MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY committee on Ways and Means and

senate committee on finance

joint subcommittee on higher education/capital improvements

 

Seventy-First Session

March 27, 2001

 

 

The Joint Subcommittee on Higher Education/Capital Improvements was called to order at 7:36 a.m. on Tuesday, March 27, 2001.  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 SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.                     Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Mr.                     Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms.                     Chris Giunchigliani

Mr.                     Lynn Hettrick

Mr.                     John Marvel

Mr.                     Richard D. Perkins

 

SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator William J. Raggio

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Mathews

Senator Raymond D. Rawson

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Gary Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Rick Combs, Program Analyst

Connie Davis, Committee Secretary

 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS DETAIL BY PROJECT

 

Daniel O'Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board (PWB), extended his appreciation to the Chairman for allowing time for a brief PowerPoint presentation on the completion of the Lied Library and the status of claims against the project.

 

Mr. O'Brien told the members of the subcommittee that the Lied Library, on the campus of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), was an impressive structure with its large atrium open space, study areas, and "nice" wood and stainless steel finishes.  Mr. O'Brien pointed out the state-of-the-art book retrieval system and the glass wall through which the library could be seen. 

 

Mr. O'Brien discussed claims by Tibesar, the project contractor, which were reported to the Interim Finance Committee several months ago and made it clear that the state would not pay for unsubstantiated claims.  Mr. O'Brien indicated his presentation would show that some work was left uncompleted and some was performed in a substandard manner, and it was the PWB's position not to release the retention they had in the amount of $365,000, nor would they honor any additional pay requests because of work that was still outstanding.  Mr. O'Brien said the slides would confirm the action and that the PWB was "looking out for the state's best interests" on the project.

 

Mr. O'Brien provided an outline of the funding history:

 

• 1993 - $200,000 to evaluate the library system;

 

• 1995 - $3 million to begin design;

 

• 1997 - $47.8 million project budget developed, of which $42.6 million was for construction;

 

• 1998 – Tibesar was the low bidder at $40.5 million;

 

• 1999 - $2 million (difference between $40.5 million and $42.6 million) was reallocated for furniture, fixtures, and equipment and was approved by the legislature for a total of $9.5 million.

 

An outline of the construction project history followed:

 

• March 23, 1998 – PWB issued a Notice to Proceed.  Construction time allotted for the project was 579 days, and October 22, 1999, was the date the project was to be completed.

 

• May 2, 2000 – A certificate of substantial completion was issued after 26.5 months (originally projected to be completed in 19 months).  Several major items still remained unfinished and an extension "punch list" of about 6,000 items that needed to be taken care of by the contractor was issued.

 

• July 6, 2000 – A temporary certificate of occupancy was issued after it was determined the building was safe.  However, a notice of completion had not yet been issued.

 

• January 8, 2001 – Grand opening was held and building was occupied.

 

• 30 change orders added 193 days to the contract time and $3.65 million to the cost of the project (within the 10 percent maximum allowed by statute).

 

Summary of current financial status:

 

• $2.5 million to complete the project;

 

• $1.9 million set aside to reimburse UNLV for furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FF&E); PWB in process of verifying FF&E bills;

 

• $500,000 to pay for remaining construction items and claims consultants was approved by the Interim Finance Committee; and,

 

• Current plan was to seek funding to pay legitimate claims, if so determined.

 

Mr. O'Brien provided a summary of contractor claims and advised that $5.6 million was reported to the Interim Finance Committee in December 2000 and the amount had increased to $5.9 million with an additional subcontractor's claim.  Mr. O'Brien referred to a document that had been distributed to the subcommittee (Exhibit C) and discussed a chart within the document titled "Claim Damage Matrix" that illustrated direct and indirect costs.  Mr. O'Brien referred to the indirect costs as "fluff" compared to direct costs which were indicated, by the contractor, as costs actually incurred.  Mr. O'Brien explained that indirect costs related to items such as "extended home office overhead," or keeping the doors to their office open which, as pointed out by Mr. O'Brien, should be open anyway during business hours.  Mr. O'Brien also pointed out that a 10 percent general contractor markup had been added to every claim as indicated on the matrix.  Mr. O'Brien emphasized that the claims were not part of an executed contract or change order and had not been approved, authorized, or sanctioned by the PWB.  Additionally, Mr. O'Brien stated that $43.7 million had already been paid to the contractor on a $44 million project. 

 

Mr. O'Brien reported that the architect had filed a claim that sought an additional $677,603.22 for extra hours spent on the project, excessive paperwork generated by Tibesar, extra time to resolve issues related to deviations to plans and specifications, as well as time associated with placing a full-time employee on-site to resolve contractor issues, and delay damages for being on-site after completion of the project.

 

After being appointed Manager of the Public Works Board, Mr. O'Brien indicated the Lied Library Project became one of his first job priorities and at that time, Metcalf Builders was hired as a consultant to conduct an initial review of the claims.  After their initial review, Metcalf advised the PWB to retain a strong claims analysis consultant.  At that point, PinnacleOne, a well-known claims consultant, and Metcalf Builders were retained as consultants to review the claims and work remaining and they performed a preliminary site inspection.  Mr. O'Brien advised that the Board of Examiners had approved a contract with PinnacleOne and Metcalf Builders to conduct an extensive review of the issues.  Additionally, Mr. O'Brien said the legal firm of Driggs, Walch, Santoro, Kearney, Johnson & Thompson had been hired to advise the PWB on issues related to construction law, and assistance was also being received from the Office of the Attorney General.  Mr. O'Brien told the members of the subcommittee that the Board of Examiners had also approved a contract with PinnacleOne to review issues related to similar construction problems with the Veterans' Home and the possibility existed that attorneys would be hired to advise the PWB on construction law issues related to the Veterans' Home. 

 

To date Mr. O'Brien advised that PinnacleOne and Metcalf had reviewed the claims submittals, conducted a visual inspection of the project and a conceptual cost evaluation, but had not conducted an invasive inspection nor had they reviewed mechanical systems. 

 

PinnacleOne's executive summary concluded:

 

·        Work did not conform to the contract documents;

·        Efforts to correct the problems were not being aggressively pursued;

·        The extent of incomplete or deficient work exceeded the owner's reasonable expectations;

·        Remaining work was significant, in excess of $1 million, possibly even several million dollars.

 

Mr. O'Brien stated that, while the review had been cursory, the consultants determined the contractor's claims were "unsubstantiated, inaccurate and/or improperly seeking payment."  On March 14, 2001, the Office of the Attorney General notified Tibesar's attorney that documentation supporting the claims was requested and upon receipt of resubmitted and accurate information, the PWB would re-evaluate the claims. 

 

Mr. O'Brien reminded the members of the subcommittee the $47 million building was impressive and that while some of the construction problems may not be visible to members of the public, they were documented in the slides that were about to be shown.  Typical problems as documented by the slides:

 

• Joints overlapped on copper ceiling and Sheetrock;
• Unsecured electrical panel beneath carpet;
• Cracks in the wall where ceiling and wall joined in partitions;
• Smeared and different colored grout on building exterior;
• Handrail joints were not uniform;
• Wire mold not flush with sill;
• Concrete floor poured too high;
• Floor uneven and not level;
• Excessive caulking at curtain wall;
• Visible gap between starter riser and edge of landing on exit stairway;
• Negative slope at low roof area/water ponding;
• Electric walker steel ducting for cable was not flush;
• Poor finish on ceiling sprinkler heads;
• Sheetrock against concrete block gaps;
• Uneven soffit;
• Walker duct cover loose;
• Door not rectangular;
• Unfinished drywall at fire rollup shutters;
• Water intrusion at window curtain wall;
• Ceiling tiles with holes;
• Gaps where smoke evacuation vents were installed;
• Sloppy mortar work on installation of interior wood sign;
• Miter joint gaps;
• Misaligned steel framing;
• Grout spalling;
• Cracks in ceiling;
• Leaking door closures stained door which required refinishing;
• Protruding overflow tongue for roof drain.

 

Mr. O'Brien informed the members of the subcommittee that it would be necessary to view the 450 slides the PWB had taken to see all of the deficiencies throughout the entire 300,000 square-foot building; however, the slides shown during the presentation were typical of the problems. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani requested that information be provided to the members of the subcommittee on the amount of the bid next in line after Tibesar's low bid and the principals at Tibesar so that a possible connection to an employee within the PWB could be investigated.

 

In response to a question from Ms. Giunchigliani, Mr. O'Brien said that Pat Batte had been the project manager on the Lied Library and that Mr. Batte was no longer with the PWB.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani questioned what steps the PWB should have taken that might have prevented the shoddy workmanship and also questioned why the PWB only held back $365,000 for final payment when there was $3.6 million in change orders as well as an additional $1 to $3 million worth of defects that needed to be corrected.  Mr. O'Brien responded that the $3.6 million in change orders was approved and paid for through the change-order process.  Insofar as the retention of the $365,000, Mr. O'Brien advised that, for whatever reasons, the past administration released retention as the project was being completed.  Mr. O'Brien explained that once a project reached 50 percent completion, the law permitted that retention could be reduced to 5 percent, which was done as well as some additional retention reductions.  In response to a question from Ms. Giunchigliani, Mr. O'Brien indicated that the PWB manager had the authority to release retention.  It was then Ms. Giunchigliani's observation that the PWB manager released most of the retention knowing that the project was being completed with shoddy workmanship.  Ms. Giunchigliani also recalled the project began with an engineering problem.  Mr. O'Brien clarified that the 30 change orders indicated many conflicts that included major issues with underground utilities.  Mr. O'Brien indicated that many of the problems seen in the slides were details that were seen at the end of a project, and Ms. Giunchigliani responded she understood some of the issues were related to finish work.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani discussed a March 22 meeting at which the PWB manager informed Governor Guinn that the 1998 Lied Library bid was $40.5 million, $2 million lower than expected, and that the $2 million was returned to the legislature, which "unfortunately" prompted an angry response from the Governor.  Ms. Giunchigliani expressed her concern regarding the issue and clarified that the PWB recommended using the $2 million for the furnishings, which the Governor recommended and ultimately was approved by the legislature.  Ms. Giunchigliani expressed her dissatisfaction concerning the comment and inference by the PWB that the legislature took the $2 million to be used in some other area.  Ms. Giunchigliani noted that some PWB bills had been drafted for the 2001 Legislative Session and indicated a need to review the "release retention issue" to determine whether enough was being held back on bond.  Additionally, Ms. Giunchigliani reiterated an earlier request to determine who the principals were at Tibesar and indicated that there might be additional issues concerning how the actual bid "was let."

 

Brett Kandt, Senior Deputy Attorney General and Counsel to the Public Works Board, identified himself for the record and reiterated that the PWB manager had shown the members of the subcommittee only an example of what was typical throughout the building based upon a preliminary non-invasive inspection.  Mr. Kandt advised the members of the subcommittee his remarks would be somewhat limited in order to preserve the state's litigation posture.  However, Mr. Kandt said that, as mentioned in earlier testimony, the Las Vegas firm of Driggs, Walch, Santoro, Kearney, Johnson & Thompson, who specialized in construction claims litigation, had been retained and would assist the Office of the Attorney General.  Furthermore, Mr. Kandt said it was intended, through special counsel, to prosecute any claims, to the fullest, the state had against any responsible parties.  Mr. Kandt added that the Office of the Attorney General had informed Tibesar's legal counsel that Tibesar was in breach of contract and had also made warranty claims as provided under the contract for all the items shown to the members of the subcommittee and for any outstanding "punch list items."

 

Ms. Giunchigliani concluded that it appeared the state owed Tibesar for all the various claims that had been discussed and the state was also pursuing the issue of construction defects and shoddy workmanship.  Mr. Kandt advised that the contractor, several subcontractors, and the architect had presented claims that totaled approximately $6.5 million.  Mr. Kandt said, however, those claims were essentially considered unsubstantiated despite repeated requests for additional documentation.  As explained by the PWB manager, Mr. Kandt said the claims were basically for direct daily job costs, extended overhead, and other types of costs that typically would not be permitted under the state's contract terms.  Ms. Giunchigliani questioned the amount of the consultant fee being paid PinnacleOne.  Mr. O'Brien responded that the initial contract was under $5,000 and the contract approved by the Board of Examiners was for $25,000.  In response to a question from Ms. Giunchigliani, Mr. O'Brien said the Veterans' Home contract was a separate issue.

 

In response to a question from Ms. Giunchigliani, Mr. Kandt reiterated that Tibesar's claims were considered unsubstantiated and based upon the preliminary non-invasive investigation, at least $1 million worth of costs were identified to correct the shoddy workmanship.  Thus, Mr. Kandt indicated it appeared that Tibesar owed the state $1 million and the money not yet released would be held until those workmanship items were addressed.  In response to a question from Ms. Giunchigliani, Mr. Kandt advised that, if necessary, the state would prosecute claims against any and all responsible parties.  Additionally, Mr. Kandt advised Ms. Giunchigliani that a sign off on full occupancy would not occur until construction and workmanship issues had been resolved.  In response to an earlier question, Mr. O'Brien indicated that the Office of the Attorney General had requested information from Tibesar that included naming the principals.

 

Senator Raggio questioned the likelihood of incurring more in litigation costs than could be recovered.  Mr. Kandt expected it would cost at least $1 million to correct the shoddy workmanship, however, did not expect to incur $1 million in litigation expenses.  Senator Raggio assumed the attorneys would charge on " a time basis," and Mr. Kandt confirmed that Driggs, Walch, Santoro, Kearney, Johnson & Thompson would charge on a time basis.  Senator Raggio questioned whether extensive litigation costs were recoverable under the law.  Mr. Kandt responded that the general terms of the construction contract provided for attorneys' fees.

 

Senator Coffin requested a copy of the PowerPoint presentation reduced to six panels on a page in order to take it with him on a visit to the Lied Library and expressed concern that students could injure themselves because of some of the problems.  Additionally, Senator Coffin observed that problems unveiled in the PWB's preliminary analysis were both structural and cosmetic and indicated that the cosmetic problems could be repaired over a period of time out of the responsible party's cash flow.  However, Senator Coffin expressed strong concern in reference to the possibility of structural problems that could not be discovered without an invasive inspection.  It was Senator Coffin's observation that the badly poured concrete that was visible might be indicative that the building's foundation could also have structural problems.  Mr. O'Brien reported that he had "walked the building" several times, and the floors were very poorly poured.  Mr. O'Brien explained that problems appeared when the floors were matched up with the exterior panels; however, he said there was no indication there was "any kind of structural failure."  After observing the floors' pitch and the exterior walls, Senator Coffin questioned the pitch versus optical illusion and questioned whether the floors or the walls were square.  Mr. O'Brien indicated that while he was fairly certain the walls were square, whether they were or not would have to be more deeply investigated. 

 

Additionally, Senator Coffin questioned whether any subcontractors on the project could be identified who had competently performed their work so that some money could be released to them.  Mr. Kandt responded that the state was "in privity of contract with the general contractor," and that the general contractor had responsibility for contracting with and paying the subcontractors.  Additionally, Mr. Kandt said that the subcontractors' claims would be against the general contractor and not against the state as the owner of the facility.  Senator Coffin questioned whether there were precedents for owners to bypass a contractor when negligence or malfeasance had occurred.  Mr. Kandt expressed discomfort at exploring what he considered to be a "broad question," and reiterated that the state was in privity of contract with the general contractor.  However, Mr. Kandt explained that the subcontractors would be involved in the discussions subsequent to the presentation and prior to any litigation.  In the event of litigation, Mr. Kandt advised that the Office of the Attorney General would work with the subcontractors for full resolution.  Mr. Kandt made it clear, however, that the subcontractors needed to look to the general contractor for payment.  In response to a question from Senator Coffin, Mr. Kandt advised that the concern was for taxpayer dollars and that the state of Nevada had contracted with the general contractor to deliver the project at a certain price and certain change orders were approved to increase that price; however, outside of the increases that were approved through the legal change order‑process, the state was not liable for further claims. 

 

It was Senator Raggio's observation that defects, such as the uneven floors or walls, did not occur at the end of the project.  Senator Raggio questioned the kind of action that had been taken by the project manager and whether there had been a "sign off on the defects" or acceptance.  Mr. O'Brien responded that those questions were being investigated and further advised it was the contractor's job, not the project manager or inspector's job, to deliver a project per the contract.  Mr. O'Brien explained that the project manager was on-site "possibly once a week," however, two full-time inspectors, "who came and went," were on-site.  Mr. O'Brien discussed problems keeping inspectors on-site because of competition with local government pay scales.  Senator Raggio questioned whether the inspectors had unknowingly signed off on some of the defects.  Mr. O'Brien acknowledged that "somewhere along the line" something happened that did not bring the project to a halt.  Mr. O'Brien described a situation concerning a wall that, at the request of the inspectors, had to be torn down and when the wall was poured again, the contractor pulled the forms before the inspector thought they should be pulled and that caused some issues on the site.  Mr. O'Brien pointed out that the state's inspectors really did not have the authority to stop a project, which was an operation issue being worked on internally.  Mr. O'Brien further explained that a contractor in the private sector who continued to work on a project that had been "red tagged" would be cited with a misdemeanor. 

 

In view of the problems, Chairman Arberry questioned the life expectancy of the building.  Mr. O'Brien responded that without an invasive inspection there was nothing the PWB saw that would shorten the life of the building and indicated it would probably be around for 50 to 60 years.  However, Mr. O'Brien advised that there would be maintenance costs associated with problems, such as the concrete and grout spall that would have to be repaired by UNLV; however, he said there was probably nothing that could be done about the sloping floors in some areas.  In reference to the ongoing maintenance costs, Chairman Arberry questioned whether UNLV would be requesting more funds to maintain the building.  Mr. O'Brien responded that while UNLV would have to pay for the maintenance, the costs would depend on what occurred.  He acknowledged, however, that the building was "somewhat high maintenance" in terms of janitorial costs because of all the glass and wood.  Mr. O'Brien advised that the PWB had to take the position that the state had to have a building that was as complete and clean as possible when it was taken over.  Additionally, Mr. O' Brien expressed concern over the warranty periods and said that Tibesar had been put on notice by the Attorney General's office concerning the warranties. 

 

In response to Chairman Arberry's inquiry concerning the leaking roof, Mr. O'Brien advised he was unaware of any current problem; however, he indicated that some leaks had occurred before the building was occupied and those leaks had been repaired.  Mr. O'Brien acknowledged a potential existed for leaks on some of the "short roofs" that drained back to the building.  In response to Chairman Arberry's question on who would pay for the costs of leaking roofs, Mr. O'Brien advised that a standard program existed for warranty on the roofs and should any leakage occur, the contractor would be called upon.  Further, Mr. O'Brien advised that if any leakage occurred, UNLV needed to notify the PWB as quickly as possible in order to avoid additional problems.

 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS DETAIL BY PROJECT – APPENDIX PAGE 18

 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, REMODEL CARSON CITY COURTHOUSE, PHASE II  (CIP O1-C14)

 

Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa identified herself for the record, and requested that Senator Mark Amodei be extended the courtesy of being the first speaker so that he could attend to other Senatorial duties.

 

Senator Mark Amodei identified himself for the record and told the members of the subcommittee that the expansion of the Attorney General's Office, beginning with the Heroes Memorial Building and followed by the old Supreme Court Building, had been a welcome addition to downtown Carson City.  Senator Amodei said the proposed remodel of the old Ormsby County/Carson City Courthouse would finish up the Carson Street side of the block.

 

While Senator Amodei indicated the cost of remodeling the building might appear high, he said that the available options of not doing anything with the building or demolishing it and producing something different could result in something along the lines of the Blasdel Building, which should not be repeated.  Senator Amodei requested the subcommittee's consideration in finishing the remodeling project and allowing the Attorney General's Office expansion.  Concluding his remarks, Senator Amodei said the state had done a wonderful job of fulfilling its role in the redevelopment of downtown Carson City, and that he would like to see redevelopment continue with the remodel of the old Carson City Courthouse.

 

Attorney General Del Papa advised the members of the subcommittee that Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell had been in the committee room earlier and had submitted a letter in support of the renovation of the Carson City Courthouse (Exhibit D).  Also in attendance were Robin Williamson, Carson City Supervisor, and John Berkich, City Manager, who had also submitted a letter of support (Exhibit E).  Additionally, Andrew List, representing the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), was in the room, and Attorney General Del Papa advised the Chairman that if the gentlemen were able to stay, they would all be willing to express their support in favor of renovation of the building.

 

Attorney General Del Papa briefly discussed deceased Assemblyman Marvin Sedway's support of the entire Capitol Complex idea and referred to the design rendering on an easel in front of the subcommittee that had also recently been presented to the Board of Examiners.  Attorney General Del Papa expressed satisfaction with being housed in the old Supreme Court Building and indicated that the three buildings looked impressive across from the Capitol and were in keeping with the Capitol Complex concept. 

 

Attorney General Del Papa advised that the funding approved in the 1999 CIP program was insufficient for the bids received and required going back to the "drawing board" with the architect.  Attorney General Del Papa pointed out that the $1,700,000 recommended by the Governor to be funded with general obligation bonds would allow the renovation project to be completed. 

 

The microphone was turned over to Brett Kandt, Senior Deputy Attorney General, for a presentation on the details of the project.

 

Mr. Kandt distributed a memo (Exhibit F), and advised the members of the subcommittee:

 

 

• The Carson City Courthouse building was originally constructed in 1920 and housed the Carson City courts until the courts moved into their new complex on Musser Street;

 

• The state purchased the building for $860,000;

 

• $213,000 in costs had been incurred in getting ready to renovate the building including asbestos removal, architectural and engineering fees, seismic testing and other miscellaneous fees;

 

• The 2001 CIP recommended $1.7 million to complete the remodel of the building;

 

• Source of funding would be general obligation bonds;

 

• Cost of complete remodel estimated at $3,311,000;

 

• The 1999 CIP appropriated $1,611,000 for the project;

 

• Low bid was for $2,776,000 and additional funds were needed for a new roof and wiring required for communication and information technology.  Roofing and communication infrastructure was covered in other accounts from the PWB;

 

• $2.8 million required for the actual renovation; 

 

• Once renovated, the remodeled facility would total about 14,985 square feet and could house a maximum of 65 personnel.  An example of the first-floor plan, after renovation, was shown to the members of the subcommittee.

 

Mr. Kandt reported:

 

• The neoclassical-style courthouse was designed by Nevada architect, Frederick DeLongchamps, and constructed in 1920; 

 

• In 1987 the building was placed on the National Register of Historic Places; 

 

• The courthouse had three floors that could be occupied, and, as a result of remodeling over the years, the decorative ornate ceilings, trim, and light fixtures had been replaced with more modern finishes and fixtures.  The main staircase and lobbies featured polished marble, which would remain intact but required extensive refurbishing;

 

• The exterior of the building was altered with the addition of two exit stairways and rear fire escape and was in need of significant restoration of all wall and trim surfaces;

 

• Under the design solution, the intent of the project was to preserve and enhance the original, historic characteristics of the original building, and at the same time provide a well-organized and functional modern office environment for the Office of the Attorney General; and,

 

• The goal was to provide seismic stabilization of the building, address life safety issues, and accommodate new mechanical, electrical and data communication systems.  In addition, the building would be in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

 

 

Mr. Kandt provided a brief outline of the scope of work for the interior of the building:

 

• Seismic strengthening with new support systems;

 

• Modern mechanical, electrical/data communications, fire alarm and fire protection systems;

 

• New interior/exit stairway would replace stairway removed in 1960s;

 

• ADA accessible toilet and break rooms;

 

• New lighting fixtures to match the original fixtures;

 

• Restore and reconstruct as necessary the existing marble floors and wall wainscot panels;

 

• All new interior finishes including new coppered ceilings with wood crown moldings;

 

• Detail to match the original ornate plaster ceilings;

 

• New offices with new wood doors, decorative wood trim, cabinetry to match the original mill work craftsmanship;

 

• Complete insulation of the exterior walls and roof to help achieve compliance with the state's model energy code;

 

• Passenger elevator;

 

• New insulated exterior window to match profile of the original wood windows that had been replaced in the 1960s with single-pane metal windows;

 

• Removal of rusting, unsafe, wrought iron fire escape;

 

• Demolish exterior stairway and restore damaged stonework;

 

• Clean, patch, repair and restore exterior stone walls utilizing same restoration systems approved by the National Park Service to restore the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.;

 

• Restore damaged sandstone columns and front portico;

 

• New ADA accessible ramp;

 

• Demolish existing sagging and deteriorating entrance stairway and construct a new stairway;

 

• Provide new fire, water, and domestic water supply from Curry Street; and,

 

• Provide new roof and new roof substructure.

 

Chairman Arberry addressed the high cost of the project and asked the architect to discuss the possibility of either reducing the costs and/or building a new structure in the same neoclassical style. 

 

Robert Oxoby, architect for the project, identified himself for the record and indicated that the available funds, going into the project, were low in comparison to the work that had to be completed.  Mr. Oxoby further advised that the bids were evaluated to determine what was needed, and a plan was developed to make slight modifications to try to get the building "pared down to a functional, fully operational, yet aesthetically pleasing facility that would provide a good neighbor for the downtown historic district in Carson City."  Additionally, Mr. Oxoby reported that the original planned modifications were in the interior of the structure and did not take into account the mechanical, electrical, data communications or the structural integrity of the building.  Mr. Oxoby said their revised estimate took those additional modifications into consideration and would be reflected on the drawings that would be sent out to bid if the project was approved.

 

Mr. Oxoby explained that the square-foot cost for the renovation of the old State Library in Carson City and the Carson City Courthouse were close, and he said the Courthouse would look similar to the historically accurate renovation and refurbishing of the State Library building.

 

Chairman Arberry questioned Mr. Oxoby as to the feasibility of tearing the courthouse down and building a new structure.  Mr. Oxoby responded that tearing the building down had never been an option.  Chairman Arberry expressed some reservation concerning the cost of the remodel and wanted some assurance of its cost effectiveness compared to a new building.  While Mr. Kandt indicated his shared concern, he said that unlike the 1999 appropriation, the bid process had resulted in "hard numbers," and those numbers could be relied on in the request for the additional funding.  Mr. Kandt advised the Chairman that the Office of the Attorney General felt "very comfortable" that with the additional funding "a full renovation without any unforeseen circumstances" could be accomplished.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani requested information on the reasons why exterior window replacements and exterior restoration work that amounted to $300,000, were recommended to be included in the 2001 request and had not been recommended in the original 1999 project.  Mr. Oxoby responded that the exterior restoration totaled approximately $68,000, and the exterior window replacement was approximately $217,000.  Mr. Kandt explained that in addition to the increased aesthetics, the window replacements would provide energy efficiency and the original windows did not.  In response to a question from Ms. Giunchigliani on whether the windows would provide $300,000 worth of efficiency, Mr. Kandt advised that the worth would have to be reviewed "in the long run."  Ms. Giunchigliani requested information on the historical significance of the building.  Mr. Oxoby responded that the building, designed by Frederick DeLongchamps and constructed in 1920, had a historical presence in Nevada, and was on the National Federal Register of Historic Buildings.

 

Chairman Arberry asked the Manager of the PWB to discuss whether the PWB would be able to "live within the scope" of the hard numbers provided by the bids.  Mr. O'Brien responded that $1.7 million was the amount recommended by the PWB and agreed to by the Governor.  It was Mr. O'Brien's opinion that the $1.7 million request for funding was correct, and was the number the PWB and the Office of the Attorney General would live with.  Chairman Arberry questioned whether both the PWB and the architect would have a project manager on the job site.  Mr. O'Brien responded that the PWB and the architect would have a project manager on-site.  Hearing that, Chairman Arberry made it clear that he did not want to see any slides identifying problems at the end of the project that would be similar to those seen for the Lied Library.

 

Senator Raggio stated his awareness of the need for additional space for the Office of the Attorney General.  However, the Senator recalled his strong opposition to acquiring the courthouse and the unsightly building to the rear, believing the acquisition would commit the state to extraordinary expense to utilize the building and to retain its historic character.  Senator Raggio expressed strong concern on the need for over $1 million to retain the historical significance of the building when the courtrooms on the first and second floors would be destroyed to gain the required office space.  Secondly, Senator Raggio questioned how the Warren Fire Engine building to the rear of the courthouse tied in with plans to remodel the courthouse.  Senator Raggio expressed his reluctance to add funding to restore the exterior of the courthouse and the firehouse building to the rear.

 

In response to Senator Raggio's comments, Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa addressed the importance of the public's view of the property from the other side of the street.  Additionally, it was Attorney General Del Papa's understanding that a large measure of the expense for the remodel was related to ADA requirements, the addition of an elevator, and seismic work.  Attorney General Del Papa recalled that the integrity of the courtroom in the old Supreme Court Building was maintained at her insistence during that restoration.  The Attorney General explained that since the old Supreme Court was in the complex and could be used, the additional office space requirement was now more of a factor.  Attorney General Del Papa shared Senator Raggio's concern in reference to the firehouse and advised she had made the Buildings and Grounds Division aware of broken windows and a dumpster covered with graffiti.

 

In reference to a question from Senator Raggio on why the state bought the Warren Fire Engine building, the Attorney General advised that while she was not involved in the purchase, a lot of money had been spent thus far and until additional funding was available to demolish it, the building could be used for storage.  Mr. Kandt further advised that in the interim, the building would be made as presentable as possible and it would be functional as storage space. 

 

Chairman Arberry questioned who would be housed in the remodeled facility.  Mr. Kandt referred to the memo he had distributed (Exhibit F) and advised that the renovation provided the Office of the Attorney General the flexibility to accommodate up to 65 of their personnel in the facility.  Certain divisions were identified for relocation to the renovated facility and included:

 

·        Medicaid Fraud Unit (7 staff);

·        Private Investigator's Licensing Board (4 staff);

·        Bureau of Consumer Protection (17 staff);

·        Public Safety Division (6 staff);

·        Gaming Division (5 staff) and, perhaps others.

 

Mr. Kandt pointed out that the Office of the Attorney General could already place over 40 members of their staff in the facility.  Chairman Arberry noted the reason for his inquiry was in past testimony he recalled discussion that only 20 office spaces would be utilized.

 

Chairman Arberry requested information on an estimated date of completion.  After checking with the project manager, Mr. O'Brien indicated completion was projected for May or June 2002.

 

Mr. Marvel asked whether the attorneys targeted to move into the new facility were currently in rented space.  The Attorney General advised that most of the attorneys were currently in rented space; however, in the past some had been housed with other public entities.  Additionally, the Attorney General advised there were staff within the two buildings, currently occupied by the Office of the Attorney General, who might also move to the newly remodeled facility.  Mr. Marvel questioned whether actual savings for the cost of outside rent had been calculated.  The Attorney General advised that while there would be a net savings, it probably would not amount to as much as one would believe since rent still had to be paid to the state.  However, the Attorney General pointed out that the savings, in view of the close proximity of the staff to one another and the available resources that could be shared, were incalculable.  The Attorney General further advised that her personal preference would have been to remodel the building with a connection to the Supreme Court and Heroes Memorial Building to maintain a sense of symmetry; however, she expressed her gratitude to have the facility and that the Governor chose to put it on his project list.  The Attorney General also discussed the cost of change orders and had indicated, both through her staff and through the PWB, that there would be "less opportunity" for change orders in the future.

 

Chairman Arberry recessed the hearing at 8:50 a.m. for a short break.  Chairman Arberry reconvened the hearing at 9:01 a.m.

 

DEPARTMENT OF MUSEUMS, LIBRARY AND ARTS – CONVERT BELROSE SPACE TO RECORDS STORAGE (CIP 01-C13)

 

Ward Patrick, Deputy Manager, Professional Services, PWB, reported that the Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation (DETR) currently used 8,100 square feet of space in the building at 620 Belrose in Las Vegas.  Mr. Patrick explained that the DETR was vacating the space and the Governor's budget recommended converting the space to records storage for the Department of Museums, Library, and Arts.  Mr. Patrick discussed Project 99-S4D that had been approved to do some planning for a 30,000 to 40,000 square-foot records storage building in Las Vegas.  Since the Department of Administration no longer believed the project was a priority, Mr. Patrick said funding, estimated to be around $185,000, was reallocated to the next CIP program.  Mr. Patrick explained that the conversion of part of a state-owned facility to records storage area was a fallback position in the event that 8,100 square feet could be used for storage and met the record storage needs in southern Nevada.

 

 

Chairman Arberry noted that during the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means hearing conducted on February 9, 2001, representatives of the Department of Museums, Library, and Arts indicated that the records center would only be housed in the Belrose warehouse for two or three biennia.  Mr. Patrick deferred comments to the representatives of the Department of Museums, Library, and Arts.  Guy Rocha, Assistant Administrator for State Archives and Records, identified himself for the record and reported that over 15 years ago a need had been identified for a records center in Las Vegas.  Mr. Rocha advised that the conversion of the space at Belrose was planned as an interim solution to a long-standing problem and would be used for about six years.  Mr. Rocha indicated the plan was to build a much more substantial building in about six years to address the need for records storage in the fastest growing city and metropolitan area in the United States.

 

Senator Coffin questioned whether the fire suppression system in the warehouse was sufficient to help prevent the loss of valuable archives.  Mr. Patrick responded that the area to be converted was the only area in the building with fire sprinklers.  Senator Coffin noted that fire sprinklers were sometimes "deadly to paper" and while archived material needed to be protected against water, he was unaware of the level of retention planned for the Belrose Building.  Mr. Rocha explained that most of the records destined for the Belrose records center would not have permanent retention; however, noted that even in the retention period for which they would be maintained, the records should not be subjected to water damage.  Mr. Rocha discussed water sprinkler systems that were less intrusive than others in which individual heads went off when certain thresholds were reached as opposed to whole systems.  It was Mr. Rocha's opinion that the conversion would address the least intrusive system that could be used.

 

Senator Coffin asked about the kind of storage units that would be used for archiving records in the converted space.  Mr. Rocha responded that the shelving component was under review; however, explained that the boxes would be similar to the standard bankers boxes used in the records center at the State Library and Archives in Carson City.  Senator Coffin pointed out that the State Library and Archives in Carson City had a fire suppression system.  Mr. Rocha explained that the State Library and Archives had a fire suppression system for which only one sprinkler would go off when a temperature threshold was reached, and, in addition, the floor contained a device that triggered an alarm at water buildup of any level.  Mr. Rocha indicated that same system was under review for the Belrose conversion so that water damage could be minimized were it to occur.  Senator Coffin asked about the possibility of using plastic-based boxes.  Mr. Rocha advised that plastic boxes could be considered dependent upon the level of appropriation to support that level of protection.

 

Senator Rawson addressed the request for planning money for a new state museum on the site of the Las Vegas Springs property and asked whether temporary storage for records should be evaluated until proper storage could be built into the new museum facility.  Mr. Rocha responded that the recommendation for converting the Belrose space was generated by the Department of Administration and that he was prepared to work with the department on any other viable alternative.  Ultimately, Mr. Rocha advised that the records keeping needs of state agencies in southern Nevada needed to be addressed citing reasons related to proper storage methods and efficiency. 

 

Mr. Hettrick recalled that in pre-session hearings he had questioned some of the project expenditures and noted that it appeared as though there had been no adjustment to costs.  Mr. Hettrick pointed out items in the construction cost breakdown such as weather stripping, ladders, pallet jack, shredder and baler, pallet jack charging system, and noted a 10 percent construction contingency had been added to those items which were purchased, not constructed items.  Mr. Hettrick expressed concern in that the $500,000 expenditure to convert an 8,000 square-foot area appeared to be very expensive for what was projected to be a temporary storage unit.  Additionally, Mr. Hettrick noted the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) upgrade was projected at $75,000, which he considered very expensive to heat and cool an 8,000 square-foot building that would be used for records storage.  Mr. Patrick advised that the PWB could provide an adjustment to the items Mr. Hettrick pointed out; however, he noted that the HVAC upgrade also included humidity control, which was a system not currently in the facility.  Mr. Rocha advised that the building would continue to be used after the four- or five-year period it would be used for records storage.  Additionally, Mr. Rocha advised that the ideal temperature would be to maintain the records at between 70 and 72 degrees.  Noting the separate temperature controlled room estimated at $23,500 and the $75,000 projected for HVAC, as well as an additional $43,000 in electrical upgrade, Mr. Hettrick again expressed concern and indicated it appeared the project contained "a lot of padding."

 

Chairman Arberry asked about the estimated completion date if the project was approved.  Mr. Patrick responded the PWB was looking at selecting an architect and being able to develop drawings within six to nine months after approval of the funding.  Additionally, Mr. Patrick indicated the remodel would be fairly minor, and it was anticipated that the project would be completed 15 months after the funding was approved. 

 

Chairman Arberry questioned why there was no funding in the budget to operate the center.  Mr. Rocha responded that during the length of the current biennium, the DETR would have to vacate the space and the PWB would have to conduct the remodel.  Following that, Mr. Rocha said the Department of Museums, Library, and Arts would have to return during the following biennium to request funding for support personnel of 2.5 FTE positions.  Chairman Arberry requested information on operating costs, which Mr. Rocha agreed to provide to staff.

 

DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES – REHABILITATION OF STATE FISH HATCHERIES, PHASE I (CIP 01-C27)

 

Mr. Patrick reported that Phase I of the rehabilitation of state fish hatcheries was a large project that included hatcheries at Lake Mead, Gallagher, Mason Valley, and Spring Creek Rearing Station.  Mr. Patrick noted that a revision to the project cost estimates had been distributed to the members of the subcommittee (Exhibit G).  Mr. Patrick turned the microphone over to the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife representatives for a PowerPoint presentation on the hatcheries.

 

Prior to the PowerPoint presentation, Chairman Arberry addressed the increase of the trout stamp from $5 to $10 and asked division representatives to discuss the reason for the increase.  Steve Bremer, Chief of Administrative Services for the Wildlife Division, responded that funding for the rehabilitation of state fish hatcheries was being viewed on a long-term basis through a combination of federal aid, additional trout stamp revenue, and other internal sources of revenue.  Mr. Bremer indicated he had recently testified in another committee that Assembly Bill 199 would empower the Wildlife Commission to set the price of the trout stamp commensurate with the need to generate revenues to pay for a long-term revenue bond, which would be outside of the state's bonding capacity and the sole responsibility of the Wildlife Division.  Chairman Arberry questioned whether during testimony on A.B. 199, there was any comment on setting a limit on the amount the trout stamp could be raised.  Mr. Bremer advised that Wildlife Division representatives had worked with the PWB in developing estimates and keeping the costs down to come up with an accurate estimate of what they would need for trout stamp revenues combined with federal funding.

 

Senator Mathews questioned how the increased cost of the trout stamp would affect seniors.  Mr. Bremer advised that there was no reduction in the trout stamp cost to seniors, but that the fishing license fee had been reduced.  Senator Mathews expressed concern over the cost of the trout stamp for seniors on fixed incomes and additionally questioned why the cost of the stamp was being removed from statute.  Mr. Bremer advised that working through the Executive Branch, it was determined to empower the Wildlife Commission, through its public hearing process, with the responsibility of setting the price of the trout stamp.  Mr. Bremer further explained that the Wildlife Commission would have the power to back the cost of the stamp down when the revenue was no longer needed.  Senator Mathews voiced strong opposition to removing the trout stamp fee from statute.  Chairman Arberry endorsed the idea of placing a threshold on the amount the trout stamp could be raised and when that threshold was reached, the Division of Wildlife would have to approach the legislature.

 

In response to a question from Mr. Dini concerning payments on the Mason Valley Fish Hatchery, Steve Bremer advised that bond payments on the hatchery were completed in October 2000.  Mr. Dini questioned whether the project could be bonded using the existing trout stamp fee.  Mr. Bremer responded that the total cost was currently estimated at approximately $21,000,000 over the life span of the project, and it was anticipated that raising the revenue would help to repay the bond.  Mr. Bremer advised that only $16,000 currently existed in the trout stamp account after paying off the bond costs.  Mr. Bremer further advised that the trout stamp account only generated about $440,000 a year, and it was determined that revenue from the increased fee would be used to pay for some of the costs "up front" rather than paying interest on the bond.  Mr. Bremer advised that the Division of Wildlife had several hearings before the Wildlife Commission and before the general public and wanted to minimize the actual cost to the sportsman by managing the cash flow and maximizing the benefits to the sportsmen.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani was aware there was some concern in reference to the increased fee; however, indicated it made good sense not to waste the bond money through interest payments.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the response from sportsmen and sportswomen, and Mr. Bremer indicated the response had been positive.  Further, Mr. Bremer said the public realized the hatcheries were in "definite disrepair" and that if not addressed in the near term, the expense would be greater in the long term, or the alternative of limited fishing would be faced.

 

David L. Sanger, Fisheries Staff Biologist, identified himself for the record and told members of the subcommittee that it was his responsibility to oversee hatchery development and coordination throughout the state as well as the production of the fish for planting.

 

Mr. Sanger set the stage for his PowerPoint presentation and advised the subcommittee that hatcheries required three basic elements for successful operation, which were water, containers, and human resources.

 

Mr. Sanger advised that his presentation included:

 

·        An introduction to the hatchery project;

 

·        An explanation of the purpose of the project and the combined needs of the Division of Wildlife, the public, and the angler;

 

·        Statistics and license information;

 

·        Hatchery resources and problems;

 

·        A funding option; and,

 

·        A construction plan.

 

Mr. Sanger reported:

 

• Hatcheries began in 1885 with an annual budget of $2,000 for a one‑third acre pond and commissioner's salary;

 

• Mason Valley Hatchery constructed in 1990 at a cost of over $8 million;

 

• Annual operating cost of Mason Valley Hatchery was approximately $500,000;

 

• In 1999 Nevada Division of Wildlife stocked over 2,000,000 trout from three hatcheries and one rearing facility.

 

Mr. Sanger told the members of the subcommittee facilities needed to be secured and upgraded to maintain current production levels and to provide employees a safe working space while continuing to meet angler needs. 

 

Mr. Sanger discussed establishing commission and legislative funding support through increased trout stamp revenue by an amount determined by the Board of Wildlife Commissioners.  Also developed was a construction sequence to minimize the production of hatchery fish beginning with Lake Mead and proceeding to the other three facilities sequentially.  Mr. Sanger explained that fish for stocking would need to be purchased during reconstruction of Lake Mead in FY2004.  Additionally he said that some of the smaller but critical refurbishment projects were moved forward and were currently under way.  Mr. Sanger advised that the CIP project for hatcheries was planned to commence in FY2002.

 

Mr. Sanger said the four facilities being operated included three hatcheries and one rearing station, the Spring Creek Rearing Station, located near Baker.  It was pointed out that the facilities all included housing for employees, office and workshop area, concrete raceways, stocking trucks and a "sufficient protected supply of water."  Hatcheries included Lake Mead Fish Hatchery, Gallagher Hatchery, and Mason Valley Hatchery.  Mr. Sanger advised that hatchery operations took fish from an egg-stage to fish large enough to catch.

 

Mr. Sanger proceeded with a brief slide explanation of the problems and needs requests at each of the four facilities:

 

Lake Mead Hatchery

• Located near Boulder City, Nevada;

 

• Built in 1972 – the water is pumped from Lake Mead at a utility cost;

 

• 500,000 rainbow trout stocked annually;

 

• 2,000 visitors per month;

 

• Replacement of rusted water supply tower and malfunctioning electrical equipment;

 

• Update aeration system;

 

• Replacement of rusted piping and valves throughout facility;

 

• Three additional residences requested; presently there are two homes and a mobile trailer for five employees who are on 24-hour alert standby status;

 

• Replacement of ineffective barriers for invasive birds to prevent $40,000 a year lost to bird predation due to the unprotected nature of the facility.  Bird defecation across the raceways and facility provided an unhealthy environment in which to work;

 

• Repair of concrete spalling on raceways;

 

• Relocate workshop;

 

• Update visitors center site;

 

• Deteriorated asphalt replacement;

 

• Update landscaping at the visitors' center including an interpretative pond or feeding station; and,

 

• Increased parking area for visitors' center to accommodate school buses.

 

Gallagher Hatchery

• Located in Ruby Valley, Nevada;

 

• Built in 1940;

 

• Five employee residences;

 

• Water supply spring fed;

 

• Over 600,000 trout planted in 1999;

 

• Brood stock facility;

 

• Replacement of south canopy raceway cover requested;

 

• Replacement of 13-year old spring water supply cover or new structure covered with bird netting and surrounded by chain link fencing that would provide improved operating conditions;

 

• Raceway cover structure collapsed in November 2000 injuring employee who was off for two weeks;

 

• Repair concrete spalling on raceways – raceway currently has reinforced rebar showing through;

 

• Inadequate garage facilities – equipment left to the elements because of inadequate storage facilities; and,

 

• Barrier needed at brood stock facility to eliminate wind and weather conditions.

 

Mason Valley Hatchery

• Pumping five wells;

 

• Built in 1990;

 

• Over 700,000 fish planted yearly;

 

• Residences require painting;

 

• Upgraded computer monitor system requested – current system outdated and shows erratic readings;

 

• Upgrade main electrical switch;

 

• Replacement of inadequate grating for heavy truck use, grating currently supported with steel sheeting;

 

• Degraded foundation underneath apron that surrounds supply towers should be replaced;

 

• Backup alarm system requested to replace one put together by hatchery employees.  Current system alerted employees when water was at a minimum or had run out; however, system is unreliable;

 

• Roof gutter system requested; and,

 

• Update interpretive visitors' center.

 

Spring Creek Rearing Station

• Constructed in 1950 in White Pine County;

 

• 112,145 trout per year produced;

 

• Water supply spring fed;

 

• Dam at spillway eroded and was repaired by local volunteers with gravel and stones beneath spillway to protect and support it – rebar can be seen;

 

• Cracked raceways and pooled water;

 

• Caverns adjacent to raceways show shift of landmass beneath surfaces of raceways and is considered unsafe;

 

• Replace settling pond;

 

• Replace 1940s-era buildings;

 

• All concrete-lined ponds are cracked and leaking;

 

• Replace metal workshop that has no insulation, no air conditioning and is heated with a wood stove; and,

 

• Entire facility recommended for demolition and reconstruction.

 

Funding Construction Plan

Mr. Sanger reported funding of $16.1 million for "the safety, modernization and sustainability" of the fish hatcheries was recommended through procurement of revenue bonds that would be repaid through increased trout stamp fees.  Mr. Sanger further indicated a plan had been developed that provided for the culmination of the 25 projects at the 4 facilities within 5 years, and that the proposed projects "were developed with the goal of maintaining the current fish‑stocking plan."

 

Mr. Patrick commented on the revised project cost estimate (Exhibit G) that had been provided to the subcommittee and pointed out that the professional services portion of the cost estimate for A/E design and supervision was $751,078.  The costs provided were for design of Phase I, construction, and administration costs as well as to complete the design for additional phases.  Mr. Patrick attributed the disproportionate amount of fees to design of future phases.

 

After having reviewed the revised cost estimate, Senator Raggio indicated it appeared that there was no funding allocated for Spring Creek Rearing Station and having noted the two ponds with the three-inch cracks wondered whether the facility would be renovated.  Mr. Sanger responded that renovation for Spring Creek was part of the five‑year sequenced plan and that after the spring thaw, the cracks would be reviewed and repaired for the interim to keep the facility running.

 

EXPAND SHOP AT PIOCHE CONSERVATION CAMP (CIP 01-M9)

 

Mr. Patrick reported that CIP 01-M9, for the Forestry Division of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, was recommended to replace a shop building located in Pioche.  A soon-to-be-constructed elementary school on adjacent property would force closure of operations at that facility since inmate labor near an elementary school was inappropriate.  A similar size shop, near the Pioche Conservation Camp and away from the town, was recommended in CIP 01-M9 and would be constructed by inmate labor for a total estimated cost of $147,285. 

 

Chairman Arberry noted that in 1999, the legislature approved $521,000 for a shop and warehouse expansion at Tonopah Conservation, Ely Conservation Camp (ECC), and the Indian Springs Conservation Camp (ISCC), and a construction contract was awarded March 20, 2001, in the amount of $29,490 for construction of new metal buildings.  Chairman Arberry asked why the project cost estimate for the Pioche Conservation Camp cost $96,000.  Mr. Patrick responded that the first project was for multiple sites for which the contracts were issued in phases per site.  Mr. Patrick theorized that the $29,490 was for raw building materials only that would be delivered to the site.  Chairman Arberry asked that the issue be reviewed and the information provided to staff.  Mr. Patrick agreed to provide an update on the past project and costs.

 

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, PHASE III (CIP 01-C1)

 

The Chairman recognized Mr. Patrick who identified CIP 01-C1 as construction of Phase III of the High Desert State Prison (HDSP) at Indian Springs.  A document identified as a project schedule (Exhibit H) was provided to the members of the subcommittee.  Mr. Patrick noted that Phase III included four housing units, a 60,000 square-foot Prison Industries building, and a 12,000 square‑foot gymnasium.  Mr. Patrick advised that the expansion of HDSP required upgrades to the sewage system, "and additional high-mast lights."  Also included in the cost estimate was $750,000 for construction of a liquefied natural gas facility (LNG) to convert the existing boilers to place them in compliance with Clark County Air Pollution Control standards and a standby generator to support the additional facilities.  The estimate also included furnishings and equipment.

 

The Chairman recognized Glen Whorton, Chief of Classification and Planning, Department of Prisons (DOP), who identified himself for the record.  Mr. Whorton discussed revised population projections, from George Washington University, which supported the development of Phase III of the HDSP.  The revised projections anticipated a male population of approximately 10,907 by the time the HDSP could be brought on-line in August 2004.  To accommodate the population prior to the opening of the facility, Mr. Whorton reported that the DOP would have "employed approximately 422 beds in excess capacity at other institutions or facilities" which would include 210 beds in excess capacity at the Lovelock Correctional Center, 152 beds in excess capacity at High Desert Phase I, and 60 beds at the Southern Desert Correctional Center.

 

Noting the estimated date of completion for HDSP was August 2004, Chairman Arberry discussed funding only the design portion of the project during the 2001 legislative session and the remainder during the following legislative session.  Mr. Whorton responded that the project was large and complex and 13 months into the following biennium appeared "extremely optimistic" to begin construction of a facility that included 1,000 beds, a gymnasium, a Prison Industries building, and culinary.

 

Mr. Patrick referred to the project schedule, line item 14 (Exhibit H), which identified the notice to proceed with construction as of January 8, 2003.  Mr. Patrick pointed out that funding had to be available for advertisement at line item 12 on the project schedule, which was October 15, 2002.  In order to meet the needs of the Department of Prisons, Mr. Patrick advised that the design phase was condensed into an aggressive schedule since the project included repetitive buildings and warehouse type facilities; however, he advised that funding for construction was required by November 30, 2002.

 

Chairman Arberry discussed the current funding shortfall and reiterated the possibility of funding only the design portion of the project.  Mr. Whorton advised that the DOP anticipated an average 4.4 percent population increase over the life of the projection, or about 500 inmates a year, which he said was consistent with the growth of the state's population.  Mr. Whorton also pointed out that the DOP facilities were occupied at levels beyond design capacity and expressed concern at the possibility of the increased density of inmates.  Mr. Whorton explained that a delay provided less flexibility in terms of how the male population was housed and, to some extent, the female population as well. 

 

It was Ms. Giunchigliani's understanding that staff did not yet have the report on the population projections and also questioned whether information that the DOP was down about 140 beds was correct.  Mr. Whorton indicated the number of beds was down and further advised that the narrative on the population projections was being delivered to the subcommittee's staff that same afternoon.  Additionally, Ms. Giunchigliani discussed a national report that revealed prisons nationwide were experiencing a population decline and that crime statistics were decreasing.  Mr. Whorton advised that he had been contacted on the issue and the increase in population for corrections was about 1.5 percent nationally; however, Nevada's had remained at 4.5 percent. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani suggested that a review of design capacity might be in order and also asked about the status of converting the Southern Nevada Women's Correctional Center to an intake center for male prisoners.  Mr. Whorton responded that converting the Southern Nevada Women's Correctional Center to an intake center for male prisoners had been reconsidered; however, after the original plan was circulated, it was recalled that commitments had been made that the correctional center would remain a female facility and it was the DOP's philosophy to stand by that commitment. 

 

Mr. Whorton advised that the DOP had been in contact with Correctional Corporation of America (CCA) concerning plans for the female population and a meeting was scheduled for the following month.  In response to a question from Ms. Giunchigliani concerning the number of beds at Southern Nevada Women's Correctional Center, Mr. Whorton reported the facility had an emergency capacity of 500 and the DOP had, at some points, allowed 550.  Mr. Whorton advised there were currently 492 female inmates at the facility and 56 female inmates at unit 6 in the Northern Nevada Correctional Center.  Mr. Whorton explained that when it appeared capacity would be reached, the transient intake population was extracted and placed at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked how the DOP's building plan paralleled with the director's agenda to focus first on the women's population and then the male population in order that effective diversion and counseling programs for those incarcerated for drug and alcohol abuse would free up "hard beds."  Mr. Whorton advised that the director was in Las Vegas to select contractors for Project Reach, a project to divert and enable inmates to become more suitable for parole and successful upon release.  Ms. Giunchigliani indicated the subcommittee would have to deal with the issue on whether or not to construct Phase III of the facility.

 

Chairman Arberry recalled that a representative of the DOP had testified in an earlier subcommittee hearing that January 2005 was the anticipated date for completion of the project and questioned what had occurred to change the date to 2004.  Mr. Whorton responded that in the first hearing there had been some discrepancies in terms of planning for the DOP and for the PWB.  Mr. Whorton explained that meetings with representatives of both agencies had taken place and it was determined that PWB's design time line was based upon their experience with the department's previous administration.  Director Crawford committed to expedite the process so that the DOP would not have to go so deeply into excess capacity.  Specifically, Mr. Whorton advised that the updated plan enabled the DOP to avoid using 211 beds in excess capacity at the Nevada State Prison.  Mr. Whorton commented that the Nevada State Prison had been under consent decree in the past, and because the facility would soon be over 80 years old, the DOP determined they did not want to "push" the population any more than was necessary.  The DOP's finalized plan called for abandoning the use of the cell house at the Nevada State Prison; which consisted of 164 beds, and constructing Phase III at the earlier completion date allowed the DOP to avoid expanding and increasing the population at the Nevada State Prison.

 

While Chairman Arberry expressed concern over the population projections, he reiterated the possibility that completion of the project might have to be postponed until January 2005 because of funding problems.

 

Mr. Marvel questioned whether the Lovelock Prototype Housing Unit plans could be reused for Phase III of the HDSP.  Mr. O'Brien responded that the plans could not be reused without modification or without paying a license fee and commented on the fact that the DOP had been involved in a lawsuit regarding the use of the plans.  Mr. O'Brien further indicated that the director was reviewing a different layout, which was described as a "T" unit.  In response to a question from Mr. Marvel on what the plans would cost, Mr. O'Brien indicated there was a $125,000 license fee just to use the plans per unit, which he considered would be money wasted.  Mr. Whorton described the layout being reviewed by the director as a three-winged configuration called an Arizona "T" which he said was efficient, from a staff standpoint, and a more appropriate structure for a medium-security population. 

 

In response to a question from Chairman Arberry on staffing, Mr. Whorton advised that staffing in the newer unit would be more efficient and that as many or more inmates could be controlled in a "T" unit as in the "bow tie" with one control officer who could view all three tiers with very little movement.  In response to an additional question from Chairman Arberry, Mr. Whorton was of the opinion the director had determined the Arizona "T" was the plan she wanted to use and there had been no discussion on use of the "bow tie" plan. 

 

In response to a question from Mr. Marvel concerning the use of the Lovelock plans, Mr. O'Brien advised that the PWB "looked forward" to avoiding future copyright problems.  Mr. O'Brien strongly emphasized that the PWB would be back before the legislative body any time the scope of a project was changed or problems were encountered. 

 

In response to a question from Ms. Giunchigliani, who expressed concern on what appeared to be reduced security for the four units, Mr. Whorton provided assurance that the HDSP facility would be a better-designed layout and an appropriate medium-security facility. 

 

In response to a question from Ms. Giunchigliani on staffing patterns and when staffing projections would be available for staff, Mr. Whorton advised those projections would be prepared for the following biennium, and it was anticipated reduced staffing would be appropriate.

 

Chairman Arberry recalled that Phase II (CIP 99-C1), was funded, in part, through funds received from the United States Department of Justice's Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-In-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) grant and asked whether any additional VOI/TIS grant funds were available.  The Chairman recognized Janet Johnson.  Janet Johnson, Assistant Director, Support Services, Department of Prisons, identified herself for the record and advised that VOI/TIS funding was very limited and there had been no expectation concerning the availability of additional VOI/TIS money.  Recently the DOP had been informed of the possible availability of another $1 million; however, notification of the availability of VOI/TIS money had been so recent that it was not included as part of the CIP package.  In response to a question from Chairman Arberry concerning the grant funding, Ms. Johnson advised that the application was being submitted and that the amount of funding was limited.  Additionally, Ms. Johnson advised that the DOP had been informed there would be no additional grant funding from VOI/TIS after this. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani requested that staffing charts and any projected future savings anticipated for the new design be provided for her review.

 

In reference to the population projections and the projected milestone dates, illustrated on the project schedule (Exhibit H), Mr. O'Brien pointed out that if the project was not funded under the current CIP and population capacities were met, a seven-month lag would exist between the time funding was needed and funding was available. 

 

In response to a question from the Chairman concerning the Humboldt Conservation Camp, Mr. Whorton reported that the department proposed a new conservation camp on the Humboldt site to replace an aging and deteriorated 150-bed facility.  It was proposed that the "stick built" designed camp, as well as similar camps, be replaced with a more durable type of facility, such as the Jean Conservation Camp and Stewart Conservation Camp.  Mr. Whorton indicated the DOP could achieve an economy of scale by using the Humboldt Camp for a 250-bed population, which would meet the needs of the Nevada Division of Forestry (NDF) program for fire suppression and other projects.  Mr. Whorton advised that the DOP's future plans might indicate some further consolidation. 

 

Additionally, the DOP also proposed to close the cell house at the NSP, and the Alaskan modular unit number 3 at Warm Springs, as well as others in another biennium.  Mr. Whorton advised that the department wanted to build durable facilities that could be maintained and met the needs of the population for "quality of life and life safety issues."

 

REHABILITATE SOUTHERN NEVADA CORRECTIONAL CENTER (CIP 01-C2)

 

The Chairman recognized Ward Patrick who reported that the Southern Nevada Correctional Center (SNCC) was currently in a "mothball" status.  The PWB had conducted a facility condition analysis of the entire site and developed reports supporting the rehabilitation of the facility.  The reports totaled a recommended investment for the facility of approximately $11 million.  Priority 1 and Priority 2 items were represented in the reports and some of the key features necessary to occupy the facility were the HVAC systems, health systems for the backflow assemblies, ADA requirements, and fire suppression requirements.  The project totaled approximately $3.8 million and was consistent with the DOP's master planning.

 

In response to a question from Chairman Arberry concerning closure of the facility, Mr. Whorton advised that SNCC had been closed due to an economy of scale based on the availability of new beds at HDSP.  Additionally, Mr. Whorton advised the SNCC had been closed in order to save personnel costs and so that the core necessary to operate two separate facilities would not be duplicated.  Mr. Whorton further advised that the vacant facility provided an opportunity to proceed with needed repairs so that it would be habitable to house the population.  In accordance with their master plan, the DOP proposed that the project be completed and the facility opened by August 2003. 

 

In response to a question from the Chairman concerning costs, Mr. Whorton explained that the institution was initially occupied in 1977, had been heavily used, and construction was considered "light-weight."  Mr. Whorton pointed out that the improvement project would have been necessary even if the facility had remained open because of the normal wear and tear that would have occurred. 

 

Mr. Arberry asked the DOP to comment on why the suggestion to lease the facility to another state or local government had not been acted upon.  Mr. Whorton explained that a Request for Information (RFI) had been sent to individuals interested in operating the facility.  However, those who responded from the public sector expected that the DOP would staff and operate the facility and the short nature of the contract made it unattractive to those in the private sector since improvements would have been necessary to make it habitable from their standpoint.

 

Chairman Arberry recalled a plan to house female inmates at the SNCC and asked Mr. Whorton to comment on why the plan had changed.  Mr. Whorton advised that the component of the DOP plan to house female inmates at SNCC had been abandoned in favor of housing them at the Southern Nevada Women's Correctional facility.  Mr. Whorton explained that a component of that plan would have provided 550 beds at the women's prison, which would have become a male resource.  Given the state of the population, Mr. Whorton advised the need for male beds was still required and would be used at the Southern Nevada Correctional Center. 

 

Chairman Arberry questioned whether there was any interest in having an outside vendor permanently lease and operate the facility to house high-risk juveniles.  Mr. Whorton responded that in order to lease the facility to an outside vendor an alternative would have to be provided to house the male population, which should be discussed with the director.

 

Chairman Arberry noted the PWB facility condition analysis indicated a need for $11 million in repairs at SNCC.  Mr. Patrick responded that the recommendations to upgrade the facility were reevaluated by the PWB professional staff and only the highest priority items such as the HVAC, ADA, and fire suppression systems were targeted for repair.  Mr. Patrick pointed out that a re-roofing project, seen as unnecessary within the next two to four years, was projected for the out years, as were many other recommendations. 

 

Chairman Arberry questioned why the other items totaling over $7 million were not recommended for completion while the facility was vacant.  Mr. Patrick responded that some of the repairs were recommended to occur in the 6‑to‑10‑year time period and explained that a roof with a 15-year life did not need to be replaced since it had been in place for only half that time.  Chairman Arberry and Senator Raggio discussed the Statewide Roofing project (CIP 01‑S1) that included $322,337, plus inflation, to replace roofs at the SNCC and asked Mr. Patrick to comment.  Mr. Patrick responded that only ten of the core buildings at SNCC were considered necessary for roof replacement, and the $322,337 recommended in CIP 01-S1 for Statewide Roofing was a portion of the $11 million.  Chairman Arberry discussed combining the projects, and Mr. Patrick indicated that the PWB had reviewed the roofing projects and believed it was best to hold off funding on some for future years.  At Chairman Arberry's suggestion, Mr. Patrick agreed to have the PWB re-evaluate the decision.  Chairman Arberry questioned whether moving funding from CIP 01‑S1, the Statewide Roofing Project, would save any money.  Mr. Patrick doubted any savings would occur and explained that the PWB had a specialized program for roofing.  Mr. Patrick indicated more economical costs could be expected if a contract was "let out" as a prime contract to a roofer instead of as a subcontract to a general contractor handling miscellaneous items in the $3.8 million project.

 

REPLACE MAINTENANCE SHOP, NEVADA STATE PRISON (CIP 01-C28)

 

Mr. Patrick identified CIP 01-C28 as a project for which the Interim Finance Committee had approved authority for the PWB to receive insurance settlement funds from the Risk Management Division.  The maintenance shop was being designed and was planned for construction during summer 2001.  Mr. Patrick advised that the PWB would recommend to the Governor's Office that CIP 01‑C28 be withdrawn.

 

HEATING SYSTEM RENOVATION, CARLIN CONSERVATION CAMP (CIP 01‑M29

 

Mr. Patrick identified CIP 01‑M29 as a project to replace gas-fired boilers, baseboard heaters, piping and insulation, and gas-fired water heaters at the Carlin Conservation Camp.  The Chairman recognized Thomas A. Glab.  Thomas A. Glab, P.E., Chief/Plant Operations, identified himself for the record and expressed concern that the heating system was in jeopardy of total failure.  Mr. Glab advised the members of the subcommittee that the DOP, in a proactive effort, determined they would rather replace the system in a controlled environment as opposed to an emergency situation.

 

REPAIR AND UPGRADE EXERCISE AREAS, UNITS 1-8, ELY STATE PRISON (CIP 01‑M30)

 

Mr. Patrick identified CIP 01-M30 as a project to repair and upgrade exercise areas at Ely State Prison, housing units 1-8.  Mr. Patrick described the severe spalling of the concrete in the exercise areas, which he attributed to salt application and the continued freeze and thaw during normal weather conditions.  Mr. Patrick discussed safety concerns, which included inmates using particulate matter in a harmful way against the correctional officers, and recommended the project be funded for $202,682.

 

REMODEL SHOWER AREA, UNITS 1-6, NORTHERN NEVADA CORRECTIONAL CENTER (CIP 01-M31)

 

Mr. Patrick identified Project M31 as a recommendation to remodel the shower areas in housing units 1-6 in the Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC).  A similar project was completed at Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC), which was used as a guide for developing the estimate for the NNCC project.  Conditions at the facility were described as degraded, and Mr. Patrick advised that the ventilation system no longer removed humidity from the shower areas and some areas lacked showerheads.  Mr. Glab identified himself for the record and indicated that the shower units were about 20 years old and had degraded to a point that was more than could be taken care of by the maintenance crew.

 

Senator Raggio questioned why the cost of design and supervision was so high.  Mr. Patrick responded that the project required the development of drawings and specifications and would be sent out for public bid.  Senator Raggio asked whether stainless steel units could be installed in each shower area.  Mr. Patrick indicated that the shower units were built in. 

 

Senator Raggio expressed concern over the "A/E Design and Supervision line item" cost in all of the capital improvement projects.  Mr. Patrick explained the project was a construction project and not an equipment installation project, and included demolition of the walls, installation of ceramic tile and new shower valves.  In response to a question from Senator Raggio on the number of shower units in question, Mr. Patrick referred to the construction cost breakdown in the project cost estimate (Exhibit I) and advised that 45 existing coverings were targeted for demolition. 

 

Mr. Glab advised that housing units 1-3 were dormitory style with four community shower units per wing and three wings per building.  Senator Raggio noted the construction would have to be staggered so that the inmates could continue to shower and he had assumed the units were standardized units that could be installed.  Mr. Patrick indicated he had been mistaken concerning installation of ceramic tile, which had been used in the project at SDCC. 

 

Senator Raggio expressed concern over the project estimates and requested that the PWB review the costs.  Mr. Hettrick also expressed concern over the costs and asked that the $41,355 design contingency cost be reviewed.  Mr. Patrick recalled the plumbing costs for the project at SDCC had been "extraordinarily high" and also indicated there were "many unknowns" in the demolition of old buildings and determining the appropriate plumbing supply systems.  However, Mr. Patrick agreed to review and develop a greater level of confidence in the costs. 

 

REMODEL CULINARY CLIPPER ROOM, NORTHERN NEVADA CORRECTIONAL CENTER (CIP 01-M32)

 

Mr. Patrick identified CIP 01-M32 as a $167,742 project to upgrade equipment and remodel the aged culinary clipper room at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC).  Mr. Glab commented on existing conditions in the clipper room, which was in the culinary area where the dishes were washed.  Mr. Glab specifically advised that the floors were continually wet and humidity had created many problems. 

 

REPLACE WINDOWS IN HOUSING UNITS 1-4, NORTHERN NEVADA CORRECTIONAL CENTER (CIP 01-M33)

 

Mr. Patrick identified CIP 01-M33 as a project that would replace windows in housing units 1-4 at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC).  A 1995 project had been funded to replace windows at NNCC, and the reversion date by the 1999 legislature was extended.  Mr. Patrick cited a "desperate need" to replace the windows at NNCC indicating the current windows were not functional.  Mr. Patrick explained that the 1995 project had not been implemented because of a change in administration at the facility.  Mr. Patrick indicated that since the replacement of windows was not considered a life/safety issue and there had been significant design issues, the project had not been considered a priority.  Funding for the previous project had been reverted, and Mr. Patrick advised that the recommendation was to fund the project, which had previously been established as warranted.

 

TEMPERATURE CONTROL SYSTEMS RENOVATIONS, NORTHERN NEVADA CORRECTIONAL CENTER (CIP 01-M34)

 

Mr. Patrick identified CIP 01-M34 as a project that would provide an assessment and renovation of the existing electronic controls of the air-handling units that provided heating and cooling in the five oldest housing units at NNCC.  The existing controls were more than 20 years old and were not providing proper control of the air-handling units.  Mr. Patrick advised that the estimated $98,937 for the project was needed to provide both a comfort level and energy efficiency.

 

GAS PIPING REPLACEMENT, NEVADA STATE PRISON (CIP 01-M35)

 

Mr. Patrick advised that in the process of removing and upgrading piping in an emergency project at the Nevada State Prison (NSP), gas piping adjacent to the emergency project was discovered to be in disrepair and funding of $127,347 was recommended to replace the deteriorated piping.  Also recommended within the project was funding of $20,000 to consolidate existing gas meters into a single meter that would allow billing for both the Warm Springs Correctional Center and Nevada State Prison and would provide price advantages in the rate structure.

 

EMERGENCY GENERATOR REPLACEMENT, SOUTHERN DESERT CORRECTIONAL CENTER (CIP 01-M36)

 

Mr. Patrick identified the CIP 01-M36 project as an emergency generator replacement at Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC) and requested that the project be held in abeyance while PWB staff evaluated a recommendation to supply emergency power from the High Desert State Prison (HDSP) to SDCC.  Mr. Patrick requested time to provide comment to staff on the alternate recommendation.

 

REPLACE VEHICLE SALLYPORT GATES, SOUTHERN DESERT CORRECTIONAL CENTER (CIP 01-M37)

 

Mr. Patrick identified CIP 01-M37 as a $225,548 project to replace sallyport gates that had not functioned properly since inmates, using a garbage truck, drove through the gates during an escape attempt.  Mr. Patrick indicated that the project had been previously recommended; however, funding had not been authorized.  Additionally, Mr. Patrick advised of the difficulty in operation of the gates and addressed the concern that staff could incur physical harm.  Mr. Glab indicated the gates had been repaired at the time the inmates tried to escape and many times thereafter; however, new gates were requested so that efforts could be directed to other areas.

 

Chairman Arberry questioned whether money from the Inmate Welfare Fund could be used to replace the gates.  Janet Johnson, Assistant Director, Support Services, Department of Prisons, identified herself for the record and advised that while insurance money was used for the initial repair, the gates were old and had continued to deteriorate.  Insofar as the Inmate Welfare Fund, which resulted from A.B. 389 of the Sixty-Eighth Session and authorized the director of the Department of Prisons to charge an offender for certain additional costs by authorizing the transfer of money from the offenders' store fund, Ms. Johnson said that during the development of the budget, A.B. 389 had not been reconciled with a number of issues still outstanding.  Subsequently, A.B. 389 was reconciled and currently solvent; however, during the budget process, Ms. Johnson said it was not clear a commitment could be made to use any funds.

 

Mr. Marvel asked what amount of money was in the inmate welfare fund.  Ms. Johnson indicated approximately $900,000 was budgeted of which approximately $580,000 was targeted for start-up for the following fiscal year, and the balance would be used for A.B. 389 paybacks from 1998, 1999 and 2000.  Mr. Marvel questioned the amount currently on the books for paybacks.  Ms. Johnson indicated the figures were approximately $166,000 for one year and $380,000 for the other years.  Ms. Johnson advised that the figures had been provided to the subcommittee's staff. 

 

Chairman Arberry questioned whether the department currently had an insurance policy that would cover similar future incidents.  Ms. Johnson advised there had been insurance money of approximately $20,000 to repair the gate about five or six years ago.  However, Ms. Johnson advised that the gate had deteriorated since that period through normal "wear and tear." 

 

UPGRADE PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE AREA, SOUTHERN DESERT CORRECTIONAL CENTER (CIP 01-M38)

 

Mr. Patrick discussed the "massive" amount of foot traffic that went through the entrance area at Southern Desert Correctional Center and described one particular vinyl tile that was completely worn through to the concrete beneath which was also deteriorated. The $53,861 project was to remove and install three doors, actuated each time an individual walked through the sallyport, a new control panel, and miscellaneous electrical and door operators. 

 

HEATING, VENTILATION AND AIR-CONDITIONING (HVAC) SYSTEM RENOVATION, WARM SPRINGS CORRECTIONAL CENTER (CIP 01-M39)

 

Mr. Patrick identified the $309,571 project as a recommendation to replace existing heating and air conditioning equipment that served the multi-purpose building at the Warm Springs Correctional Center.  Mr. Patrick indicated the existing equipment was more than 20 years old and had reached the end of its useful life. 

 

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS, SNCC, LOVELOCK CORRECTIONAL CENTER (LCC), PIOCHE CONSERVATION CAMP (PCC), AND ELY CONSERVATION CAMP (ECC) (CIP 01-M40)

 

Mr. Patrick advised that the balance of the prison projects M40 through M43 were projects that were reverted to supply funding for the High Desert State Prison construction completion.  The $368,195 recommended for Project 01‑M40 was for sewage treatment improvements for the Department of Prisons statewide and included Southern Nevada Correctional Center, Pioche Conservation Camp, Ely and Lovelock Conservation Camps.  Mr. Patrick advised that the project had been previously approved and substantiated and was recommended by the PWB for approval.

 

REPLACE PERIMETER RAZOR WIRE, SOUTHERN DESERT CORRECTIONAL CENTER (CIP 01-M41)

 

Mr. Patrick identified CIP 01-M41 as a $286,801 project to replace perimeter security razor wire at Southern Desert Correctional Center.  Chairman Arberry advised the PWB to be aware they would receive a letter from staff requesting a complete accounting of the manner in which the funds approved by the 1997 legislature for CIP 97-M6L had been expended.

 

REPAIR FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLIES, SOUTHERN NEVADA CORRECTIONAL CENTER (CIP 01-M42)

 

Mr. Patrick identified CIP 01-M42 as a $91,059 project to repair fire hydrant assemblies at Jean Southern Nevada Correctional Center.  Mr. Patrick explained that damage had occurred "to the barrel section of the piping that may have been caused by the gravel bed at the weep hole."  The project had been previously substantiated and was considered a life/safety and insurance issue for control of damage to property.

 

Chairman Arberry noted that $20,948 was included in a line item entitled "Prison Security" and questioned whether those costs could be deleted from the project since the facility would not be occupied at the time the repairs were made.  Mr. Patrick agreed that the PWB would reevaluate the costs and would provide a revised cost estimate to staff.

 

REPAIR HOUSING UNIT WING GATES, UNITS 1-7, SOUTHERN DESERT CORRECTIONAL CENTER (CIP 01-M43)

 

Mr. Patrick identified CIP 01-M43 as a $300,768 project to repair the housing unit wing gates at the Southern Desert Correctional Center.  Mr. Patrick advised the project to repair the wing gates was identified during the shower room project that had been previously addressed during the hearing.  Mr. Patrick explained that the mechanical portions of the wing gates were within the shower rooms as designed in the housing units, and the project was to replace the gate assemblies which included gears, motor operators, and recommended linkages. 

 

Chairman Arberry advised the PWB representatives to expect a letter from staff requesting a complete accounting of the manner in which the funds approved by the 1999 legislature for CIP 99-M29 were expended.

 

STATE PUBLIC WORKS BOARD STATEWIDE PROJECTS

 

Chairman Arberry advised that statewide projects would be rescheduled to the next meeting of the Subcommittee on Higher Education/CIP.  With no additional business before the subcommittee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:48 a.m.

 

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Connie Davis

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

 

 

DATE: