estimate had included $135,192 for new furnishings. Nevertheless, the Office of the Attorney General and the Public Works Board had indicated that the employees who would be moving into the new office space already had office furniture. Any new employees added in The Executive Budget for the Office of the Attorney General would receive new furniture through the budget process. Thus the costs related to furnishings and equipment were reduced to the amount of $27,563. He noted that funding was retained to purchase window coverings for the remodel.

Mr. Combs stated that Project 99-C5 covered costs for the addition of a facility to the Division of Agriculture’s Las Vegas office. The 1200 square foot unit would be added to the existing facility.

He mentioned that the price of the addition had been increased by $39,896, due to the revision of project costs estimate that had been received from the Public Works Board. A majority of the price increase was attributed to the rise in costs per square foot from $100 per square foot to $110 per square foot.

Also, Mr. Combs explained that fiscal staff had reduced the Furnishings and Equipment costs from $22,050 to $10,892 based upon the Purchasing Division’s price list for furniture. He had discussed this with the Division of Agriculture as well as with the State Public Works Board and they had both concurred with those price estimates.

In addition, Mr. Combs explained that by transferring funds from
Project 99-S6, fiscal staff had added $8,193 for asbestos removal for the project.

Finally, he indicated that there was an issue that begged the subcommittee’s consideration. He explained that as part of the manner in which the Division of Agriculture’s budgets were closed by the money committees, 14 percent of the Weights and Measures program was funded through Air Pollution Control funds. Because the Weights and Measures program would use the addition to the Division of Agriculture’s Las Vegas facility, he did not feel that it was inappropriate to also fund 14 percent of the project with Air Pollution Control Funds.

Mr. Combs said that this project would expand the shops and warehouses at the Tonopah Conservation Camp, the Indian Springs Conservation Camp, and the Ely Conservation Camp. Costs were reduced by over $15,000 pursuant to questions from the subcommittee in a previous hearing.

Mr. Combs indicated that the project included the advance planning of a 20-bed psychiatric emergency crisis center in Las Vegas. The facility would be a 23,000 square foot, one-story building. The project also included renovation costs. Mr. Combs reported that the Public Works Board estimated the cost to complete the project would be $3.7 million.

Mr. Combs reported that non-General Fund agencies would receive a benefit from Project 99-C8 and would provide funding for their portions of the project in the amount of $561,216. Those funds would come directly from the agencies rather than from the issuance of general obligation bonds.

Also, Mr. Combs explained that a payback provision would be built into the bill to receive federal funds or fee funded amounts from agencies that were funded in that manner.

He then stated that Project 99-C9 provided for the construction of an enclosure for the Fernley Veteran’s Cemetery. In addition the project provided for additional burial space.

Mr. Combs then stated that a substantial revision to the project had been made in recent weeks. He explained that the project was originally to be funded 50 percent through state funds and 50 percent through federal funds. The original cost for the project had totaled $746,000.

However, the State Public Work’s Board had revised the project cost estimate based on the fact that the federal government had changed it’s policy regarding the manner in which they would fund projects such as this. Therefore the amount of state funding necessary for the project was reduced to $247,081. Federal funding available to support the project had been increased to $988,324.

Mr. Combs indicated that Project 99-C-10, was a project to remodel of the First Interstate Bank (FIB) building in Carson City. The project included the transfer of funds from 1997 CIP legislation (Project 97-S4I).

Chairman Arberry then interjected that during the last legislative session monies had been approved to purchase the property and complete the remodel. Yet he was puzzled as to how the construction of the courtyard surrounding the FIB building had been funded. He wondered if monies that had been made available during the previous legislative session had been used to fund the design and construction of the courtyard. He was concerned that the legislature was being asked to fund shortcomings created by the State Public Works Board.

Mr. Raecke replied that a majority of the money used to build the courtyard had been derived from funds that were granted by the City of Carson. In fact, the City of Carson had participated in the courtyard project to the amount $40,000.

Furthermore, he explained that the courtyard had been included in the original plan for the project. However, due to mechanical problems and difficulties with asbestos removal, funding had been insufficient to finish the courtyard.

He then re-emphasized that the courtyard project had always been a part of the original project.

Continuing with budget closings, Mr. Combs next addressed Project 99-C11, which was related to the purchase of furnishings and the provision of parking at the Lied Library in Las Vegas.

Per questions previously addressed by the subcommittee, he reported that the State Public Works Board had reduced the inspection fees from $146,745 to $51,361. This was a reduction of roughly $95,000.

Also, He explained that the University of Nevada, Las Vegas had requested to spend $2 million from the 1997 CIP project presently, rather than waiting until Project 99-C11 went into effect. He pointed out that $2 million had been built into the project’s budget under the category of "other funding." If the subcommittee wished to grant that request, language would need to be added to the CIP bill to allow the funding to be used in that manner.

With respect to Project 99-C12, Mr. Combs pointed out that the account had been increased by $600,000 to allow for funding that had been included in Project 99-S6 for the removal of asbestos from the Dickenson Library which would be renovated for the new law school. When that allocation was combined with the $600,000 allocation that had already been built into the project as well as an additional $500,000 that UNLV was going to use from their U-2 Maintenance funds, the total amount for asbestos removal would total $1.7 million. According to the Public Works Board, the amount was deemed sufficient for the completion of the project.

In this project account, Mr. Combs said that the project would fund the construction of Phase I of the new Redfield campus at the University of Nevada, Reno. He noted that approximately $3 million was planned for the 2001 CIP to complete the Redfield Campus. Of that amount, $1.2 million would be used to purchase furnishings and equipment.

Mr. Combs then explained that $17,241,821 in general obligation bond funding was proposed to construct a new science complex at the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN). The entire facility was to consist of three buildings. State funding would be used to construct two of those buildings, which would include labs, offices, and classrooms.

Additionally, he indicated that CCSN intended to obtain donations in the amount of $10 million to build the third building, which was to be the planetarium.

Next, Mr. Combs articulated that funding for the Great Basin College High Tech Center, was reduced slightly for design cost modifications. He recalled that similar High Tech Center’s had been built upon a number of high school campuses. The fact that the design would be re-used decreased the design costs for the project.

He then noted that the Superintendent of the Elko County School District had informed Legislative Counsel Bureau staff that Elko County could only contribute $300,000 to the project. The project cost estimate indicated that there would be a $500,000 contribution from non-state sources; however, he was uncertain as to whether the additional $200,000 could be obtained by Great Basin College from another source or not.

Mr. Combs stated that Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC) anticipated receiving grant funds to pay for the project in full. If those grant funds were received in full, he related that the college would request the authority to direct the state funds towards the construction of a technology center, which would be a cooperative project with the Washoe County School District, built at the Edison Way campus.

Next, he reported that the subcommittee had received a revised cost estimate from the State Public Works Board, which increased the costs of the project. The original cost estimate had indicated that some of the costs for furnishings and equipment would be deferred until the 2001 CIP program. The revised cost estimate included all of the furnishing and equipment costs in 1999 CIP program.

He then mentioned that the State Public Works Board projected a completion date of December 31, 2001 for the project. If the subcommittee so desired the list of the furnishings and equipment that had been previously provided, could be deferred until the next biennium.

Senator Rawson inquired if the Truckee Meadows Community College Student Development Center cited in Project 99-C16 would in all likelihood receive a foundation grant to cover the costs of constructing the center.

In reply, Jim Richardson, representing TMCC, stated that information concerning foundation grant approval would not be received until early July.

Senator Rawson then commented that there was enough uncertainty regarding grant approval to make him wary of losing the ability to build the center. Not wanting to take any chances, he maintained that the legislature needed to continue to support the construction of the center.

Senator Raggio recalled that when the issue had been addressed, a suggestion had been made to approve the projects funding, while adding language to the CIP legislation that would permit those funds to be shifted from the student center to the technology center should the outside funding be secured.

Mr. Combs then continued with Project 99-C18, which provided for the construction of a wildlife park office and shop/storage complex in Elko. Per the concerns of the subcommittee, the price of the project had been reduced by $15,119 for the eliminated inflation of the microwave link equipment. He explained that the microwave link equipment was supposed to be used by the Elko Inter-Agency Dispatch Center, which was a project that had been approved by the 1997 Legislature. The equipment request had been inadvertently left out of that project.

Mr. Combs said the CNR Dispatch expansion was a Division of Forestry project located in Minden. He explained that the costs for the project had been reduced by roughly $2,600 as a result of the elimination of a door that had originally been in the design of the expansion.

Mr. Combs then informed the subcommittee that federal agencies contributed to the operating costs of the building, but would not contribute toward the cost of the expansion.

Next, Mr. Combs addressed Project 99-C20, which was a cooperative parking project with the City of Carson and the Carson Nugget. He explained that $330,900 in general obligation bond authority had been requested.

He remembered that the subcommittee had expressed dismay that there was no agreement in place to govern the project.

Therefore, he stated a written agreement between the State of Nevada and the City of Carson was requested but had not yet been provided. Staff recommended that the subcommittee include language in the CIP legislation or submit a letter of intent to the State Public Works Board that would require a written agreement to be approved by the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) before the funds were expended.

Last, Mr. Combs articulated that Project 99-C21 had been deferred from the 1997 CIP program in the amount of $10 million. The project had been postponed due to the budget shortfall.

Senator Coffin asked if the letter of intent discussed in the last CIP project would have a specific format. He wondered if the issue was pending the approval of the subcommittee.

Chairman Arberry responded that he intended to approve the funding, but also to have the State Public Works Board return to IFC before funds were expended for the project

Senator Raggio then suggested that the subcommittee approve the project, conditioned upon the written agreement between the State of Nevada and the City of Carson. He thought that if the agreement could be submitted to the IFC, a meeting could be held in June 1999 and the funding would be subject to IFC approval. He commented that the Senate members were nervous that the agreement had not yet been finalized.

Chairman Raggio commented that several items needed to be discussed before a motion was considered. He also thought that if a motion was taken, it should be a motion to approve the items according to the adjustments that had been noted by fiscal staff.

The first item that was of concern involved Project 99-C15. Chairman Raggio commented that the project was based upon a $500,000 contribution, but staff had indicated that the contribution totaled only $300,000. This would require an alternate source of funding or an augmentation of the state’s funding responsibility by $200,000.

Mr. Combs answered that several options existed. One option would be for the subcommittee to approve the project and then have the agency find the additional funding needed to complete the project. The other option would be to reduce the project by $200,000. The State Public Works Board had indicated that they could alter the project’s design to reduce the project’s costs.

Chairman Raggio then asked for confirmation from the State Public Works Board.

Mr. Raecke concurred with Mr. Combs statement. Public Works Board could alter the designs of the prototype should there be a budget shortfall. Because the project was flexible, the square footage of the building could be changed to meet the cost reduction.

Chairman Raggio suggested that the subcommittee approve the project on the basis that the project would receive a $500,000 allocation, regardless of the funding source. Thus if the alternative sources of funds were found to cover the $200,000 gap, the State Public Works Board would have the authority to delete the amount from the state’s allocation to the project. In that manner the project could be completed as was intended.

Mr. Raecke supported that suggestion.

The other item of concern to Chairman Raggio was in Project 99-C17. He recalled that since the project would not be completed until the end of FY 2000, the furnishing and equipment costs could be deferred until the next biennium.

Mr. Combs then returned to Project 99-C5 to remind subcommittee members that they had the option to include Air Pollution Fund monies in the funding of the project.

Chairman Raggio indicated his support for the inclusion of those funds in the motion to approve the project items.

Senator Coffin then interjected to express his displeasure over utilizing Air Pollution Fund monies. He thought that the account had already been raided to fund the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and should not be reduced further. He thought that the projects support should come from an alternate resource, such as the General Fund.

Speaker Dini commented that the utilization of those funds was justified, as the agency would also benefit from the expansion of the Division of Agriculture’s Las Vegas facility. Furthermore, such use did not deplete the fund in its entirety, but withdrew only $46,000.

Senator Coffin empathized with the Speaker’s remarks, yet he maintained that additional withdrawals from that fund "had a camel’s hair tendency," which he could not support. He suggested that the subcommittee seek more imaginative ways of finding money to support the project.

Chairman Arberry stated that staff had told him that this was the normal procedure for dealing with the Weights and Measures program.

Senator Raggio added that an adequate amount was left in the Air Pollution Control Fund to support the program. Also, he anticipated making an additional $500,000 expenditure for a bill pending approval in the Senate Finance Committee. Even with the adoption of that bill, he felt the fund would still contain an adequate amount in its reserve. Furthermore he felt the 14 percent rate was consistent with past decisions and was thus appropriate to apply to this account.

Senator Coffin then commented that a large amount of business was also completed in the Interim Finance Committee meetings. He felt that the committee had forgotten that it had turned down several funding requests by Clark County to spend those funds. This was why the reserve accumulated and why the Governor had decided to use the Air Pollution Control Fund monies to fund TRPA.

Senator Rawson disclosed that he was an employee of the University and Community College System of Nevada. None of the projects discussed affected him directly.

Before subcommittee members could vote, Chairman Arberry directed their attention to Project 99-C16. He asked what language the committee wished to insert to give the community college the authority to transfer funds if needed.

Senator Raggio advised that the motion include the language which was referenced. In the event that outside sources funded the Development Center, authority should be given to shift the funding in the amount of $5 million to the technology center, which was also on the University system’s priority list.

Mr. Combs next addressed projects supported by the Highway Fund.

He related that the proposed highway patrol office building in Las Vegas was a 60,000 square foot building. Per concerns raised by Project 99-H2, which requested funds for covered parking for the existing facility, he stated that the covered parking funds could be transported to the new facility when it was completed. However, the cost of doing so would increase the cost of
Project 99-H1 by $21,000.

He added that the project included a $2 million appropriation for site acquisition costs. State owned parcels were being considered for the location of the building, but a site had not yet been chosen.

Mr. Combs noted that if the subcommittee wished to approve the site acquisition money, the subcommittee may wish to include a provision that would require the Public Works Board to return to IFC for approval of the siting of the facility. Additionally, he thought language restricting the use of the $2 million only for site acquisition costs might also be warranted.

Mr. Marvel remarked his concern for the justification for the 60,000 square foot building.

Mr. Raecke responded that 2 years prior to the hearing, the State Public Works Board had studied the possibility of using the Las Vegas City hall building. A survey had been conducted, using the projected rates of growth for the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, which included the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP). The survey had concluded that a 60,000 square foot building would adequately meet the needs of the agency.

Mr. Marvel asked if the building’s size was necessary.

Mr. Raecke answered that the agency was convinced that the 60,000 square foot building was needed. Furthermore, he indicated that two separate firms had evaluated the project and confirmed the need for the 60,000 square foot building. Finally, he noted that the square footage was described in gross terms. The building would actually net out 15 percent less when usable square footage was evaluated.

Chairman Arberry asked if the project would also include the Division of Parole and Probation (P&P).

Mr. Raecke replied that the new building would not include P&P. The building would house NHP only.

Chairman Raggio wondered if the building was fully equipped. He thought there might be some way to reduce the size of the building by 20,000 square feet and requested scenarios for alternate sizes of the proposed building.

For example, he felt one scenario might be a 40,000 square foot building with the option to add on 20,000 square feet to the building if need be. A second scenario might be simply a 40,000 square foot building.

Chairman Raggio wanted a comparison of the costs for the various sizes of the building. Moreover, he wanted to be careful with the use of Highway Fund monies, as there was the potential to attract additional federal funds.

Mr. Raecke answered that Chairman Raggio’s first would not be something that he would recommend. He explained that in past a new building was usually constructed rather than adding on to an existing facility. The better scenario to Mr. Raecke was to simply erect a 40,000 square foot shell in order to give the agency a place to operate. If needed, he could calculate a cost comparison and present it to the committee.

Chairman Raggio suggested that Project 99-H1 be held off tentatively. In any event, he thought that if the subcommittee approved the site acquisition money, a provision be made to require the agency to return to IFC for site approval.

Mr. Raecke noted that one possible site was located near the Bradley building in Las Vegas. Another site, located near Vacation Village, was a 17-acre site. He predicted that when the decision was made, no site acquisition costs would have accrued.

Senator Coffin asked if the Vacation Village site was located underneath the freeway.

Mr. Raecke stated that the land being evaluated was south of where Senator Coffin was thinking.

Chairman Raggio suggested that the subcommittee refrain from voting on the Highway Fund projects until Mr. Raecke returned to the subcommittee with a cost comparison.

Continuing with his presentation, Mr. Combs stated there had been an increase in the adjusted cost estimate for Project 99-M11. Together with the reductions made as a result of the subcommittee’s questions during a previous hearing, the increase totaled $72,853.

He stated that the State Public Works Board had indicated that after having a qualified contractor on site to evaluate the project, the costs came in higher than had been originally anticipated.

Next, Mr. Combs stated that this project had been eliminated based on a response from the State Public Works Board. He explained that Project 97-M3 had also included funding for fire alarm system upgrades. Since testimony had been heard on this project, the bid for the 1997 CIP project had already been awarded and all of the items proposed in Project 99-M14 were included in that bid.

In this project, Mr. Combs stated the safety lighting and a pool cover was requested by Child and Adolescent Services in Las Vegas. He mentioned there had been concern that some of the provisions of the project were duplicative of a 1997 CIP project, Project 97-M2. However, just prior to the hearing,
Mr. Combs had been informed that the project had been evaluated and that none of the lighting upgrades included in the 1999 CIP project were included in the 1997 CIP project.

Mr. Combs then noted that the pool cover comprised $3,368 of the total project cost.

Chairman Raggio asked if the project was to remain unchanged and if state bonding authority would be required as had been originally indicated.

Mr. Combs responded that according to the response from the State Public Works Board, the project would not be altered and would still need bonding authority to fund the project.

Chairman Raggio then inquired about the significance of the pool cover cost.

Mr. Combs explained that until he had received a response from the State Public Works Board, he had wanted to give subcommittee members an option that would have removed the possible duplicative portions of the project.

Next, Mr. Combs related that the project cost for projects 99-M22 and 99-M23 had been reduced by $12,000 based upon responses to the subcommittee’s questions.

Mr. Combs then informed subcommittee members that Project 99-M23 had been combined with Project 99-M22 to realize the aforementioned savings of $12,000. Therefore, Project 99-M23 had been eliminated.

Both the projects involved the Nevada Youth training facility in Elko County.

Addressing the next project, Mr. Combs pointed out that state funding had been reduced in place of contributions from state agencies that would benefit from the project. This amount would total $776,264.

Mr. Combs stated that fiscal staff had not received confirmation of the fact that insurance funds would be available. He noted that they also could not confirm that the Inmate Welfare Fund could cover the project. However, staff recommended that based upon incidents associated with the project that either of those two funding sources would be appropriate means of support.

Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Raecke to speak to the issue as well and remarked that the subcommittee believed that insurance funds should be used to support the costs of the project.

Mr. Raecke could not respond as to the amount of insurance funds that could cover the costs of the project. Nor could he respond concerning the Inmate Welfare Fund. However, he commented that due to some of the subcommittee’s requests, the project’s costs had been reduced.

Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, stated that he thought the state insurance program had a $1,000 deductible, whereas the Inmate Welfare Fund had a couple of million dollars in its reserve.

Next, Mr. Combs highlighted statewide projects that had been adjusted significantly.

Mr. Combs indicated that $606,000 of this project would be used for non-General Fund agencies. Thus, staff had adjusted the project to account for those agencies to fund the project.

With regard to the Statewide ADA program project account, Mr. Combs noted that staff had made no adjustments to the project. However, he stated there were funds remaining in other statewide ADA programs from previous sessions. fiscal staff that was working with the State Public Works Board to determine whether or not those funds were obligated or unobligated at the current time.

Fiscal staff requested the ability to continue working with the State Public Works Board on that issue as well as other issues regarding funding remaining in old projects that had been completed.

Mr. Combs noted that costs for this project had been reduced but that the amount had been transferred to Project 99-M2. The State Public Works Board had indicated that the projects would be bid together and it seemed reasonable to place all of the funds in the same project.

Mr. Combs stated that of $99,487 would be transferred from remaining funds in the 1995 and 1997 Advance Planning Programs. Those funds were transferred into this project to offset bond costs.

Mr. Combs related that staff recommended that $195,883 of the project costs be supported by the Highway Fund as two of the projects included on the list were highway projects.

He then indicated that the adjustments made to Project 99-S6 had been made because some of the projects, which were normally covered by university monies, were included in this project. Those funds would be removed from this project and would be covered as university projects.

He then noted that this project included the funds directed towards the renovation of the law school in Las Vegas. He reminded subcommittee members that $600,000 had been transferred to the law school project in Project 99-C12.

In this project, Mr. Combs repeated that the university projects had been removed from this account and would be covered under the $15 million available through university project funds.

Also, he stated that $100,000 would be transferred from
Project 97-S7 for the costs of this project to offset the bonding amounts.

Next, Mr. Combs related that the utility savings generated through the retrofit could be used to pay for the project. The State Public Works Board had confirmed that they had the ability to do so. However, the State Public Works Board had also requested to use $50,000 of the amount included in the project for the promotion of the energy retrofit program.

He stated that although he had eliminated the project based on the fact that the Kinkead building did not require the funds, the decision was for the subcommittee to make.

Next, Mr. Combs addressed the university projects. Per a request by the subcommittee, Mr. Combs indicated that he had added the State Higher Education Capital Construction funds, which amounted to $5 million, to the university project funds. Thus, the additional bonding authority increased the university project bonding authority to $15 million.

Chairman Arberry stated that the subcommittee wished to give staff the authority to work with the Public Works Board to resolve any concerns or difficulties concerning the projects. Next, he addressed the unfunded requests or tier projects.

Chairman Raggio suggested that the subcommittee consider the necessity for providing, within the bonding authority, funds that could deal with school construction problems, should some arise during the biennium. He was uncertain as to how a $28 million bonding authority would affect the rate, but he felt that the issue deserved a high priority.

He then recalled the Governor’s proposal to address school construction problems in Lincoln County, where a school and a gymnasium needed to be replaced. A problem also existed in White Pine County. He maintained that a fund needed to be made available for similar situations.

Speaker Dini remarked that he was in agreement with Chairman Raggio.

Chairman Raggio suggested that the subcommittee set aside at least $16 million in bonding authority to deal with school construction problems.

Chairman Arberry then summarized the other unfunded requests. They were prioritized as:

• The University of Nevada Medical School Library

• Community College of Southern Nevada High-Tec Center
  State Funds: $5 million, Other Funds: $1 million

• Desert Research Institute Southern Nevada Science Center
  State Funds: $1.5 million, Other Funds: $1 million

• High-Tec Center in Washoe County

• University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Phase I Wright Hall
  State Funds: $6 million, Other Funds: $0 million

• School Construction Fund State Funds:$16 million

Chairman Raggio agreed that the list was prioritized correctly. He then noted that the High-Tec center in Pahrump did not appear on the list as the center had been proposed by the Governor to be funded in part by refund monies to the amount of $3.5 million.

Chairman Raggio then advised that the subcommittee should approve to fund $16 million in the School Construction Fund, so that the funds would be available for use. Therefore the motion should stipulate that the unfunded requests would be approved in the order that they had been prioritized, hut subject to the 15 cent bonding rate.

Speaker Dini then suggested that the subcommittee approve the projects as they had been outlined. However, if there was money left over, it would be funneled into the school construction fund within the 15 cent bonding rate.

Next, Chairman Raggio explained that he had received a letter from the Administrator of Parks concerning funding needed for the Old Las Vegas Mormon Fort. He asked if the request had been covered in another project account.

Senator Rawson replied that the issue had already been discussed. He said that the construction at the fort had been delayed by the lack of funds needed to meet the projects bid requirement. He noted that the subcommittee should focus on finishing the construction that had already been undertaken rather than planning new projects.

After reviewing Project 99-S4, Senator Coffin was uncertain as to why the money had been cut out of the budget. He explained that the initial construction phase had already commenced and planning had also begun for future phases of construction. The amount of money indicated by Chairman Raggio would be use to complete Phase III of the fort project, making it then available to the public. In that manner, previously invested funds would bear fruit.

Chairman Raggio wondered why the project had not been completed.

Mr. Raecke responded that the Public Works Board had planned to fund the entire Old Mormon Fort construction project early on in the 1999 CIP. However, as the project was evaluated, concerns had been raised over archeological issues and so the board chose to delay the project in order to conduct advance planning and study. Therefore the project had been cut back to advance planning only.

Senator Rawson interjected that the construction on the fort had already begun. Construction had stopped because the bids for the project had come in too high. Thus, the restrooms and visitor’s center were left unfinished. He noted that archeological studies and site plans had been completed. He articulated that Chairman Raggio wanted to add $420,000 to the CIP to finish the project.

Chairman Arberry wondered if there was money left over from old projects that could be used to support the continued construction of the Old Mormon Fort.

Mr. Raecke replied that projects had already been evaluated for excess funds. He had sent a list to fiscal staff indicating the amounts left in excess.

Chairman Arberry reiterated that his concern was related to the bonding of the project.

Mr. Combs added that the $1.3 million in leftover funds referenced by Mr. Raecke had already been used by the governor’s proposal. Nevertheless, he averred that there was still funding remaining in old projects that could be found.

As no other business presented itself to the subcommittee, Chairman Arberry adjourned the hearing at 6:30 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Janine Toth,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman

DATE: