MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
AND THE
Senate Committee on Finance
JOINT Subcommittee on Higher Education/CIP
Seventy-Second Session
March 14, 2003
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, Joint Subcommittee on Higher Education/CIP, was called to order at 8:12 a.m., on Friday, March 14, 2003. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Assembly COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairman
Mr. Walter Andonov
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Richard Perkins
Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Barbara Cegavske
Senator Bernice Mathews
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Gary Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
Rick Combs, Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Connie Davis, Committee Secretary
Linda Smith, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Refer to Exhibit B.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS DETAIL BY PROJECT -
Chairman Arberry recognized Daniel K. O’Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board (SPWB).
Chairman Arberry noted that a document titled “Revised Project Cost Estimates for CIP Hearing, Friday, March 14” (Exhibit C), was provided to the Subcommittee’s staff at 4:00 p.m. on the previous afternoon. Chairman Arberry pointed out that material provided just prior to a hearing did not provide the Subcommittee an opportunity for review, and he requested that in the future any material for the Subcommittee be submitted in a timely manner.
Mr. O’Brien agreed.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PETROLEUM LAB ADDITION (CIP 03-CI8)
Mr. O’Brien reported that the Petroleum Laboratory project was a legislative addition to the Capital Improvement Program that had been funded for advance planning in 1999 under CIP 99-S4FL. Construction documents were completed in the spring of 2001.
Mr. O’Brien advised the members of the Subcommittee that CIP 03-C18 was a request for a 3,400 square-foot concrete block addition to house the northern Nevada Petroleum Laboratory at the existing Measurement Standards facility in Sparks, Nevada. Mr. O’Brien indicated the current facility, with hallways full of laboratory equipment, was excessively overcrowded and insufficient for the laboratory work.
The proposal also included code improvements to the Division of Measurement Standards’ facility such as, sprinklers, alarm systems, backflow protection installation for the water supply, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) restroom modifications, and asbestos abatement. As previously indicated, the construction documents were completed, and the Public Works Board representatives indicated they were ready to go forward with the project. Mr. O’Brien turned the microphone over to Steven Grabski, Administrator, Division of Measurement Standards.
Steven Grabski identified himself for the record and introduced Don Henderson, Acting Director for the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Grabski reiterated Mr. O’Brien’s opening remarks concerning the addition of the new laboratory to the Weights and Measures facility in Sparks, Nevada, on land he indicated was in excess of ten acres. Mr. Grabski also indicated he believed there were plans at one time to place a state office building complex on the site, and the new Petroleum Laboratory would facilitate the beginning of that office complex.
Mr. Grabski turned to a photograph in the Department of Agriculture document, (Exhibit D), which illustrated the crowded conditions at the Petroleum Laboratory and said the main purpose of the project was to free space at the Department of Agriculture’s Reno office. Mr. Grabski indicated that as new technology was developed and new equipment was needed, there would be no space to house the equipment.
Mr. Grabski stated that the Petroleum Laboratory often received a large number of samples and there was no room available to store them, which created “a chain of custody problem.” Another advantage to adding the Petroleum Laboratory to the Weights and Measures building included having the Bureau of Weights and Measures in one location, which Mr. Grabski said would eliminate some of the “chain of custody” problems as well as driving back and forth across town with laboratory work.
Chairman Arberry noted that S.B. 189, which had been referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation, would provide for biennial inspection and testing of emissions of later model motor vehicles in Clark County, rather than the annual inspection currently required. Chairman Arberry questioned whether the passage of S.B. 189 would impact the ability of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Account to fund CIP 03-C18.
Mr. Grabski responded that the DMV had projected that CIP 03-C18 would not be impacted by passage of S.B. 189, and the reserve would be intact at the end of the construction phase. However, if the $7.00 smog fee were not enacted through passage of S.B. 189, Mr. Grabski indicated a deficit in the reserve would occur by 2005.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OFFICE BUILDING – PLANNING CIP 03-P3
In response to a question from Chairman Arberry concerning the new 40,000 square-foot facility, Mr. Grabski indicated that the firm of Casazza Peetz & Associates conducted a space survey in 1997 based on:
Chairman Arberry asked whether federal dollars were available for the project.
Don Henderson, Acting Director, Department of Agriculture, responded that representatives of the Department of Agriculture would look for opportunities for federal dollars, but thus far, none had been presented.
When questioned by the Chairman concerning the federal agencies that were interested in moving into the building, Mr. Grabski indicated that the USDA Veterinary Services Office and the State Predatory Animal and Rodent Committee had expressed an interest in moving into the building.
Mr. Henderson advised that CIP 03-P3 was currently a design and planning project, and if the project was funded and the Department moved ahead with planning, some of the questions being asked would be worked out in the process.
Chairman Arberry addressed Project Management and Inspection fees and noted that approximately 17.3 percent of the advance planning project costs was attributable to the Board’s Project Management and Inspection fees. Chairman Arberry asked the SPWB representatives why the Management and Inspection Fees made up such a large portion of the project costs for an advance planning project.
Evan Dale, Deputy Manager, Administration and Finance, SPWB, identified himself for the record. Mr. Dale explained that the SPWB’s method for calculating fees was based on a sliding scale that charged a higher percentage of Project Management and Inspection fees on smaller projects and a smaller percent of the same fees on larger projects. The Advance Planning for CIP 03‑P3 was a small project, and, therefore, Mr. Dale indicated the effort that the SPWB staff would be putting into the project in relation to the cost was a higher ratio than it would be on a larger project.
In response to concern expressed by Chairman Arberry that the fees seemed unreasonably high for a project on which construction had not yet begun, Mr. Dale reiterated his earlier comments concerning the ratio of Project Management and Inspection fees to the cost of the project. Mr. Dale explained that a large dollar base existed during the construction phase to which Project Management and Inspection fees were compared, however, the advance planning process included consulting fees and work on the part of the Project Manager to program the project and work with the agency. Mr. Dale indicated that to see a smaller percentage of fees, the base would have to be driven up by a lot of material coming into the project.
Gustavo Nunez, Deputy Manager, Professional Services, SPWB, identified himself for the record. Mr. Nunez advised that the project cost estimate for construction of the facility was approximately $8.7 million, and the fees could be determined based on the total construction cost. Mr. Nunez said that normally a third of the Project Management and Inspection fees were assessed during the planning and design stage, a third for construction, and the last third at completion. Mr. Nunez indicated that the total fee would be determined once the project went to construction.
Chairman Arberry asked the SPWB representatives to address the reasons for the “Design Contingency and S.U.” and “Site Investigations” line items. Chairman Arberry noted that the Legislature had not budgeted for a design contingency in the past.
Mr. O’Brien requested time to look into the “Design Contingency” line item and indicated the information would be provided to the Subcommittee’s staff.
DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS – NEVADA STATE MUSEUM, ADA ACCESS – (CIP 03-C19)
Mr. O’Brien addressed CIP 03-C19, a project that would provide a new entrance and wheelchair accessibility to the Nevada State Museum in Carson City. Mr. O’Brien advised the Subcommittee that currently the only wheelchair accessible entrance was a freight elevator on the south side of the building.
Mr. O’Brien defined the freight elevator as demeaning to visitors with disabilities, and he said that oftentimes if the Museum had a large group of visitors, staff might take as long as thirty minutes to respond to the call for assistance.
Scott Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Cultural Affairs, identified himself for the record. Mr. Sisco indicated he was before the Subcommittee to present the Capital Improvement Projects for the Department of Cultural Affairs, which included two construction projects and seven maintenance projects. Mr. Sisco distributed the Department of Cultural Affairs’ presentation document (Exhibit E).
Chairman Arberry noted that the Revised Project Cost document, submitted to staff the previous day, eliminated funding for furnishings, equipment, and the roof maintenance agreement; however, the total funding request remained the same. Chairman Arberry asked for an explanation concerning the total project funding.
Mr. O’Brien explained that the project funding was realigned after funding for furnishings, equipment, and the roof maintenance agreement was determined unnecessary. The funding that had been eliminated was placed back into the project for construction and soils analysis. Construction that affected the front of the building required soils analysis, which had not been originally included in the project cost estimate.
In response to questions from Chairman Arberry concerning the eliminated funding, Mr. O’Brien indicated that a lack of sufficient construction funding was always a concern, and the SPWB would stay within the recommended funding of $287,885, since it appeared the construction costs originally listed were too low.
Mr. O’Brien expressed some concern about the cost of construction for the front of the State Museum, since there were so many variables for the entrance and because construction plans had not yet been completed. Mr. O’Brien explained that the SPWB had reviewed the cost per square foot to blend a new entrance into the building that would be sealed off and which would accommodate perhaps a ramp, a chair lift, stairway, lobby, or a vestibule, which he indicated was difficult to estimate.
When Chairman Arberry questioned how often funding was moved around in cost estimates, Mr. O’Brien responded that while the SPWB tried not to move funding around, there were times when it was necessary. He explained that while they tried not to take funding from areas that needed it and tried to provide the best estimates possible on the breakdowns, contingencies were always encountered that they had been unaware of, and they needed the flexibility.
Chairman Arberry requested a cost per square foot breakdown on building construction costs.
Mr. O’Brien responded that while they could attempt to accommodate the request, the SPWB still remained uncertain concerning the number of square feet involved in the project. Mr. O’Brien agreed to provide an estimate based on a guess concerning the square footage.
Chairman Arberry suggested that perhaps the construction funding for the project could be deferred until the 2005 Legislative Session.
Mr. O’Brien responded that the CIP 03-C19 was a small project and indicated that delaying the project was not in the best interests of the state.
Chairman Arberry pointed out that construction was not expected to begin until fiscal year 2006, and again addressed deferring funding construction costs until the 2005 Legislative Session.
Mr. O’Brien agreed to review the suggestion and indicated that perhaps there was an opportunity to defer the construction costs.
Mr. Dale added that the SPWB had planned to raise funding for the project in fiscal year 2005, which he indicated was when the project was scheduled to begin.
Rick Combs, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, identified himself for the record and pointed out that the cash flow statement in the CIP binder indicated that the construction costs for CIP 03-C19 would not be expended until fiscal year 2006.
Mr. O’Brien indicated the SPWB would review the cash flow statement and respond to the Subcommittee’s staff.
Mr. Sisco emphasized the importance of the project and turned to page 1 of the Department of Cultural Affairs’ presentation document (Exhibit E), which showed a photograph of the Museum’s current handicap access. Mr. Sisco discussed a recent incident in which he witnessed a wheelchair-bound individual moving back and forth in front of the Museum trying to capture the attention of the security guard located inside the front entrance. Mr. Sisco described the concrete steps going up about ten feet to the guard station and said that he and the security guard assisted the individual to the rear of the Museum and “jockeyed” the wheelchair into the freight elevator to get the visitor into the building.
Mr. Sisco indicated that relocating the main entrance and adding a wheelchair lift was a “very important” project for the Department of Cultural Affairs. Mr. Sisco pointed out that it was not only difficult for handicapped visitors to enter the Museum, but that entering the building on a freight elevator was degrading.
In response to questions from Chairman Arberry and Ms. Giunchigliani concerning the use of a ramp, Mr. Sisco reiterated that there were at least ten feet of concrete steps leading to the current main entrance, which would require too many switchbacks to be functional. Mr. Sisco pointed out that three loops were used for the Division Administrator’s office located almost at street level behind the Nevada State Museum.
In response to questions from Ms. Giunchigliani concerning the ten feet of concrete steps, Mr. Sisco clarified that the steps in front of the Nevada State Museum were original to the building, and there had been no remodel in the last 20 years. While a ramp would work on the north side of the building, Mr. Sisco reiterated that a ramp in front of the building would require too many switchbacks to be useful. Additionally, Mr. Sisco indicated the north side of the building left something for future planning since the building would someday be connected to the adjacent building, formerly occupied by the bank. Mr. Sisco pointed out that visitors currently departed the main building to visit the exhibits in that second part of the Museum.
Mr. O’Brien addressed a photograph on page 1 of the Department’s presentation document (Exhibit E) that showed the Museum’s north entrance. Mr. O’Brien indicated there was a possibility of a ramp within the north entrance as well as a chair lift; however, he said that while the project was small, it was complicated and problems concerning ongoing chair lift maintenance and ice and snow on the north side of the building would be addressed during the design phase of the project.
Mr. Goldwater expressed concern that funding was being requested for a project that would not be constructed until 2006, which he indicated appeared to be an ongoing problem with capital improvement projects. Additionally, Mr. Goldwater expressed concern over the SPWB’s practice of eliminating costs for one line item only to have those costs reappear in another line item, which raised questions concerning savings and expenditures. Mr. Goldwater expressed a lack of confidence in the SPWB cost estimating process.
DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS – COMSTOCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION OFFICE – (CIP 03-C52)
Ronald M. James, State Historic Preservation Officer and Historian, State Historic Preservation Office, Department of Cultural Affairs, Library and Arts, identified himself for the record.
Mr. James testified that there was an allocation within the CIP budget to build a facility for the Comstock Historic District Commission. Currently, the office was housed in a 300 square-foot building that was not ADA compliant and required, because of its small size, contractors to present their plans to staff on the hoods of pickup trucks in the parking lot. Mr. James indicated such presentations became inappropriate during inclement weather.
Mr. James indicated the new facility would provide the Comstock Historic District with a better facility in which to work and would allow the fulfillment of the commitment that the state made to Virginia City to return Engine Number 27 for exhibition. Mr. James explained that the engine had resided in Virginia City for several decades after the Virginia & Truckee (V&T) Railroad donated it to the state. Since the engine had been in Virginia City for so many years, residents felt a sense of ownership toward it. Residents were supportive of the rehabilitation efforts and were looking forward to its return.
Mr. James indicated the return of Engine 27 to Virginia City would provide the state with “a wonderful billboard in a tourism venue” that attracted one million people a year. Mr. James indicated that the new Comstock Historic District Commission office would be used in conjunction with Engine 27, and Engine 27 would attract people to other venues throughout northern Nevada as well.
In response to questions from Chairman Arberry concerning whether any problems were anticipated in relocating Engine 27, Mr. James indicated the State Railroad Museum supported the idea of returning the engine to Virginia City for display.
Chairman Arberry noted that the project description did not indicate the location of the new office, and the project cost estimate did not include funding for site acquisition costs.
Mr. James explained that a private property owner promised to donate a piece of land that could be used for the new facility. Additionally, Mr. James indicated he had been working with the county, who had made a commitment to supply the land for the facility if they could find a better site than the property that had already been promised as a donation.
In response to an additional question from Chairman Arberry concerning the donation, Mr. James confirmed the donated property would be free of cost to the Comstock Historic District Commission Office.
Chairman Arberry also noted that a design for the facility had been partially completed by an architect who served as one of the District’s Commissioners. Since design services were provided at no cost, Chairman Arberry questioned why the project cost estimate included $43,308 for A/E Design and Supervision costs and questioned whether the design would be used.
Mr. James responded that the donated plans were concept elevations and did not provide detail. Mr. James further explained that the plans were simply a proposal concerning what the exterior might look like, and a more detailed plan was needed to identify such specifics as where electrical outlets would be placed.
Dan O’Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board, identified himself for the record and explained that $43,308 for A/E Design and Supervision was the cost for providing construction documents in order to bid the project. Mr. O’Brien pointed out that the design in the Department of Cultural Affairs’ presentation document (Exhibit E) on page 2 was only an illustration of the conceptual appearance of the building.
Mr. James advised that the conceptual drawing on page 2 of their presentation (Exhibit E) was the extent of the detail of the proposed plans and was not considered a construction document. However, Mr. James indicated the design was based on a V&T building that no longer existed. Glass panels, rather than the doors in the original building, would allow visitors to see the railroad engine when the building was not open.
Ms. Giunchigliani questioned the point at which architectural plans were signed off on by the group or person requesting a project.
Mr. O’Brien explained that the Comstock Historic District Commission was an integral part of the beginning of CIP 03-C52 to actually develop a project that met their needs.
Ms. Giunchigliani clarified that she had been speaking about signing off on plans before going through the bidding process.
Mr. O’Brien explained that once the design development process was completed, the agency would sign off on the plans before moving on to construction drawings when the architects and the engineers started putting their details together.
Ms. Giunchigliani recalled being in another meeting with Mr. O’Brien when it was determined the SPWB had entered the bidding process before the plans had been signed off on which caused change orders. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated she wanted to ensure that bids for projects were not released before agency representatives had an opportunity to sign off on the plans.
Mr. O’Brien indicated that plans were reviewed before the bidding process began.
Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out that reviewing and signing off on the plans were two different things.
Mr. O’Brien indicated discussions had taken place concerning getting something in writing to avoid situations where a new agency or department head made changes in drawings that had been signed by a predecessor or where a verbal agreement had been provided.
Ms. Giunchigliani suggested a regulation was needed that required signing or initialing plans before the bidding process.
Mr. O’Brien agreed and reiterated that discussions had taken place concerning the problems those types of changes had caused. Mr. O’Brien indicated the SPWB wanted to know when someone said they did not have a chance to review the documents, why they did not, or whether the project manager or architect had been remiss.
In response to a question from Ms. Giunchigliani concerning whether the plans would be signed or initialed, Mr. O’Brien discussed initiating a process wherein a set of plans would be “acknowledged” on a particular date.
Ms. Giunchigliani indicated that reviewing plans before signing off and putting the work out to bid provided a way of catching needed changes. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated she wanted to know that there was definitely a process and a project was not put out to bid before the plans had been signed.
Mr. O’Brien agreed to develop a process that would be provided for the Subcommittee’s information.
In a follow-up statement, Mr. James indicated that the Commission would review the Comstock Historic District Commission office plans. Additionally, Mr. James assured the Committee that the new facility would be successful and “a winner for the state.”
Mr. Sisco, on behalf of the Department, expressed his appreciation for the maintenance items included in the Governor’s recommended Capital Improvement Program. As a small agency receiving allocations from the General Fund, Mr. Sisco said the Department of Cultural Affairs had always struggled to obtain the funds for their maintenance needs, which were even more critical this year due to the budget crisis.
Mr. Sisco indicated the Department was particularly encouraged by the Governor’s priority to take care of state-owned buildings over new construction. As seen in the photographs included in the Department’s handout (Exhibit E), Mr. Sisco said the projects were critical to public safety and protecting the state’s investment.
DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS – LAS VEGAS MUSEUM FACILITY MAINTENANCE PROJECTS – (CIP 03-M12)
Mr. Sisco addressed the Governor’s recommendation to fund $156,480 for facility maintenance projects at the Nevada State Museum and Historical Society in Las Vegas, which included:
Mr. Sisco explained that the Nevada State Museum and Historical Society was housed in a building that was 21 years old and in which the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning unit (HVAC) required considerable work.
Chairman Arberry noted that Question 1, approved by the voters in the November 2002 election, authorized the Legislature to issue General Obligation Bonds for a new museum at the Las Vegas Springs Preserve. Chairman Arberry questioned how the current museum facility would be used once the new museum was constructed.
Mr. Sisco responded that the work, especially on the HVAC, lighting, and security system, would be required for the two and a half years the Museum would be housed in the building while the new Museum was built. Otherwise, Mr. Sisco said the Department faced the possibility of a situation in which an emergency replacement for the same equipment would be considerably more expensive. Additionally, Mr. Sisco indicated the state was interested in holding on to the facility. Three biennia ago, Mr. Sisco explained the Department requested and planned for a Southern Nevada Records Center. However, competing priorities within the Capital Improvement Program prevented the establishment of the Southern Nevada Records Center. Mr. Sisco reported that figures had been developed to show that the Southern Nevada Records Center, Nevada Arts Council, Nevada Humanities, as well as the Nevada Blind and Physically Handicapped offices, could be placed in the current facility housing the Nevada State Museum and Historical Society.
Mr. Sisco reported that at one time Clark County had been interested in purchasing the facility, however, after reading the lease, Clark County determined that if the state moved out, they wanted to take over the building “free and clear.” Mr. Sisco indicated a new facility to house the Southern Nevada Records Center had been projected to cost approximately $8 million. He indicated it would be fiscally responsible to reuse the Las Vegas facility instead of building a new facility. Additionally, Mr. Sisco stated that the $156,000 to correct the current problems was a good investment in the facility.
Chairman Arberry expressed concern that the project cost estimate included $31,973 for carpet replacement that was to be funded through the issuance of General Obligation Bonds.
Mr. Sisco discussed the settlement of several lawsuits for visitors who had been hurt at various Department facilities. As a General Fund agency, Mr. Sisco reiterated that the Department had fought for maintenance funding in the past and said that most of the Museum’s budgets had maintenance budgets of less than $8,000 a year to maintain a 40,000 square-foot building. Mr. Sisco indicated that in the past projects that were less than $50,000 were placed in one-shot requests. However, because the funding for the Department was provided through the General Fund and the Department had to compete with everyone else in the state, they never received the funding.
Mr. Sisco pointed out that some of the maintenance projects would have at one time cost less than $50,000, however, a $156,000 project funded by General Obligation Bonds and paid for by 5 or 6 percent interest over time would most likely be less expensive than another lawsuit.
Chairman Arberry indicated he preferred not to set a precedent by using General Obligation Bonds for maintenance and carpeting projects.
Mr. Sisco indicated that all seven projects that followed were maintenance projects.
Senator Raggio pointed out that the Subcommittee had previously requested a prioritization of the maintenance projects since some projects might be deferred. Senator Raggio asked if the list had been prepared and, if not, when the Subcommittee could expect it.
Mr. O’Brien advised that the State Public Works Board could provide a prioritization of maintenance projects.
Senator Raggio emphasized the need for a prioritized list of recommended projects within the next ten days since the Committees would begin closing budgets in the near future.
While Mr. O’Brien indicated he could provide a list, he pointed out that all of the maintenance projects were considered priority projects.
Senator Raggio expressed the Subcommittee’s understanding that all of the maintenance projects were desirable, however, reiterated that some projects might be cut and requested that the SPWB indicate a prioritized list of maintenance projects.
Mr. O’Brien agreed.
In response to earlier comments concerning funding the carpeting project with General Obligation Bonds, Mr. O’Brien recalled that cash had been available to fund the Capital Improvement Program during the 71st Legislative Session. While it made more sense to fund carpet replacement with cash, Mr. O’Brien indicated cash was not an available option for the CIP projects during the 72nd Legislative Session.
Mr. Sisco pointed to the projects contained in the Department’s handout (Exhibit E) and noted that the Department of Cultural Affairs had cut down to the “absolute critical projects” that they felt had to be accomplished for the Department to avoid more costly future projects or public liability issues.
DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS – REPLACE WOODEN WALKWAYS – EAST ELY RR DEPOT MUSEUM – (CIP 03-M13)
Mr. Sisco addressed the Governor’s recommendation to replace wooden walkways at the East Ely Railroad Depot Museum for a cost of $131,292.
Mr. Sisco said the project had been needed for two previous biennia, and turning to Critical Needs on page 4 of the Department’s handout (Exhibit E), Mr. Sisco pointed out the first cost estimate in fiscal year 2000 was estimated at $36,700 while the current estimate was $131,292.
Mr. Sisco explained that the State Public Works Board had reviewed the project as part of the Governor’s priority on maintenance projects, and page 4 of the handout (Exhibit E) showed a photograph of the sidewalk. Mr. Sisco told the Subcommittee members he had just learned from the Attorney General’s staff that a lawsuit brought against the state, concerning an accident on the sidewalk, might be settled for $50,000, which he said would have paid for a third of the project.
Chairman Arberry noted that the project included a feasibility study and questioned whether the feasibility study would address ADA concerns only.
Mr. O’Brien indicated the feasibility study would only address ADA concerns to the site, but he said that SPWB representatives would also be looking at how the entire site was accessed from parking areas. Mr. O’Brien indicated that in a recent discussion, SPWB representatives were hopeful the project would be less expensive than originally projected.
Chairman Arberry questioned whether the portion of the project addressing ADA concerns should be funded through the statewide ADA Program (CIP 03-S2).
Mr. O’Brien recalled that during the 71st Legislative Session, the SPWB was asked by the Committee to move statewide program issues into specific projects so that the Committee had a better idea of the total project cost. Mr. O’Brien recalled that asbestos removal had been moved from the statewide program to a specific project. However, Mr. O’Brien said that the ADA portion of the project could be moved, if that was what the Committee desired.
Mr. Combs recalled that during the previous session, the Committee recommended that costs for asbestos abatement be placed into one project. In reference to the project at the East Ely Railroad Depot, Mr. Combs indicated it appeared the project could be accomplished without the feasibility study. Additionally, Mr. Combs questioned whether the project’s ADA issues would be more appropriately addressed through the ADA Program or the Facilities Condition Analysis Program.
Mr. O’Brien indicated that the portion of the project concerning the feasibility study to determine ADA issues could be addressed through the statewide ADA Program.
In response to a question from Senator Raggio concerning the number of visitors to the East Ely Railroad Depot Museum, Mr. Sisco recalled there were approximately 36,000 visitors a year. However, he said the East Ely Railroad Depot Museum was part of a complex that included the Northern Nevada Railroad, which drew another 150,000 visitors who also utilized the wooden walkways at the East Ely Railroad Depot Museum. Additionally, Mr. Sisco pointed out that the wooden walkways were utilized by 96 percent of the school children in White Pine County.
DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS - REPLACE EXISTING ASBESTOS FLOORING – NEVADA STATE MUSEUM, CARSON CITY – (CIP 03-M14)
Mr. Sisco turned to photographs on page 5 of the Department’s handout (Exhibit E) and reported that CIP 03-M14 would provide for the replacement of asbestos floor tile and worn carpeting that would meet the requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
The photographs showed that duct tape had been used on the worn carpeting and asbestos tiles. Mr. Sisco pointed out that the cost estimates had increased from projections in fiscal year 2000 to the current request.
Chairman Arberry questioned whether any efficiencies could be achieved by combining CIP 03-M14 and CIP 03-C19, ADA Access projects.
Mr. O’Brien agreed that combining the projects would achieve some efficiency and indicated there were other projects, such as CIP 03-M67 for the Department of Cultural Affairs’ Repair of Exterior of Nevada State Museum, and CIP 03-M33 for Department of Cultural Affairs HVAC System Upgrades that could be combined. Mr. O’Brien pointed out that combining projects would be helpful specifically because Museum artifacts and display cases should only be moved once.
Chairman Arberry requested that the SPWB provide staff with cost estimates for combining the projects.
Mr. O’Brien agreed to provide cost estimates to staff.
DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS – HVAC SYSTEM UPGRADES – CALHOUN WING, CARSON CITY – (CIP 03-M33)
Mr. Sisco turned to photographs on page 6 of the Department’s handout (Exhibit E) and reported that CIP 03-M33 would replace the existing roof‑mounted air conditioning units at the Nevada State Museum in Carson City. Mr. Sisco reported that the existing heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) system was 33 years old and had lasted well beyond its 20‑year life expectancy. Mr. Sisco pointed out that the cost estimate for replacement had increased dramatically since first projected in fiscal year 2002.
Chairman Arberry questioned whether the costs for an HVAC maintenance agreement should be included if the project was approved by the 2003 Legislature.
Mr. O’Brien agreed to look into the cost of a maintenance agreement.
Senator Raggio pointed out that he was concerned with funding an HVAC maintenance agreement with General Obligation Bonds.
Mr. O’Brien advised that past policy included maintenance agreements, especially for new mechanical systems.
Senator Raggio strongly expressed his objection to funding maintenance agreements through General Obligation Bonds and suggested that past policy be reviewed.
In response to questions from Mr. Sisco concerning funding the maintenance agreements, Senator Raggio indicated that maintenance agreements should be included in the Department’s operating budget and should not be bonded.
Mr. Sisco indicated he would confer with the Subcommittee’s staff concerning the adjustment.
DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS – UPGRADE CONTROLS, VALVES & VENTILATION BOXES – MUSEUM, LAS VEGAS (CIP 03-M47)
Mr. Sisco turned to page 7 of the Department’s handout (Exhibit E) and reported that Project CIP 03-M47 provided for replacement of environment controls and control valves for the HVAC system for the Nevada State Museum and Historical Society in Las Vegas. Mr. Sisco stated the maintenance needs were identified in the last SPWB Facility Condition Analysis report.
Mr. Sisco reiterated earlier testimony that the Nevada State Museum and Historical Society in Las Vegas was housed in the building that the Department hoped to retain.
DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS – REPAIR EXTERIOR OF NEVADA STATE MUSEUM, CARSON CITY – (CIP 03-M67)
Mr. Sisco turned to page 8 of the Department’s handout (Exhibit E) and reported that CIP 03-M67 provided for exterior repairs to the Nevada State Museum. Maintenance needs identified in a 1998 SPWB Facilities Condition Analysis report included repair of broken windows, replacement of roof shingles and gutters, grout masonry walls, and repair loosening sandstone blocks.
Mr. Sisco stated the cost estimates had increased from $376,584 in fiscal year 2002 to the current estimate of $653,475.
Chairman Arberry questioned the need for architecture and engineering design and supervision fees since the project did not include a remodel or expansion to the existing facility.
Mr. O’Brien responded that construction documents were required in order to put the project out to bid.
In response to a question from Chairman Arberry concerning the $74,000 for painting the building, Mr. O’Brien advised that the SPWB could provide a better breakdown on the cost of the painting.
Chairman Arberry asked Mr. O’Brien to provide the cost breakdown to staff.
In response to a question from Mr. O’Brien concerning whether CIP 03-M67 was one of the projects the Committee would like to see combined as one Museum project, Chairman Arberry indicated it was.
Senator Raggio noted that the project cost estimate indicated that 24 window units would be repaired at a cost of $5,400 per unit while the project description indicated that the project would include the replacement of windows. Senator Raggio asked for clarification on whether the windows would be repaired or replaced.
Mr. Sisco responded that the existing single-pane windows would be replaced with double-pane windows that would be compatible with the historical significance of the building.
DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS – REMOVE ASBESTOS AND REPLACE FLOORING, LOST CITY MUSEUM – (CIP 03-M68)
Mr. Sisco turned to page 9 of the Department’s handout (Exhibit E) and reported that CIP 03-M68 provided for asbestos abatement at the Lost City Museum in Overton, Nevada. Replacement of ceiling and flooring was recommended to meet United States Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements, as identified in the last SPWB Facilities Condition Analysis report.
In response to questions from Senator Raggio concerning how the removal of ceilings and flooring ranked in the Department’s priority list, Mr. Sisco advised that while the project ranked number 9 on the list, the state risked a liability by not correcting the problem. However, Mr. Sisco agreed that the project could be postponed for two years.
Bob Stoldal, Chairman, Board of Museums and History, identified himself for the record and told the Committee he had watched with growing concern the limited maintenance budget that, he believed, placed the state and the citizens of Nevada in jeopardy. Mr. Stoldal testified that the funding requested for maintenance items was not for cosmetic items but was necessary to meet legal requirements and to protect the state from further cost and liability.
Mr. Stoldal expressed the Museum Board’s collective support and his personal support for the maintenance projects. As a private citizen, Mr. Stoldal indicated he was before the Committee to support the most efficient and cost-effective way of accomplishing the work that needed to be done.
Robert A. Ostrovsky, Chairman, Commission for Cultural Affairs, who served as an Advisor to the Department of Cultural Affairs, identified himself for the record. Mr. Ostrovsky reported that the Commission met on March 13, 2003, and distributed $2 million in available bonding money for historic preservation. It was Mr. Ostrovsky’s opinion that all the projects relative to historic preservation helped promote tourism and bring visitors to Nevada.
With respect to the Comstock Historic District Commission office, CIP 03-C52, Mr. Ostrovsky indicated the Commission believed the project, if approved, would more than pay back the state’s investment in the building. Mr. Ostrovsky said the new building would attract tourism and would provide an improvement to the Comstock Historic District Commission and its ability to continue its developmental work to make the Comstock a desirable location for tourists and locals alike. Mr. Ostrovsky indicated the Commission felt very strongly that the cultural resources of the state needed to be protected and enhanced. Mr. Ostrovsky encouraged the Subcommittee to approve the project and allow Engine 27 to be returned to Virginia City.
Mr. Sisco advised that he had taken the time to do some research, and he confirmed that the steps in front of the Museum that Assemblywoman Giunchigliani had inquired about were original to the structure. Additionally, Mr. Sisco indicated the Nevada State Museum building was on the State Register and Federal Register of Historic Places.
In reference to questions Senator Raggio had concerning combining projects, Mr. Sisco advised the removal of asbestos and replacement of flooring for the Lost City Museum, CIP 03-M-68, had been combined with a residential house in Overton. Mr. Sisco explained that the house was leased to one of the Museum’s employees in order not to have to employ a 24-hour security guard. While the larger health hazard was in the residence, Mr. Sisco explained that the work would be combined to also remove asbestos from the Museum, which would save some funding.
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES – HATCHERY REFURBISHMENT, PHASE II – STATEWIDE – (CIP 03-C12)
Mr. O’Brien advised the members of the Subcommittee that CIP 03-C12 was the second phase of a capital improvement project that had been approved for the rehabilitation of statewide fish hatcheries during the 2001 Legislative Session. Mr. O’Brien recalled that a large presentation, concerning the condition of the hatcheries, was made during the 2001 Legislative Session, and funding for the project was provided through an increase in the trout stamp money and a variety of other sources. Mr. O’Brien introduced Gene Weller, Deputy Administrator, Division of Wildlife.
Mr. Weller testified that the state maintained four hatchery facilities and that it was determined some time ago the hatcheries were in need of major refurbishment. Mr. Weller introduced David L. Sanger, Fisheries Staff Biologist and Project Director, who was working with the architects and designers and provided a recap of the project.
Chairman Arberry noted that the project cost estimate included $270,113 for the purchase of fish and questioned whether revenue bonds would be issued to fund the fish purchase.
Mr. Weller reported that the project was being funded through a variety of funding sources that included the issuance of bonds as well as $350,000 a year in federal aid funds from the sport fish restoration program, and approximately $850,000 a year in trout stamp revenue.
In response to additional questions from Chairman Arberry concerning the purchase of fish through bonding revenue, Mr. Weller advised that while bonds were actually providing the revenue for the entire project, he could not say that a bond dollar would not pay for fish. However, Mr. Weller said that if bond revenue was spent for the purchase of fish, funding would be reimbursed either through trout stamp dollars or sport fish restoration dollars.
Chairman Arberry strongly emphasized that bonding revenue should not be authorized to fund the purchase of fish.
Mr. Weller expressed his understanding and reiterated that the purchase of fish would be funded through trout stamp dollars or federal aid dollars.
David L. Sanger, Fisheries Staff Biologist and Project Director, Division of Wildlife, identified himself for the record and discussed the presentation he had provided during the 2001 Legislative Session in which he pointed out the needs of the four fish hatchery facilities.
Mr. Sanger indicated he was before the Subcommittee to provide highlights on the sequence of events since the approval of the first phase of the project. After approval of the project by the 2001 Legislature, Mr. Sanger indicated Requests for Proposals (RFPs) were initiated for the lead architect and fisheries consultant, which resulted in contracts with Architects Plus and Fish Pro, which facilitated a review of the project and preliminary planning.
Mr. Sanger reported that work continued throughout the summer and into the fall of 2002 when an interlocal agreement was signed with the State Public Works Board to coordinate the efforts of the maintenance project and develop a contract for the fish purchase. Mr. Sanger clarified that fish would be purchased for only one production season for the Lake Mead Hatchery while it was down for a four -or five-month period during construction. Mr. Sanger explained that the Division was attempting to maintain statewide fish production, and the process required a “complicated and coordinated plan of action” since only one facility at a time was being addressed.
Mr. Sanger reported that during the fall of 2002, a basic schematic design plan for the Lake Mead Hatchery was developed and reviewed by the Administrator, Deputy Administrator, the Project Director, and the four hatchery managers in conjunction with Fish Pro, the fisheries consultant, and Architects Plus, the lead architect. Mr. Sanger explained that other agencies were also involved in the Lake Mead and Gallagher Hatcheries. The National Park Service’s involvement with the Lake Mead Hatchery stimulated an on-site evaluation and environmental assessment which had already begun, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was involved in research and engineering to develop solutions for a drop in elevation for the Gallagher Hatchery located at the Ruby Marsh in Elko.
Mr. Sanger further advised that biweekly teleconference calls and monthly meetings to review the plans had transpired with the hatchery managers and consultants, and at the latest meeting it was determined that 30 percent of the final design for the Lake Mead Hatchery had been completed. Mr. Sanger projected that 60 percent of the design for Lake Mead would be completed in two months. Additionally, Mr. Sanger indicated that work was proceeding on the Gallagher Hatchery, which would be developed through the same process that had transpired for the Lake Mead Hatchery.
Mr. Sanger expressed his enthusiasm for the project work in Phase I and his support for Phase II, which, if approved, would begin the actual refurbishment work.
Senator Raggio noted that during the 2001 Legislative Session, the costs for Phase II were projected at approximately $10.7 million, which included construction funding of $3.25 million, plus inflation for the Spring Creek Rearing Station. However, Senator Raggio indicated that it appeared the Spring Creek Rearing Station had been eliminated from the project, which he questioned.
Mr. Weller responded that the Division had held back on Spring Creek until the cost of the project could be determined, but they were now in a position to include Spring Creek in their estimates for construction.
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES – REHAB WESTERN REGION HEADQUARTERS FACILITY – CARSON CITY – (CIP 03-C16)
Mr. O’Brien pointed out that CIP 03-C16 was identified as rehabilitation of the Division of Forestry’s Western Region Headquarters facility in Carson City, however, the facility was actually on property at East Washoe Lake. The rehabilitation of the facility included repairs to and replacements for the existing HVAC system, a retrofit of the existing paint booth, and a remodel of some of the offices.
Steve Robinson, State Forester Firewarden, Division of Forestry, identified himself for the record, and reported that the East Lake facility was in a state of disrepair, particularly the heating and cooling system. Mr. Robinson indicated that a considerable amount of money was spent each year to repair the system. Mr. Robinson reported that in the previous year in excess of $30,000 was spent “to patchwork” the system.
Mr. O’Brien pointed out that there was approximately 6,000 square feet of flooring included in the project for replacement at $6.50 a square foot for a total of $39,000. Mr. O’Brien indicated he was uncertain concerning whether the current flooring would be replaced with carpeting or simply repaired and called on Mr. Robinson for clarification.
Mr. Robinson reported that the current carpeting was worn, stained, a tripping hazard, over ten years old, and was targeted for conversion to a hard floor surface.
Chairman Arberry noted that construction costs for the project would not be expended until fiscal year 2006 and questioned whether the project could be deferred for approval until the Legislature met again in 2005.
Mr. O’Brien responded that if the construction was deferred due to a lack of funding, it would be preferable to at least approve the design work so that when the project was approved, the SPWB could move forward quickly with the construction.
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES – - REPLACE FLOOR, JEAN CONSERVATION CAMP – JEAN – (CIP 03-M24)
Mr. O’Brien reported that the Jean Conservation Camp administrative office building, which was constructed in the 1980s, had a roof that had leaked and caused water damage to the interior ceiling and floors. The roof project was tied in with the statewide Roofing Program for $63,000 worth of roof repair. However, the work in CIP 03-M24 was related strictly to the replacement of the vinyl floor tile.
Mr. Robinson reported that the Jean Conservation Camp was typical of the camps built in the 1980s, which were basically built as temporary facilities.
Chairman Arberry noted that architecture, design, and supervision fees accounted for over 21 percent of the project costs and questioned why the replacement of 400 square feet of flooring would result in the need for over $3,500 in fees. Additionally, Chairman Arberry questioned whether conservation camp crews could complete the project as an agency project.
Mr. O’Brien responded that the project management could be delegated to the agency and that perhaps the project could be funded out of the agency’s operating budget since it was a small amount; however, that had not transpired and the project was included as a CIP. Mr. O’Brien deferred to Mr. Robinson for comment.
Mr. Robinson responded that the Conservation Camp crews had been involved in many projects from the ground up including building an elementary school. Mr. Robinson indicated that with the crew supervisors to supervise the project and the material, the project might be one they could do.
Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Robinson to review the project requirements and to work with the Subcommittee’s staff.
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES –ADDITION TO MULTIPURPOSE BUILDING, PCC – PIOCHE– (CIP 03-M52)
Mr. Robinson said that the addition to the multipurpose building in Pioche had been approved as CIP 01-M09 during the 2001 Legislative Session, however, funding was reverted to address the revenue shortfall during fiscal year 2002. Mr. Robinson stated that vehicle repairs were being made in the off-site vehicle repair shop until the shop was closed in 2000 because an elementary school was constructed on the adjacent property. Mr. Robinson advised the members of the Subcommittee that when the off-site shop was closed, a small, temporary shop was set up that allowed for the repair of not more than one vehicle at a time and resulted in work being done outside the Department or delayed until shop space became available.
Chairman Arberry questioned Project Management and Inspection fees, which amounted to an increase of almost 63 percent from the amount approved by the 2001 Legislature.
Mr. O’Brien reiterated earlier comments relative to the costs involved in coordination of design, going out to bid, and inspection services, which all related to the size of the project and the fact that smaller projects paid more in fees based on the formula. Mr. O’Brien advised that as the SPWB moved forward with implementation of their cost accounting system, they would no longer estimate the time involved in a project but would provide the exact time. Mr. O’Brien suggested a flat percentage rate might be a better way of assessing the required fees.
Additionally, Mr. O’Brien suggested that perhaps the way the Board was funded should be reviewed since staff had to continue to be funded for a two-year operation based on current capital improvement projects.
Chairman Arberry noted that the funding approved by the 2001 Legislature for the addition to the multipurpose building was based on the use of inmate crews to erect the building. Chairman Arberry asked for confirmation that conservation crews would be used, and he pointed out that if the crews were not used, an additional $20,000 would be added to the construction costs.
Mr. O’Brien confirmed the conservation crews would erect the building.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY – STATE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER – CARSON CITY – (CIP 03-C06)
Mr. O’Brien stated that CIP 03-C06 was a request to fund a new State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC) to replace the current facility located on south Carson Street. Mr. O’Brien explained that the current facility was not a state-of-the-art building, and, among other concerns, the basement area had been plagued with sewage and mold problems.
Mr. O’Brien indicated that in an overview presentation of the new SEOC prior to the 2003 Legislative Session, questions arose concerning the availability of federal funding which Frank Siracusa, Chief, Division of Emergency Management, would address. However, before turning the microphone over to Mr. Siracusa, Mr. O’Brien indicated that space for the new SEOC was reallocated to accommodate the Division of Forestry as well as other agencies involved in emergency response. Mr. O’Brien pointed out that while the square footage was modified, the project stayed within the original budget.
Mr. O’Brien also said that in March 1999 the south Carson Street property was appraised for $6 million. However, Mr. O’Brien explained that before sale of the property could take place, the state agencies currently occupying the building would have to be relocated.
Additionally, Mr. O’Brien explained that the State Emergency Operations Center was not the kind of operation that could be placed in just any available leased space. Mr. O’Brien emphasized that the construction of the SEOC had to take place before the current facility could be sold. However, Mr. O’Brien advised that the intent was to sell the property and the $6 million, or more, since the property’s value continued to increase, would be returned to the state.
Frank Siracusa, Chief, Division of Emergency Management, identified himself for the record. Mr. Siracusa indicated that during the cold war days of the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, emergency operations centers were constructed to protect key government personnel to manage emergencies, disasters, and to provide safety in the event of a nuclear blast. With the close of the cold war, emergency operations centers in the 1980s began to address natural and man‑made disasters and were structured to withstand earthquakes and floods. Mr. Siracusa indicated that with the coming of the 21st century, new types of situations had to be dealt with and emergency operations centers needed to be built to withstand terrorism, bio‑terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction as well as biological and chemical weapons. Mr. Siracusa explained that the existing facility did not meet any of those requirements and retrofitting the facility to meet such requirements would be expensive.
Mr. Siracusa stated that the new SEOC would house the Division of Emergency Management, and also accommodate the Division of Forestry, the Department of the Military, their Civil Support team, and the Nevada Highway Patrol dispatch centralized for northern Nevada. Mr. Siracusa said the Division of Emergency Management staff would have the statutory responsibility to manage the facility. Additionally, Mr. Siracusa indicated that the new building would be designed so that all functional aspects of emergency operation and coordination would be centrally located.
Mr. Siracusa advised the members of the Subcommittee that the Division of Emergency Management was in the process of applying for funding from 2002 supplemental federal funding slated for construction and enhancement of emergency operations centers. While funding could not be guaranteed, Mr. Siracusa indicated Nevada had a good case and would probably receive the funding.
Mr. Siracusa also indicated the availability of funding for emergency management and operations centers in the recently approved 2003 Omnibus Bill for which the Division of Emergency Management would also apply. Mr. Siracusa advised the Subcommittee that the Division would actively try to solicit dollars to bring into the state to support the operations center.
Chairman Arberry questioned how space requirements were addressed at the current facility.
Mr. Siracusa advised that while the current facility was basically the same square footage as the proposed facility, the new facility would be more effective based on planning and development. Mr. Siracusa clarified that the Highway Patrol dispatch was not currently in the existing facility but the new facility would provide enough space to allow for a fully functional 24-hour dispatch center operation.
In response to a question from Chairman Arberry concerning the Nevada National Guard and whether the Guard would occupy space for emergency situations only, Mr. Siracusa advised that the National Guard would provide day‑to-day operations. While the Division of Emergency Management worked on day‑to‑day operations in support of local government and state assets, and the National Guard provided support to local governments for search and rescue operations and a multitude of other services, Mr. Siracusa said that being located together provided access to activating the operations center in the event of an emergency.
Chairman Arberry questioned whether the National Guard would be eligible to apply for federal dollars since they would be occupying a portion of the space.
Mr. Siracusa was uncertain the National Guard could apply for federal dollars for the portion of the facility they occupied; however, he indicated he would investigate the possibility and provide the information to staff.
In response to a question from Chairman Arberry concerning whether Highway Funds could be used to fund the portion of the facility that would be used by the Highway Patrol, Mr. Siracusa deferred to Major Robert Wideman.
Major Robert Wideman, Deputy Chief, Highway Patrol Division, Department of Public Safety, identified himself for the record. Major Wideman indicated he was responsible for the northern command area, however, he was unable to provide the Subcommittee with an answer concerning whether Highway Funds could be used to fund the portion of the facility that would be used by the Highway Patrol.
In response to a request from Chairman Arberry, Major Wideman indicated he would investigate the possibility of the use of Highway Funds and provide information to staff.
In response to a question from Chairman Arberry concerning whether the funding for furnishings and equipment, HVAC and roof maintenance agreements could be deferred until the 2005 Legislative Session, Mr. O’Brien agreed to review the scheduling for the request of the funds.
In response to a question from Senator Raggio concerning the location of the proposed new SEOC, Mr. Siracusa explained that currently the State Emergency Operations Center was located in the old National Guard facility on south Carson Street. The National Guard had relocated after construction of a new facility, and Mr. Siracusa confirmed the new SEOC would be built adjacent to the new Nevada National Guard facility.
In response to a question from Ms. Giunchigliani concerning the “space needs study,” Mr. O’Brien agreed to provide a copy to staff.
In response to questions from Ms. Giunchigliani concerning whether the SEOC was on the capital improvement project list for the 2001 Legislative Session and the necessity of building a new facility for $7 million during a time of financial crisis, Mr. Siracusa indicated the project was discussed but did not come to fruition.
Ms. Giunchigliani again questioned whether the SEOC was on a list of CIPs for the 2001 Legislative Session.
Mr. O’Brien recalled that the only discussion that took place was regarding the relocation of the Division of Emergency Management because the State Area Command Center and the National Guard had moved from the south Carson Street site.
Chairman Arberry requested that SPWB staff and the Subcommittee’s staff meet in order to try and determine how much federal funding the Division anticipated would be received.
Mr. Siracusa reiterated that he could not provide information concerning the exact amount of federal funding that would be available. While there were federal dollars the Division would apply for, Mr. Siracusa said they would be competing for those dollars against other states. However, Mr. Siracusa expressed confidence that Nevada would be successful in the receipt of federal funding based on the state’s risks and vulnerabilities.
Mr. O’Brien advised that if a grant were received, the funding would have to be approved by the Interim Finance Committee. Additionally, Mr. O’Brien pointed out that everyone was aware of the need for homeland security and the vulnerability of the state of Nevada. For those reasons, the SEOC was the second most important construction project on the Governor’s priority list.
Mr. Siracusa indicated that while the application for federal funds was in the process of being submitted, information concerning federal guidelines and criteria regarding the availability of federal dollars would not be known until the session was over. Mr. Siracusa concluded his presentation by indicating that the Administration wanted to sell the property on south Carson Street and did not want to spend any additional funding on it. At the same time the Administration wanted to ensure that the Division of Emergency Management had a home, and that both the State Operations Center and the Division of Emergency Management were functional.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY – NHP EXPAND SHOP AND COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY – LAS VEGAS – (CIP 03-C08)
Mr. O’Brien reported that funding had been approved by the 1997 Legislature to expand the Nevada Highway Patrol shop at the current East Sahara location, and during the 1999 Legislature funds were appropriated for a new Nevada Highway Patrol building, CIP 99-H1.
Mr. O’Brien told the members of the Subcommittee that the SPWB had attempted, over the last year, to include the expansion project in with CIP 99‑H1. However, since there would have been a significant change in scope, the SPWB was advised to bring project CIP 03-C08 before the Joint Subcommittee on Higher Education/CIP.
Mr. O’Brien introduced Captain Christopher Perry, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), who was available to answer questions regarding the need for the expansion.
Captain Christopher Perry, Nevada Highway Patrol, identified himself for the record and told the members of the Subcommittee that, as indicated by Mr. O’Brien, expansion of the shop was originally approved in 1997. Originally, the NHP planned to add on to the existing shop behind the 2601 East Sahara office. Captain Perry explained that CIP-H1, which was the new building project located at I-215 and Decatur and about 15.5 miles from the current site, was approved in 1999. Captain Perry said that it was suggested at that time that it would be beneficial to wait on the construction of the new portion of the garage and roll it over, if possible, into CIP 99-H1 to have it constructed at that location.
Chairman Arberry questioned whether the architecture and engineering design and supervision costs could be deleted from the project.
Mr. O’Brien indicated the SPWB would look at the possible reduction of architecture and engineering design and said that it would be tied in with the original project. Additionally, Mr. O’Brien pointed out that funding for the project was provided through the Highway Fund.
DEPARTMENT OF THE MILITARY – READINESS CENTER – DESIGN – HENDERSON (CIP 03-P05)
Mr. O’Brien stated that CIP 03-P05 was a project that would provide 25 percent state design funds to match federal design funds of 75 percent for a new Henderson Readiness Center. Mr. O’Brien said the federal government would not provide funding for the following items:
After pointing out the areas not covered by matching funds, Mr. O’Brien indicated it would be more accurate to say that the actual breakdown of state to federal funding was closer to a 36 percent/64 percent match.
Mr. O’Brien introduced Miles Celio, Administrative Services Office, Department of the Military. Mr. Celio identified himself for the record and extended an apology to the members of the Subcommittee for the absence of Major General Giles Vanderhoof, who was unable to attend the hearing.
Mr. Celio stated that CIP 03-P05 was a design project for a new 400-man Henderson Armory to replace the existing 200-man armory in Henderson that was being encroached upon by the development of the city. Mr. Celio recalled that 30 years ago when the Henderson Readiness Center was built, the facility was located at the end of a gravel road. As the city had grown, the Readiness Center was now at the edge of the freeway and surrounded by expensive homes.
Mr. Celio indicated the funding for the design money would be matched by over $800,000 of federal money to design the project and would result in a future construction project of approximately $12.8 million, $9.7 million of which would be federally funded with the remainder provided by state funds.
Chairman Arberry questioned whether the land on which the facility would be located would be owned by the state or whether the land would be leased from the Bureau of Land Management.
Mr. Celio responded that the land on which the facility would be built was owned by the State.
Chairman Arberry noted that 75 percent of the A/E Design and Supervision fees would total $813,000 rather than the $806,000 indicated on the project cost estimate.
Mr. Dale advised that a mistake had been made in the project cost estimate because of a number change, and the federal portion had not been adjusted. Mr. Dale indicated that the grant amount was available up to $850,000 and could be adjusted upwards to $813,000.
With reference to the availability of funding for the mental health facility, Senator Cegavske asked that information be provided to the Subcommittee concerning whether locations other than the Oakey and Jones site had been looked at.
Mr. O’Brien indicated that discussions had taken place with the Director concerning a possible relocation, and he agreed to provide information to the members of the Subcommittee.
Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 10:06 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Connie Davis
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE: