MINUTES OF THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF
	SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
	AND
	ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

	Sixty-eighth Session
	March 14, 1995


The joint subcommittee meeting on Higher Education/Capital Improvements of the 
Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was 
called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 7:40 a.m., on Tuesday, March 14, 
1995, in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the 
Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.


SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator William J. Raggio, Co-Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Dean A. Rhoads

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Co-Chairman
Mr. John W. Marvel, Co-Chairman
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.
Mr. Thomas A. Fettic
Mr. Lynn Hettrick

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst
Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Sue Parkhurst, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Dean S. Borges, Acting Manager, State Public Works Board, Department of  
	Administration
Roger E. Grable, Deputy Manager, State Public Works Board, Department of  
	Administration
Robert E. Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons
Richard S. Knapp, Architect and Chief of Design, State Public Works Board,  
	Department of Administration
Daniel M. Daily, Civil Engineer, State Public Works Board, Department of 
	Administration
William S. Gosnell, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor 
	Vehicles and Public Safety
Craig M. DeFriez, Staff Engineer, State Public Works Board, Department of 
	Administration
Thomas A. Glab, Chief of Plant Operations, Department of Prisons

Capital Improvement Projects - Page A-53

Senator Raggio requested an explanation by the State Public Works Board of the 
project cost estimates with respect to the inflationary factor of 5 percent per year that 
is applied to the estimated cost of the projects.  He noted the inflation would be 
compounded to a rate of 10.25 percent if the project is slated for construction in Fiscal 
Year (FY) 1996,  based on FY 1994 as the benchmark year.  Dean S. Borges, Acting 
Manager, State Public Works Board, responded he had sent a copy of information 
regarding the work-sheet calculation system to Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, 
Legislative Counsel Bureau.  Senator Raggio asked Mr. Borges to provide, for the 
edification of the subcommittee, an overview of the system and the rationale for 
applying the 5 percent inflation factor to every component in the project costs.  Mr. 
Borges replied the application of the inflation factor is simply a method to arrive at a 
number needed for the cost estimation sheet.

Senator Raggio asked why the inflation factor should be applied to such components 
as plan checking, project management, inspections, advertising and printing, and 
maintenance agreements.  He voiced the opinion such a practice adds a great deal of 
unnecessary additional cost to the capital improvement projects.  Mr. Borges said the 
computerized system used by the board provides a reasonable estimate of the project 
costs.  Senator Raggio asked if savings could be realized by reexamining the inflation 
factor aspect of the capital improvement projects (CIPs).  Mr. Borges replied yes.  He 
indicated the agency would review the budget with respect to this issue and return 
with the pertinent information.

Department of Prisons

The page numbers following the CIP project names relate to the document provided 
by the public works board entitled "1995-1997 Recommended Capital Improvement 
Program" (Exhibit C.  Original is on file in the Research Library.).  

CIP 95-C1 - Lovelock Correctional Center Phase II - $25,842,412

Senator Raggio asked what Phase II of the Lovelock Correctional Center project will 
include.  Mr. Borges said this phase involves construction of the 500-bed addition of 
housing units 3 and 4 and the prison industries building 4, finishing the dining room 
of the existing facility, adding a new tower and doing some fence work.  The total cost 
projected for the biennium is $25.8 million.  


Senator Raggio commented one of the selling points for the Legislature over the years 
with reference to construction of prisons is the ability to easily expand existing 
facilities by simply "flopping" a design already in place.  Noting most of Phase II should 
be conducive to such a plan, Senator Raggio inquired as to the necessity for all of the 
attendant costs (for professional services), such as design, architecture and 
engineering (A&E) services, and supervision, indicated in the Governor's 
recommendation for this project at a cost of over $1.3 million (corrected below with 
updated information to $3.4 million for professional services).  He said the Legislature 
has been told the designs for such projects could simply be flopped, resulting in a cost 
savings for the state, but there appears to be no such savings reflected in the 
estimated cost for this CIP.  Mr. Borges replied the costs shown in the budget are 
computer generated, and the public works board has yet to negotiate the fees with the 
A&E firm that will be associated with the project.  He said the estimated costs are high 
and the board will attempt to achieve lower costs; however, if there are changes in the 
plans, new engineering is required (with the attendant costs).  Further, Mr. Borges 
stated, the plans themselves are not owned by the State of Nevada, but are 
"absolutely in the ownership of the people who design them.  They are responsible for 
them from the day that they are built until the end of their functional use."

Senator Raggio asked if it is standard procedure, with regard to all state building 
projects, the plans do not become the property of the owner (the state).  Mr. Borges 
replied affirmatively.  He repeated his previous statement the state does not own the 
plans; rather, the architects and engineers who created the design also own the design 
and are responsible for it.  

Assemblyman John W. Marvel said Mr. Ghiggeri solicited an opinion from the public 
works board indicating it is unlawful for the state to reuse the same design.  He 
inquired if the board has ever sought a legal opinion on this matter.  Mr. Borges 
answered no.  Mr. Marvel suggested the board seek such an opinion and expressed the 
opinion the state should have "some proprietorship" of the plans in view of the millions 
of dollars spent for them.  He said this was the premise under which the Legislature 
was operating when the design for the Ely State Prison was being considered in the 
1985 legislative session, and it was anticipated the same prison model could be used 
for the proposed Lovelock prison.  Mr. Borges said the board would pursue the 
suggestion to seek a legal opinion.  However, he said, the question of proprietorship 
in this situation concerns copyright ownership.  Mr. Marvel asked if the plans are 
copyrighted.  Mr. Borges said he has never seen a copyright on the plans.

In further discussion on the projected cost estimate for professional services of over 
$3.4 million in this CIP, Senator Raggio said this area should be one of negotiation and 
review.

Roger E. Grable, Deputy Manager, State Public Works Board, came forward to testify 
on this matter.  Attempting to clarify the professional services cost, Mr. Grable 
referred to the 1994 base fee for A/E Design and Supervision ($1.5 million) and said 
he learned in discussion with the designer of the original project that only a small 
portion of the $1.5 million is dedicated to design services.  (He anticipated having, 
within a short time, a breakout showing the cost for design only.)  The $1.5 million 
reflects design services to flop the existing housing units (1 and 2) to housing units 
3 and 4, extend the utilities (power, water and sewer) and communications, design the 
heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) system attached to the central heating 
plant, locate housing units 5 and 6 on the site and complete the design of the prison 
industries portion of the project.  Mr. Grable said the costs are associated with such 
things as the physical work that must be done to incorporate the design of units 1 and 
2 with another design set consisting of some 200 pages.  While there is a savings 
reflected in the $1.5 million, he said, the cost does seem extravagant.

Continuing, Mr. Grable maintained the state does indeed own the design in that the 
designer cannot sell the design to another prison system in the U.S. because it was 
paid for by the State of Nevada; however, the architect has the copyrights on the 
design and also owns the design, and any attempt to use the design without the 
architect's permission would result in litigation against the state.  Further explaining, 
Mr. Grable stated, "They own it.  But we also own it.  In other words, the State of 
Nevada owns this design...where it cannot take this design and use it someplace else."


The cost for A&E Design and Supervision, Mr. Grable continued, is primarily associated 
with the design for modifications, code changes (including changes in the fire code), 
improvements to the HVAC system, and certain electrical changes. 

Senator Raggio said the reason for pressing the public works board on this matter is 
the Legislature is being asked to "fast-track" the design for this facility.  In discussion 
on the status of the project relative to the bid process, it was ascertained the design 
for this CIP need not be put out to bid and the public works board has approved the 
selection of the original architect to continue with the ongoing phases of the Lovelock 
Correctional Center.  Senator Raggio inquired if the board has discussed the matter of 
the design costs with the architectural firm.  Mr. Grable said he spoke with the firm 
the previous day and intends to resume discussions on the actual design costs 
following this hearing.  

Senator Raggio indicated he does not favor paying the architectural firm again for the 
work involved in mirroring the design.  He challenged the notion that certain practices 
should be continued simply because "this is just the way things are done."  Mr. Grable 
stated a large portion of the $1.5 million  pertains to construction services.  Senator 
Raggio asked when a final answer on the design cost situation will be available.  Mr. 
Grable said the information would probably be available by 11:00 a.m.  

Senator Rawson said the site plan drawing indicates housing units 3, 4 and 5 can be 
"flopped."  Regarding whether or not to construct unit 5 at the same time units 3 and 
4 are built, the senator suggested that because of the proximity of unit 5 to units 3 
and 4 it would be more problematic, with respect to isolating the construction area 
from the occupied housing units, to build unit 5 after units 3 and 4 have been built and 
are housing inmates.  On the other hand, it would be fairly easy to isolate the side of 
the prison where units 3, 4 and 5 are to be built, from the other side of the prison 
where units 1 and 2 currently house inmates.  He asked if it therefore would be 
advisable to add unit 5 to this phase of construction.

Mr. Grable responded, stating the public works board had spent the previous day 
meeting and discussing this very subject.  The question of whether unit 5 should be 
added to Phase II of the CIP at this time is being studied by the Department of Prisons, 
he said, and the decision is driven by projected capacity.  Mr. Grable said he is not 
sufficiently informed at this time to answer the question; however, he personally feels 
this is the perfect time, for economic reasons, to add unit 5.  He reiterated the decision 
will be driven strictly by the prison's need for additional beds.
  
Acknowledging there might not be much appetite for considering another housing unit 
at this time, Senator Rawson suggested the Legislature examine the possibility closely 
because it might be "now or never" due to difficulties that would be involved in 
maintaining security while constructing the housing unit at a future date.  Mr. Grable 
said housing units 3, 4 and 5 can be built in almost an isolated situation from units 1 
and 2 and the rest of the prison; there is a fence separating the two areas.  However, 
he observed, it would involve construction within a main perimeter fence, which would 
present some difficulties.

Assemblyman Morse Arberry, Jr. asked what the architectural and engineering costs 
were for the original design of the Lovelock Correctional Center.  Mr. Grable did not 
have the information on hand but agreed to obtain it for the subcommittee.  Mr. 
Arberry said if the costs are the same (for the original A&E design and the current cost 
estimate), this would indicate a problem.

Assemblyman Marvel asked Mr. Grable if there has been a change in the completion 
date for Phase II of this CIP.  He replied the public works board has done an internal 
study that projected a completion date of September 1997 for Phase II.  Subsequent 
to discussion with the architectural firm the projected occupancy date has been 
targeted to occur between February and May 1997, in a best case scenario with 
design beginning on the targeted date of April 1, 1997.  The targeted completion date 
would be weather dependent and would also be affected by bid problems, and it is 
based upon the assumption everything will go smoothly.  Mr. Grable said the public 
works board has been facing a bid challenge in almost every bid situation in recent 
times.  

Mr. Marvel said the original target date was January 1, 1997.  Mr. Grable replied it 
might have been possible to meet that target had the money been available in January 
1995; however, the board was not able to have the bill draft prepared in time, and the 
funds remaining from the first phase of the project are insufficient to allow the design 
for Phase II to even be started.  If the project design begins in April 1995 as planned, 
construction should be completed in February 1997.  Occupancy would then occur 
between April and May 1997.

Assemblyman Marvel inquired of Mr. Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons, if the 
delay in completion of this project would negatively impact the housing of prisoners. 
 Mr. Bayer replied the prison department is currently analyzing the situation and should 
have an answer for the subcommittee by the end of the day.  Mr. Marvel asked how 
many beds are available at this time.  Mr. Bayer said the number of beds is not 
substantial, but the situation is manageable, and a plan is in place to continue 
functioning with the beds available until the Lovelock facility opens (assuming it opens 
on schedule).

Assemblyman Arberry commented on what he perceived as a correlation between 
general economic conditions and the prison population projections.   He pointed out 
the Legislature had been told in a past legislative session the prison population was 
declining; this was during the recent general economic recession.  Now, with an 
improved economy, the Legislature is being told the prison population is increasing. 
 Mr. Arberry asked Mr. Bayer if every time there is a recession the prison population 
can be expected to decline and, conversely, every time the economic situation is 
better, and surplus funds are available, the prison population can be expected to 
increase.  He questioned why there would not instead be an increase in crime during 
a recession and asked Mr. Bayer to comment on what can be expected in the future 
in regard to this issue.

Responding, Mr. Bayer said it is very difficult to understand why the prison population 
fluctuates as it does.  He said what appears to be driving the current influx of inmates 
into the prison system is the significant increase in felony sentences in the last 2 years 
(FY 1992 through FY 1994).  He noted there were 1,100 felony sentences during that 
period, a fivefold increase above the normal level, and said the rise in prison population 
as a result of this occurrence is now beginning to be experienced.  A tremendous rise 
in sentencing has a direct effect on what the prison population will be 2 years later, 
Mr. Bayer stated, and this should be considered when the projections are made.  He 
said the prison population projections were recalculated to include the rise in actual 
felony sentences, and adjustments were made as a result.


On the other hand, Mr. Bayer continued, in the past there was an immediate reduction 
of the prison population as a result of legislation which, for example, made convicted 
offenders eligible for parole without serving a flat 1-year minimum sentence.  He 
suggested the decline in the parole rate may have been attributable to the sudden 
release of a number of prisoners who were retroactively eligible for parole.  Once this 
occurred, the population reverted to the standard level.  He said the question raised 
by Assemblyman Marvel is complex.

Assemblyman Thomas A. Fettic said regardless of its complexity, an answer to this 
question is required by the Legislature since the amount of funds required would be 
significantly affected by the numbers projected.  He requested a specific answer 
regarding the department's projected level of prison population growth.  Mr. Bayer 
responded the department just received the final population projection from the 
National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) and is currently analyzing the 
information, which is being segregated into minimum, medium and maximum custody 
inmate projections.  He said the prison population is growing at approximately 500 
inmates per year.  Mr. Fettic asked if the prison funding should be based on this 
number.  Mr. Bayer said an answer should be forthcoming by the end of the day; he 
did not wish to commit to the figure without analyzing the current information.

Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick asked if the May 1997 occupancy projection includes 
housing unit 5.  Referencing a handout containing the estimated schedule for housing 
units 3, 4 and 5 of Phase II (Exhibit D), Mr. Grable said the schedule is based on all 
three units being constructed on the existing Lovelock site.

Senator Raggio inquired as to the number of inmates units 3, 4 and 5 would 
accommodate.  Mr. Grable replied 750 inmates could be accommodated without major 
"double bunking."  The senator further inquired if the addition of unit 5 would require 
another tower.  Mr. Grable said that information is unknown at this point, but the 
additional tower is not included in the current projections.  Senator Raggio asked if the 
cost of the unit 5 addition is in the range of $10 million, and Mr. Grable replied yes.

Assemblyman Hettrick inquired if the addition of unit 5 at this point would involve a 
proportionate increase in the professional services costs.  He voiced concern the state 
might be charged again, on a percentage basis, for these services in connection with 
the unit 5 addition.  Mr. Grable said the rough projections he has on hand, from an 
internal document generated for the board's estimating purposes, indicate the addition 
of unit 5 would involve no additional costs for some of the professional services, but 
there are additional costs for other services in this category.  He said the total design 
costs remain the same.  It was determined the net effect is a cost savings in 
professional service fees of perhaps $200,000 if unit 5 were to be added at this point.

Assemblyman Arberry asked whether the same people who reviewed the plans 
originally are being utilized to review the current plans or whether this function is 
contracted out to a separate firm, instead.  Mr. Grable said the plan checking is 
performed by  outside consultants independent of the team who designed the building. 
 Mr. Arberry suggested it might be easier to have the plans checked by the firm that 
originally reviewed the plans.  Mr. Grable averred it might be easier, but might not 
represent the best approach to reviewing the design and might not result in a cost 
savings.  Mr. Arberry requested the public works board to provide, for tracking 
purposes, the names of the firm that originally reviewed the plans and the firm that 
was "re-awarded" the contract at this time.  Mr. Grable agreed to do so and said it is 
possible the original firm will be engaged to perform the plan checking, but he could 
not say at this time.


Assemblyman Marvel inquired as to the amount of the costs for architectural and 
engineering that are associated with the prison industry building.  Mr. Grable stated 
he not know.  Mr. Marvel asked if it has been determined yet what type of prison 
industry will be put into operation.  Mr. Grable replied no.  He said this area has been 
discussed extensively by the public works board, and it is the board's opinion the 
construction of the building should be as generic as possible to give the prison 
industries program the flexibility to choose appropriate kinds of industry.  This is 
accomplished by installing industrial-weight flooring and an overhead grid system that 
accommodates the installation of power, water, lighting, and fire extinguishers.  At 
present the building is essentially a bare shell, Mr. Grable said.  Mr. Marvel repeated 
his question as to the amount of cost associated with the prison industry building 
component of Phase I.  Mr. Grable indicated there was relatively little cost in 
constructing the building, which he described as essentially a bare shell for which the 
infrastructure capabilities have been provided.

Senator Raggio requested further explanation as to why the state cannot acquire 
outright ownership of the building plans.  In view of the magnitude of this project and 
the understanding the plans could be mirrored for other projects, he suggested it 
should be feasible to negotiate such ownership.  Mr. Grable maintained the state 
effectively owns the plans.  Senator Raggio said the requirement of using the same 
architect in the event a project using these plans is put out to bid in effect holds the 
state hostage, and he objected to this situation.  Mr. Grable equated an architect's 
rights with respect to design and plans ownership with the copyrights held by authors. 

Senator Raggio reminded Mr. Grable the Legislature sent a letter of intent to the public 
works board in a previous legislative session, in connection with the construction of 
honor camps, which specified the state must own the project plans (Exhibit D).  He 
asked if the situation under discussion, with respect to ownership of plans for state 
buildings, also applies to the honor camps.  Mr. Grable said he believes this to be the 
case.  Senator Raggio reiterated his concern the state can be held hostage without the 
ability to control the selection of the architect to be used on a project.  He said the 
public works board has no room to negotiate in this situation.  Mr. Grable agreed the 
board is trapped by the system.  He said the state owns the design because the 
architect cannot sell it.  Senator Raggio asked why the architect cannot sell the design. 
 Mr. Grable replied the architect can sell the design if it is modified and effectively 
redesigned.

Senator Raggio further expressed concern about the inability of the state to have 
complete ownership of, and discretion with respect to the use of, the project design 
and plans.  He indicated the Legislature's prison construction decisions are greatly 
influenced by the potential to gain a cost savings for the state by mirroring prison 
project designs and thereby avoiding the architectural and engineering costs associated 
with a new project, but it appears these costs are still being built into the new 
projects.  He stated there is "something wrong with the system."

Richard S. Knapp, Architect and Chief of Design, State Public Works Board, 
Department of Administration, responded to the questions regarding design ownership. 
 He said it is customary when designs are flopped or similarly modified to charge a 
reduced fee on a percentage basis, the amount of which is subject to negotiation.  
Senator Raggio said the enacting legislation to expedite this project will not be 
processed until the final numbers are available which indicate the amount to be 
charged by the design firm and justification of the charges.  Mr. Grable said the 
information would be provided later in the day.

Senator Raggio inquired as to the length of time required to complete the construction 
in Phase II, including housing unit 5, versus the time required to complete construction 
in this phase if unit 5 is not built at this time.  Mr. Grable replied the time required 
(once the A/E design is completed) would be about 14 months in either case.

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Bayer to contemplate whether the $200,000 prison facilities 
study (including an inventory of facilities) in the advance planning project (CIP 95-S4) 
is still necessary.

CIP 95-G1 - Men's Prison #7 Phase 1 - $6,790,793

The site of this project is the Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC) in Indian 
Springs.  Senator Raggio queried Mr. Borges regarding the time-line for this project and 
the location of the proposed new facility relative to the existing prison.  Mr. Borges 
called on Daniel M. Daily, Civil Engineer, State Public Works Board, Department of 
Administration, to respond.

Mr. Daily said the new project would be located southwest of the existing facility.  
Senator Raggio asked what the distance is between the existing prison and the Prison 
7 site.  Mr. Daily replied it is probably one-half mile or less.

Senator Raggio requested an overview of the project, which would ultimately provide 
2,000 additional beds.  Mr. Daily explained the state has been building 1,000-bed 
facilities and has had to expand very quickly to Phase II of such projects, including the 
Ely State Prison, the original SDCC facility and the Lovelock Correctional Center.  In 
previous discussions with the former public works board manager it was decided a 
larger, 1,500- or 2,000-bed facility should be constructed from the outset.  This would 
be more economical, Mr. Daily said.  CIP 95-G1 was initially planned, in the 1989-91 
biennium, as a 1,500-bed facility.  Mr. Daily said the project has been enlarged to meet 
the projected need for an additional 2,000 beds by 1999, based on the current growth 
rate of 500 beds per year.

Senator Raggio asked the reason for the state mitigation component of this project for 
this particular site.  Mr. Daily said Clark County has a desert tortoise mitigation fee for 
almost any development, but it is governed by regulations of the U.S. Department of 
Wildlife.  The mitigation involves relocating the tortoises to another habitat.  It was 
ascertained the mitigation cost of approximately $326 per acre would not apply to a 
site outside of Clark County.

Responding to Senator Raggio's request to explain this project, Mr. Daily said the 
facility would be designed for 2,000 beds.  Phase I of the project would include the 
design of core facilities and a 500-bed housing unit.  Senator Raggio inquired how the 
proposed new prison would differ from the Lovelock Correctional Center.  Mr. Daily 
said the SDCC facility could be almost identical in design to the Lovelock prison or the 
Ely prison.  The senator asked if all of the costs for professional services would still 
be entailed if the exact design of an existing facility were to be used for the new 
facility.  Mr. Daily said the normal practice is that architects receive a fee of 9 to 10 
percent on a brand new project.  The project cost estimate for this CIP is based on 
creating a completely new design.  There would definitely be a reduction in cost if an 
existing design were to be used, Mr. Daily stated.


Senator Raggio inquired if in-house expertise could be developed to avoid the situation 
of the state having to continually pay for design-related professional services in 
connection with using existing plans.  Mr. Daily indicated this would not be feasible, 
given the need for various specialists on large projects.  Senator Raggio expressed the 
opinion the Legislature is not opposed to paying the standard fee for the design of a 
prison, but when the same design is mirrored at another facility, the citizens of Nevada 
should receive some cost savings.  He said these matters need to be negotiated to 
overcome the obstacles to using existing designs without incurring new design-related 
costs.  

Assemblyman Hettrick suggested the terms stated in a prison project RFP (request for 
proposal) for being awarded a prison design contract should include the provision that 
if the state chooses to use the firm again on another prison or another phase, a 
reduced rate would be charged by the firm.  This would enable the state to avoid 
paying the same level of costs for duplicate-design projects over and over again. Mr. 
Daily indicated Mr. Hettrick's idea might be feasible.

Senator Raggio inquired if there are professional standards or ethics that would 
preclude the practice suggested by Assemblyman Hettrick.  Senator Coffin said he 
believes professional ethics would prohibit such a practice.  He noted there had been 
an attempt in the 1985 legislative session to pass legislation that would have provided 
 greater flexibility in the way contracts are awarded, but the measure was strongly 
opposed by architects and engineers and was defeated.  

Senator Rawson remarked, "You get what you pay for in life."  He compared the right 
to use an existing design to the right to use the same computer software at different 
sites.  In the latter case, a license must be purchased to allow multiple use of the same 
software package.  The senator said there would be some cost savings in using the 
same prison design, but not as much as 50 percent, and the state will ultimately pay 
for the plans one way or another.  Senator Rawson expressed disappointment with the 
public works board for failing to bargain for better terms in the past.  

Senator Raggio requested explanation of the $7.2 million in construction costs.  Mr. 
Daily indicated the costs would include the design and construction of a prison facility 
that would ultimately accommodate 2,000 inmates.

Senator Raggio asked when the plans for the prison project would be completed.  Mr. 
Borges said the project design would begin in the fall of 1995 and would be completed 
at the end of 1997.  Construction could be started in January 1998.  The senator 
questioned the length of time required, given the fact the plan design of the Lovelock 
prison is essentially to be replicated for this project.  Mr. Daily indicated the time 
schedule is based on using an entirely new design.  

Senator Raggio requested the State Public Works Board to return to the committee 
with a revised project cost based on using the existing Lovelock facility design for the 
SDCC prison.  He polled the subcommittee members for their opinion on using an 
existing design versus developing an entirely new design, and the committee indicated 
agreement with the senator regarding use of the existing design.  

In response to questioning from Senator Raggio regarding the level of security of the 
new facility, Mr. Bayer said the facility will need more maximum security beds as the 
prison expands, and the question of how many is being studied.  He expressed the 
opinion the existing design to be duplicated is good for either a medium or maximum 
security prison and is essentially the same design as the one used for the Ely State 
Prison (a maximum security facility).

Assemblyman Fettic asked if the $7.2 million total project cost would still apply if the 
 Lovelock prison design is duplicated for the SDCC facility.  Mr. Borges indicated the 
cost would be reduced if the existing design is used.

Senator Rawson reminded the committee of the opinion offered by the Lovelock 
Correctional Center warden, during the recent tour of the new prison,  that while there 
is no such thing as the perfect prison, the Lovelock facility is the finest correctional 
facility he has seen.  The warden described the design of the prison as very efficient. 
 Senator Rawson said there appears to be no reason at this point to consider using 
another design.

Assemblyman Hettrick asked if the total inflation rate of 15.76 percent (3 years 
compounded at the 5 percent inflation rate) is based on an anticipated completion or 
contracting date in 1998.  Mr. Borges replied the time period extends to completion 
of the design in 1998, and the cost includes the accumulated interest for the 
intervening years; however, these costs will be revisited.

CIP 95-G3 - Women's Correctional Center, 60 Bed Housing Unit - $3,565,227

This project is a 60-bed housing unit for the Nevada Women's Correctional Center 
(NWCC) in Carson City.  The $3.5 million cost includes design and construction.

Senator Raggio inquired if a savings would occur in the A/E Design and Supervision 
costs in the event an existing design and the original architect are used for this project. 
 Mr. Borges said if the rights to the existing design are to be purchased from the 
architect, there should be a cost savings.

Senator Raggio said revisions of the prison CIP project cost estimates are needed 
quickly because it is the committee's desire to act promptly on these matters.

Senator Raggio inquired if the staffing requirements would be essentially the same for 
a 100-bed unit as for a 60-bed unit.  Mr. Bayer said he has not seen the 100-bed 
design, but he anticipates the staffing requirements would remain constant in either 
scenario.  Senator Raggio suggested the possibility of enlarging the project by 40 beds 
if savings can be gained in the professional services cost.

CIP 95-G4 - Indian Springs Boot Camp Expansion - $617,647

Senator Raggio asked what is included in this project and what is the targeted 
occupancy date.  Mr. Daily replied this project would replace two of the existing five 
trailers with a building that would house 72 inmates.  One of the trailers would be 
used for classrooms.  Senator Raggio inquired if the condition of the trailers is 
sufficiently poor to require their replacement.  Mr. Daily said the floors are deteriorating 
due to extended use.  The senator suggested installing new floors.  Mr. Daily explained 
the inmates are rough on their living areas, and the cost of maintenance and repairs 
becomes increasingly expensive.  The plan calls for a concrete floor and an open bay 
design.


Assemblyman Arberry asked how many inmates the boot camp was originally intended 
to house.  Mr. Daily replied the facility was originally designed to house 60 inmates. 
 Mr. Arberry commented the facility currently houses 72 inmates, the proposed new 
facility is intended to hold 92 inmates, and the numbers will probably continue to 
increase.  He proposed eliminating the boot camp, which he said is turning into a 
miniature prison.

Senator Raggio inquired of Mr. Bayer the average length of stay for boot camp 
inmates.  Mr. Bayer did not have the information on hand but offered to obtain it for 
the subcommittee.  Senator Raggio indicated the information is relevant to his 
consideration of this project.  He asked if the boot camp inmates are prisoners who 
would not be in the system were it not for the existence of the boot camp.  Mr. Bayer 
said it is his understanding the people who are sent to the boot camp are marginal 
offenders.  At the judge's discretion such an offender may receive a sentence that 
combines shock incarceration with prison.  This provides a period of evaluation to 
assess the person's attitude and intentions.  Mr. Bayer said it is difficult to estimate 
how many inmates would otherwise enter the prison system.

Senator Raggio surmised that if the boot camp experience for some inmates results in 
their not entering the prison system, not only a therapeutic effect but a practical effect 
results in that fewer prison beds will be required in the future.  Mr. Bayer agreed.  He 
said this particular boot camp has a very good track record and a recidivism rate of 
approximately 18 percent, which he described as fairly impressive.  The boot camp 
inmates are incarcerated for a shorter period of time and have a lower rate of 
recidivism, thereby saving potential bed space over the long-term, at a much higher 
rate.

In further questioning it was determined the project calls for replacement of two 
trailers with a permanent structure, and the prison department wishes to use a U-
shaped design in the layout of the building to better control the inmates' activities.  
Mr. Daily said additional trailers could be added (as an alternative to building a 
permanent facility).

CIP 95-G5 - Nevada State Prison Culinary Renovation and Addition - $2,161,672

Senator Raggio noted the original intention for this project was to build an entirely new 
culinary facility at a cost of $3.5 million.  Mr. Borges affirmed this.  Senator Raggio 
further noted the Governor has recommended the renovation project instead of the 
new construction and asked if, in the opinion of Mr. Borges as acting manager of the 
public works board and Mr. Bayer as prisons director, the revised project adequately 
fulfills the needs originally contemplated.  Mr. Bayer said Warden John Ignacio of the 
Nevada State Prison (NSP) said the renovation would fulfill the prison's needs.

Assemblyman Marvel asked why the cost of this project, which is similar to a 1993 
CIP (93-C4) recommended at an estimated cost of $1 million but subsequently 
withdrawn by the Department of Prisons, "has been so highly inflated." Mr. Borges 
indicated the cost estimate for CIP 93-C4 was unrealistic.  He said the 1993 project 
was withdrawn because it was deemed inadequate.  He maintained the amounts in the 
cost estimate for the current CIP, 95-G5, are accurate and realistic.


Assemblyman Joseph E. Dini, Jr. inquired why the CIP specifications for this project 
call for enlarging the kitchen but not the dining area.  Mr. Bayer replied the inmate 
population is not being increased; there is a court order at the NSP facility and there 
is a cap (on the number of inmates).  The facility once housed maximum security 
prisoners, and the culinary unit is designed to feed prisoners in smaller groups.  It is 
a much more controlled environment, and no changes in the feeding of prisoners are 
envisioned.  Mr. Bayer further stated it would not be desirable to have prisoners 
grouping in one large room, because a culinary unit is traditionally one of the more 
dangerous places in a prison environment.

Senator Rhoads inquired why a court order is in effect at the NSP, how long it has 
been in effect and whether court orders have been imposed on any other institutions 
in Nevada's prison system.  Mr. Bayer  offered to obtain for the senator an update on 
the court order situation.  He said the court order at the NSP, the Phillips agreement, 
was the result of a conditions lawsuit which alleged there were too many inmates in 
a small area, among other deficiencies.  The magistrate who is monitoring the situation 
has indicated she will recommend that the court order be lifted, which Mr. Bayer 
expects to occur in the very near future.  Another court order is in effect at the 
Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC) and is, in part, the basis for a 
supplemental appropriations request put forth by the Department of Prisons.  If the 
facility exceeds 172 inmates in any of units 1, 2 or 3, additional staff must be added 
for the particular housing unit.  When the limit is exceeded in two of the three units, 
a roving patrol must also be added.  Such agreements are put into effect when the 
population limits are exceeded, Mr. Bayer explained.

CIP 95-G6 - Addition to DOP's Central Warehouse, NNCC - $1,435,008

Senator Raggio inquired if the project cost estimate ($70 per square foot) for this CIP 
at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC) is considered reasonable.  Mr. 
Borges said the public works board believes the cost is reasonable for a "warehouse-
type" of construction.  The senator inquired how the cost compares with the costs of 
other projects.  Mr. Borges said the cost can be as high as $200 per square foot for 
prisons, although prisons are a totally different kind of project.  Senator Raggio asked 
if the $70 per square foot cost is consistent with the costs for building a warehouse. 
 Mr. Borges replied yes.  He explained the cost estimates are based on evaluation 
services such as Marshall and Swift, Means, and Dodge, and the costs for this project 
are consistent with what is in the catalogs published by these services.

Senator Raggio asked what will be included in the 10,000 square foot addition to the 
central warehouse at the NNCC.  Mr. Daily said the warehouse addition will be very 
simple construction.  The two existing freezers at the NNCC will be moved to the new 
location and the existing freezer site will be remodeled.  Senator Raggio inquired as to 
the cost of the freezers and whether it is included in the project cost estimate for this 
CIP.  Mr. Daily said the cost is estimated at about $250,000 and is included in the $1 
million construction component of the cost estimate.

With reference to the Building Costs, Furnishings and Equipment line item in the 
project cost estimate, Senator Raggio asked what the $38,588 cost would provide. 
 Mr. Daily said the bulk of the cost is for steel shelving.  Senator Raggio instructed that 
staff be furnished the details.  


Assemblyman Hettrick questioned the building costs for this project, which he 
calculated actually translate to a cost of $110 per square foot rather than the $70 per 
square foot stated in the cost estimate.  He said the construction costs seem 
"extremely expensive."  Mr. Daily replied the total project costs include the 
professional services fees and a statutorily required 5 percent construction contingency 
cost in addition to the other building costs.  Mr. Hettrick said the $70 per square foot 
cost would be within the acceptable cost range, but he contended the $110 per 
square foot cost is "outrageous."  He asserted it should not be difficult to  find a 
contractor and an architect willing to provide the services for less than the costs 
estimated for this project. 

Mr. Borges responded the board is normally able to obtain architectural and engineering 
services for less than the estimated costs.  He said the actual costs are normally fairly 
close to the projected costs, and there is normally a reversion (to the state General 
Fund) in the range of 2 to 3 percent.  He maintained the cost estimates 
are valid and appropriate.  Mr. Hettrick said he is not suggesting the cost estimates are 
intentionally inflated; however, as the owner of warehouses himself he would under 
no circumstances contract for construction of a facility such as the one proposed in 
this CIP at a cost of $110 per square foot.   Mr. Hettrick maintained government is 
paying much more than is the private sector for such projects and questioned why the 
wide disparity should exist.  

Senator Raggio said the issue is exacerbated by the cost estimate of $44,000 for 
project management and inspection, which he said is difficult to understand (given the 
simple construction of the warehouse building).  Mr. Borges replied the project is 
within a prison, and Mr. Daily said this entails security measures and so forth.  Senator 
Raggio further questioned the cost estimate, including the project management and 
inspection cost of $44,000.  He said the cost estimates for this project should be 
revisited.

CIP 95-M3 - Replace Locking System in Unit 8, SDCC - $961,002

This project calls for replacement of the existing cell door locks in Unit 8 at the 
Southern Desert Correctional Center in Indian Springs. 

Senator Raggio inquired about the status of the control panel project, for which 
funding was provided in CIP 93-M4 in the last legislative session.  Mr. Daily said the 
control panel has been manufactured and is currently in storage at a warehouse, 
awaiting installation.  Senator Raggio asked if the control panel project will mesh with 
the current project.  Mr. Daily replied the public works board has been told not to 
proceed with the SDCC replacement project, but it will only take 3 weeks to install the 
control panel once the board is authorized to proceed with the project.  In further 
questioning Senator Raggio asked if the prisoners would need to be relocated during 
the replacement.  Mr. Daily responded affirmatively.

Senator Raggio inquired regarding the time frame to complete this project.  Mr. Daily 
said it is to be completed by October 1995, and the board has been told by the prisons 
department the modifications can be performed as soon as the Lovelock Correctional 
Center is occupied.  


Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel 
Bureau, asked if the doors and locks project can be expedited to provide for the doors, 
locks and panel at the same time so the prison is not required to keep moving prisoners 
in and out of the facility.  Senator Raggio commented this is essential and asked if it 
can be done.  Mr. Bayer said if the locks in "that one wing" in Unit 8 can be 
accelerated, the work could be done now.  He said the wing is essentially finished, but 
is being cleaned up.  Senator Raggio asked how soon the project could be completed 
once the funds are made available.  Noting the project would involve hiring a security 
consultant as well as creating the design, Mr. Daily estimated the completion date at 
November 1995.  The senator inquired why design is required as opposed to simply 
purchasing the various equipment items.  Mr. Daily said it might be possible to bypass 
the architectural and engineering design.  Senator Raggio requested the public works 
board and the prisons department to work together on this matter.  He emphasized the 
need for prompt answers to the subcommittee's questions and requests for 
information.

Assemblyman Hettrick asked the purpose of the survey under Professional Services. 
 It was determined a survey was previously performed and would not need to be 
repeated for this project.

Senator Raggio reiterated the need for revisions on some of the project costs.

Assemblyman Hettrick questioned the need for prison guards (under Miscellaneous), 
if the site is empty.  Senator Raggio questioned the $43,131 cost for the public works 
board project management and inspection (under Professional Services).  Mr. Daily 
explained the doors were replaced during the daytime on similar projects at SDCC, 
when the rooms were still occupied.

Senator Raggio instructed the public works board to return with a revised budget.

CIP 95-M4 - Close Solid Waste Landfills, SDCC/SNCC - $1,546,773

This project would close existing solid waste landfills at two prisons, the Southern 
Desert Correctional Center (SDCC) in Indian Springs and the Southern Nevada 
Correctional Center (SNCC) in Jean.

Senator Raggio asked what is involved in closing the solid waste landfills.  Mr. Daily 
said the Department of Prisons hired a consulting firm to study the two sites for the 
purpose of determining the best and most cost effective method of waste disposal. 
 The report prepared by the firm indicates a soil infiltration fabric must be placed 
between the layers of clay at certain depths, and the federal government requires the 
use of a certain design.  The site must be monitored for a certain number of years.  
 The cost estimates for this project are derived from the consultants' report.  Mr. Daily 
noted the Jean facility is now closed, but the Indian Springs facility is still in use.

Senator Raggio inquired if there are any new federal requirements that have enhanced 
the cost of closing landfills.  Mr. Daily said he is unaware of any such regulations.  The 
senator asked why it costs $1.5 million to close a solid waste landfill and what the 
$1.1 million construction cost comprises.  Mr. Daily noted there are two sites involved. 
 He said the monitoring is required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 
detect any infiltration of the ground water.  Senator Raggio asked what is involved in 
the closure of the SNCC landfill that costs $605,900.  Mr. Daily did not have the 
information on hand.  He said the two landfills, which have been used for many years, 
are fairly large.


Senator Raggio referenced the description of this project (Exhibit C, page 70), which 
indicates a final cover consisting of 2 feet of compacted native soils, graded to drain, 
is required for the pre-1991 landfill area.  The narrative further states the post-1991 
landfill areas require a final cover consisting of an 18-inch compacted soil infiltration 
layer, a 6-inch soil erosion layer and graded to drain.  Senator Raggio asked if the two 
sites in this project are pre-1991 landfill areas.  Mr. Daily replied yes.  The senator 
questioned the need for architectural and engineering design for the landfill project. 
 Mr. Daily replied the expense is much less for the pre-1991 landfill areas than for the 
post-1991 areas.  Senator Raggio continued to question the estimated $1 million 
construction cost for this project.

Assemblyman Marvel asked why the cost estimate for the project management and 
inspection fees is so high ($63,088).  Mr. Borges said the costs are computer 
generated and are based on the work required for construction.  Senator Raggio 
suggested the computer programs might need to be changed.  Mr. Borges said the 
cost estimating is being done as it has been done in the past.  Observing the aggregate 
cost of project management and inspection for various projects is substantial, Senator 
Raggio suggested a meaningful cost savings could be achieved in this area.

CIP 95-M6 - Security Electronics Upgrades, NNCC - $375,216

Senator Raggio requested, on behalf of the subcommittee, assurance the same 
problems encountered in the past with respect to locks will not occur with this project 
and asked if the public works board is "reasonably comfortable with" the locks to be 
used.  Mr. Borges replied affirmatively.  Senator Raggio asked if this CIP will be 
coordinated with the 1993 doors project.  Mr. Daily answered no.  He responded to 
further questions raised by the fiscal analysis staff regarding the feasibility of 
coordinating the two projects.  He said the 1993 doors project (CIP 93-M17) is 
scheduled to be put out to bid shortly.  While it might be possible to coordinate 
installation of the control panel with the replacement of doors in the project under 
discussion, Mr. Daily said one of the problems is that unit 5 is no longer used as an 
intake unit, but is now a lockdown unit.

Senator Raggio inquired of Mr. Bayer if there is some way to coordinate the projects 
to avoid unnecessary interruption.  Mr. Bayer replied all of the projects should be 
coordinated.  Senator Raggio said the necessary adjustments will need to be made to 
ensure coordination of the projects.

Assemblyman Hettrick again raised the issue of why the survey costs are indicated 
since there appears to be nothing to survey.  Mr. Daily said it is customary in such 
projects to individually examine each door and door frame.

Senator Raggio stated the chair's desire for the State Public Works Board officials to 
return, at some point during the current legislative session, for the purpose of 
reviewing the board's method of cost estimation.  He recommended the board 
seriously examine the possibility of changing the computer-driven mechanisms being 
used to estimate costs, as well as the architectural and engineering costs.

CIP 95-M7 - Replace Perimeter Fence Razor Wire, SDCC - $138,223

Senator Raggio questioned the need for any architectural and engineering design and 
supervision costs for this project.  Mr. Daily said the fee is essentially for designing a 
plan of the institution.  Senator Raggio noted $7,679 is included in the cost estimate 
for the project management and inspection services of the public works board, and he 
suggested the board should have sufficient in-house expertise to handle this project.


CIP 95-M12 - Install Generators and Lightning Protection - $720.235

This project would provide installation of a complete generator backup for prison honor 
camps in Winnemucca, Jean and Wells, and installation of lightning protection at Ely 
State Prison and the Tonopah Conservation Camp.

Assembly Marvel said new generators had been placed at the honor camps, but were 
never used due to insufficient capacity, and he asked what has been done with these 
generators.  Mr. Borges stated he does not know.  The question was addressed by 
Thomas A. Glab, Chief of Plant Operations, Department of Prisons.  He said the 20 
kilowatt (KW) generators are at the honor camps.  The generator at the Ely camp is 
being used, as is the one at Pioche, but the others are not in use.  It is the 
department's intention to replace the 20KW generators with 150KW generators, Mr. 
Glab continued.  If the project is approved, there is a possibility one of several other 
state agencies might be interested in obtaining the 20KW generators.  Mr. Marvel said 
the lack of use of the existing 20KW generators at various honor camps has been a 
waste of money.

CIP 95-M13 - Replace and Relocate Generators, NSP - $445,867

This project calls for replacement and relocation of existing electrical standby 
generators at the Nevada State Prison.

Senator Raggio inquired if the funds for project CIP 91-M10, which were provided  by 
the 1991 Legislature, have been expended.  Mr. Glab said the project has been 
completed.  Senator Raggio asked how the proposed project relates to CIP 91-M10. 
 Mr. Glab stated, "It is a distribution panel...  We are talking about replacing the 
generators, not the distribution."  He said the projects are related.

CIP 95-M14 - Utility Service Work, SDCC - $283,516

This project calls for overhauling a standby generator, servicing existing high voltage 
switches, and repairing water lines and isolation valves.

Senator Raggio asked if all of the work was finished on the 1991 project (91-M23). 
 Mr. Glab replied two generators have been renovated; the third is in progress and is 
nearly complete, and the new project would provide the fourth of four renovations. 
 He replied affirmatively to Senator Raggio's question as to whether the two projects 
are related.

There were no questions or comments from the subcommittee on the next four CIPS 
(95-M24 through 95-M27).

CIP 95-M24 - Administration Building Upgrades - $389,276

Description: Upgrade electrical and mechanical systems at the Stewart facility in 
Carson City.

CIP 95-M25 - Replace Windows in Units 1-4 at NNCC - $70,864

Description:  Replace windows in Units 1-4 at Northern Nevada Correctional Center.


CIP 95-M26 - Renovate Bathrooms, ECC - $54,391

Description:  Renovate and repair existing bathrooms at the Ely Conservation Camp.

CIP 95-M27 - Repair Utilities in Main Building Basement, NSP - $428,612

Description:  Repair existing utilities in the Sagebrush Area at the Nevada State Prison.

CIP 95-M31 - Repair Floors in Camps and Culinaries, Statewide - $681,526

Description:  Repair floors at conservation camps (CCC, ECC, WCC, JCC, HCC) and 
culinary floors at SDCC and SNCC.

Senator Raggio asked if the floor replacement can be done while the facilities are 
occupied by the inmates.  Mr. Bayer replied yes.

CIP 95-M32 - Secure Walkways in Lockdown Units, ESP - $110,150

Description:  Secure walkways in lock-down units at Ely State Prison.

Senator Raggio asked the reason for this project, noting the facility is new.  Mr. Bayer 
said the project would provide controlled movement by the prisoners, sections at a 
time, from their cells and is actually an enhancement to the design of the maximum 
security prison.  It enhances security for the guards during lock-down. Mr. Bayer 
observed that controlling movement in such a facility is the key to controlling the 
prison itself.  Senator Raggio inquired if the same project must also be done at the 
Lovelock Correctional Center.  Mr. Bayer replied no.  He said if at any point in time 
Lovelock were to house maximum security inmates and the proposed enhancements 
prove to be working well, such a project might be proposed; however, the inmates at 
Lovelock are different from those at the maximum security prison in Ely.

CIP 95-M33 - High Mast Light, NSP - $53,061

Description:  Install a high mast light between Units 1 and 2 at Nevada State Prison.

CIP 95-M34 - Sewage Grinder Building, ESP - $46,586

Description:  Construct building enclosure for the existing sewage grinder at the Ely 
State Prison.

Senator Raggio requested an explanation of this project.  Mr. Daily said the sewage 
grinder facilities have been freezing due to the cold winters in Ely.  The building 
enclosure would prevent this from occurring.

Assemblyman Arberry voiced the opinion the cost for what is essentially a shed is far 
too high at $91 per square foot.  Mr. Daily said a heater and electrical lights must be 
installed, and the construction will occur in the Ely area where labor rates are 
somewhat more expensive. 

CIP 95-M35 - Garbage Truck Wash Area, NNCC - $68,686

Description:  Construct wash pad and drain and purchase steam cleaner.


Senator Raggio questioned the cost of this project.

Senator Rawson suggested this project is one that could be done by a well-supervised 
crew of inmates.  Noting the project is fairly simple, he asked if the possibility of using 
inmate labor for such building projects has been discussed and considered.  The  
agency representatives indicated such discussion has not occurred.    

CIP 95-M36 - Upgrade Water Service, NSP - $61,470

Description:  Provide a second connection to the Carson City water system and 
eliminate existing water pumps and tank.

Senator Raggio asked when the project is expected to be completed.  Mr. Daily said 
it will probably be completed 1 year after funding approval.  The Surveys line item 
($11,025) pertains to surveying the area in which the existing pump station is located 
and for making recommendations as to what needs to be done.  Coordination with 
Carson City is required for this project, Mr. Daily stated.

Assemblyman Hettrick said there should be a plan somewhere that shows what 
already exists, since the projects were planned at some point.  He pointed out there 
is already a cost of $3,251 for project management and inspection and questioned the 
need for another $11,025 to examine the plan that already exists and coordinate with 
Carson City to remove the existing apparatus.  Mr. Hettrick urged that the surveys and 
other professional services that are automatically included in the CIPs be closely 
examined.  He suggested the computer program is generating redundant costs.  Mr. 
Daily said the public works board could examine ways to reduce the amount of the 
survey.

CIP 95-M42 - Aerators for Sewage Lagoons, ESP - $116,972

Description: Install aerators in the existing sewage lagoons at the Ely State Prison.

Senator Raggio requested that the public works board officials review the CIP project 
cost estimates, revise them as necessary and provide the information to the 
subcommittee as quickly as possible, particularly the results of the negotiations with 
the architect regarding the design of the prisons.

Senator Coffin asked to be provided a copy of the consultants' report on the landfill 
issue.  He suggested the costs of the landfill closure project may be significantly 
underbudgeted rather than overbudgeted, and he questioned whether hauling fill is the 
solution.  He said it appears to him about 2.4 million cubic feet of fill would be needed 
to cover the two landfills, which would have to be obtained nearby to avoid incurring 
enormous transportation costs.  In that event mitigation costs would be involved.  
Senator Coffin suggested the public works board consider the possibility of changing 
the plan so the fill would be removed from a location that would be used as a dump 
site.  He voiced the opinion there is something wrong with the project cost estimate 
and is concerned the consultants may not have taken into consideration some of the 
costs that would be involved.  Mr. Daily said a copy of the report would be provided 
as requested.


Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

CIP 95-H1 - DMV & PS Full Service Facility, Henderson - $5,675,441

Description: Construction of a 17,000 square foot building on a yet to be acquired 
5 acre site in Henderson.

Mr. Borges said this project is similar to the project recently completed in Las Vegas. 
 It is a full service center for registration and drivers license services.  Senator Raggio 
inquired if there is any surplus state property that might be used for the site of this 
facility to reduce the cost for this project, which includes in the cost estimate nearly 
$2 million for the 5 acre site.  Mr. Borges said the public works board has been unable 
to locate land in Henderson that is suitable for the project.  He indicated land is 
unavailable in Henderson, in general.  He said the board has been working with Pam 
Wilcox, the administrator of the State Lands Division, Department of Conservation and 
Natural Resources, on this matter.

Senator Rawson inquired where the proposed site is located.  William S. Gosnell, 
Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public 
Safety (DMV&PS), responded, stating the agency is looking at a site of 5 to 7 acres 
in an industrial park complex off Sunset, toward Green Valley.  He echoed the 
observation made by Mr. Borges that appropriate sites are scarce in Henderson.  
Senator Rawson inquired if the old Gibson land has been considered as a possible site. 
 Noting the Gibson plant facilities have been relocated to Cedar City, Utah, Senator 
Rawson suggested the owners of the land might be interested in a land swap and said 
this should be viable.  He remarked that in view of the actual costs of the various 
projects, additional CIP funds must be located.

Assemblyman Hettrick voiced the opinion it should be possible to acquire land that 
does not require site development at $3 per square foot, totaling an estimated 
$130,000 per acre, in addition to the actual land cost of $8 per square foot, or 
$300,000 per acre.  He questioned why the land cost and site development could not 
be obtained for less than $11 per square foot.  With respect to the testing services, 
Mr. Hettrick asked what is being tested, in addition to the soils, for the $28,077 
estimated cost.  Craig DeFriez, Staff Engineer, State Public Works Board, Department 
of Administration, addressed the question.  He said the 5 acre site will have extensive 
paving, landscaping and site lighting.  Material testing will include testing of the site 
soil, asphalt, concrete, masonry and any other materials in the building.  Assemblyman 
Hettrick reiterated his earlier concern regarding the expense of the CIP projects.

CIP 95-H2 - Renovation of DMV & PS Headquarters Building, $4,002,932

Description:  Full remodel of 70,000 square foot building in Carson City.

Senator Raggio raised the possibility of utilizing funds from the Motorcycle Safety 
Program, which is funded via a $6 surcharge on motorcycle registrations and transfers, 
for construction of the motorcycle test area component of this project.  The 
parking/test area is estimated to cost $89,022.  Mr. Gosnell agreed this is a possibility 
which could be examined.  


Senator Rawson inquired regarding whether, by expanding the office space in the 
current DMV&PS facility in Carson City, space will be made available elsewhere as a 
result of consolidating the department's offices in the central facility.  Mr. Gosnell 
replied the agency had considered several options before reaching the decision to 
renovate the existing facility, including the use of the vacated JCPenney store at the 
Carson Mall, none of which proved workable.  In Carson City the department has been 
leasing space for the Parole and Probation Division, a substation and one other 
component of the DMV&PS operations.  Mr. Gosnell said the renovation at the existing 
facility would solve significant problems regarding criminal records and the fingerprint 
program and would preclude the need to obtain additional space elsewhere.

Senator Raggio requested that either the DMV&PS agency or the public works board 
provide information regarding how the CIP projects approved by the 1991 and 1993 
Legislature (91-M42, 93-H2, 93-H3 and 93-S2) have been utilized, whether they have 
been completed and whether they should be incorporated into the current CIP; and 
whether the replacement of the carpet and vinyl flooring at the current facility, for 
which $42,218 was provided by the 1993 Legislature, has been completed or will be 
deferred if the proposed project is approved.  Senator Raggio inquired if the "open 
area" examined by committee members on their recent tour of the facility is included 
in CIP 95-H2.  Mr. Gosnell said funding has not been included in the project cost 
estimate and would involve additional cost.  Senator Raggio requested that a cost 
estimate and plans for utilization be supplied.

Assemblyman Arberry proposed the public works board provide cost estimates for 
constructing a stand-alone building on acreage owned by the state in the vicinity of the 
Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) and the DMV&PS site, as part of the $4 
million project cost.  The purpose of the building would be to serve as a "one-stop 
shop" for registration and licensing.  Mr. Borges said the public works board will 
provide cost estimates for such a building.  

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning echoed Mr. Arberry's suggestion that the board 
examine the possibility of building a separate facility to house the registration and 
drivers' licensing functions.  She said the current facility is extremely crowded, and 
there are significant safety problems for the employees as well as the customers.  She 
said the architectural design for the renovation must provide for alleviation of the 
crowded conditions.  Mrs. Chowning said the situation should be examined realistically 
in terms of safely housing the current volume of customers as well as the employees.

CIP 95-H3 - Renovation of East Sahara DMV&PS Office - $2,169,525

Description:  Full remodel of DMV&PS office building in Las Vegas.

Senator Raggio inquired as to what was done with the 1991 legislative appropriation 
of $278,000 (CIP 91-M18, Roof Replacement).  He noted the current project includes 
re-roofing.  The public works board representatives did not have an answer and agreed 
to return with the information.

Acknowledging that Mr. Borges is the acting manager of the public works board and 
was not in charge until recently, Senator Raggio noted the board's response to a 
request by the Fiscal Analysis Division for information on this project was not 
appropriate or concise.  He asked Mr. Borges to review the request and assign 
someone to provide the desired information, including the status of the projects 
involved.


CIP 95-H4 - Renovate NHP Office - $101,812

Description:  Minor remodel of Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) office in Las Vegas.

Mr. Gosnell explained this is the building being vacated by the Manufactured Housing 
Division.  The parole board will be relocated to this building.  Mr. Gosnell said if it is 
determined upon discussing the matter with the public works board that the security 
upgrade (for security fencing, electronic locks and so forth) requested for this project 
has not been budgeted in the current CIP, the DMV&PS may return to request a one-
shot appropriation for the security upgrade project.  

Mr. Ghiggeri raised the question of how funds provided by the 1993 Legislature for 
certain improvements at the NHP facility have been utilized. He voiced the committee's 
desire to have the previous projects coordinated with the current project.

CIP 95-M2 - Renovation Stewart Building 107 for DMV&PS - $374,955

Description:  Upgrade mechanical, electrical, telephone, data, fire safety and security 
systems at the Stewart facility in Carson City.

Mr. Gosnell stated this project is fairly important to the public safety component of the 
department.  He said the project is primarily an "exterior, envelope type of renovation" 
that involves the HVAC system, power, and water and would bring the facility up to 
code.

Senator Raggio inquired as to the purpose of the Data/Telecommunications component 
of this project and how the requested funding would be used.  Mr. Gosnell said it 
would be used to enhance the availability of power for the computers, which is 
currently inadequate to sustain their operation during times of increased power usage, 
as well as to enhance communications between the mainframe computer and the 
computers in the Stewart facility.   

Assemblyman Marvel asked which agencies will be relocated to the renovated facility. 
 Mr. Gosnell replied the agencies will primarily be from the public safety area and will 
include the Nevada Division of Investigations (NDI), the parole board and possibly some 
of the fingerprint or criminal history personnel.  Mr. Marvel inquired if funds have been 
budgeted for relocation.  Mr. Gosnell said the department will simply rent trucks and 
hire inmates to accomplish the move.

Senator Rawson asked if the Stewart facility meets the earthquake code.  Mr. Borges 
answered it is a good, reinforced structure that was built as a dormitory by the U.S. 
Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Statewide Projects

CIP 95-S1 Roofing - $4 Million

Senator Raggio inquired if any of the statewide CIPs qualify for funding from sources 
other than the state General Fund, such as federal highway funds.  Mr. Borges said it 
appears they are all General Fund projects.  


Senator Raggio asked if there is a state plan on reroofing of all state buildings.  Mr. 
Borges said Ray Crook is somewhat of a specialist for the public works board regarding 
the status of state building reroofing.  Senator Raggio requested that the board have 
Mr. Crook appear before the subcommittee to provide a review of the state's reroofing 
plans.

Assembly Hettrick requested that the subcommittee be provided a breakout of the 
miscellaneous repairs anticipated in CIP 95-S1.  Noting there is a construction 
contingency fund of $220,000, Mr. Hettrick said he wished to know the reason for 
 requesting the $90,000 for miscellaneous repairs in addition to the contingency funds.
Mr. Knapp responded, explaining the miscellaneous repairs allowance enables 
unforeseen roofing-related work to be done over and above the actual cost of the 
roofing materials and labor.  Mr. Hettrick asked why such repairs could not be paid for 
from the 10 percent contingency fund, since the purpose of this fund is to provide for 
unforeseen expenses.  Mr. Knapp replied the basic 10 percent contingency is the 
statutory limit on change orders once the contract has been awarded whereas the 
miscellaneous allowance in the construction category enables needs not foreseen 
during the project design to be added to the scope of work, leaving the contingency 
funds to cover the change order items.

CIP 95-S2 - ADA - $1,000,000

Description: Continuation of ADA improvements statewide.

Senator Raggio pointed out the 1993 Legislature had provided an enhanced amount 
of funding, $2.6 million, for the improvements mandated by the federal Americans 
with Disability Act (ADA).  He asked how much remains from that appropriation.  Mr. 
Knapp said he does not know the exact amount, but  the entire $2.6 million is required 
to fund the projects completed and the work in progress.  Senator Raggio asked how 
the $1 million is to be used.  Mr. Knapp referenced the work outlined in the project 
cost estimate and said the requested $1 million would supplement the 1993 
appropriation.  Senator Raggio instructed the public works board to promptly provide 
a list of the projects not covered by the $2.6 million.

CIP 95-S3 - Fire Sprinklers - $811,137

Description:  Fire sprinklers for high risk buildings and exposures at the University of 
Nevada, Reno (UNR), the Capitol Complex and the Nevada State Prison (NSP).

At Senator Raggio's request Mr. Ghiggeri voiced the concerns of the fiscal analysis 
staff regarding the use of the $2.1 million provided by the 1993 Legislature to install 
fire sprinklers in approximately 25 buildings, mostly within the prison system, and the 
impact of the sprinkler installation on the operation of the prison system over the next 
biennium.  According to information supplied by the public works board, as of March 
1, 1995, approximately $2.1 million was unspent and the project is estimated to be 
completed by April 1996.  

Mr. Knapp said the 1993 funds are committed to contracts currently in place.  He said 
the design work is being done, and the sprinkler installation work should be finished 
by the summer of 1995.  Senator Raggio requested that information be provided 
regarding what part of the $2.1 million is currently under contract.


CIP 95-S4 - Advance Planning - $640,000

Description:  Conduct studies and do facility master planning to assist in formulation 
of future Capital Improvement Programs.

Senator Raggio inquired if the planning will be completed in time for the next legislative 
session.  Mr. Knapp replied it is the board's intention to have the studies completed 
to facilitate the programming, planning and cost estimating for the FY 1997 program.

Concerning the cost of $50,000 to conduct a state roofing inventory, Senator Raggio 
asked why this cost is necessary.  Mr. Knapp explained the process involved in 
obtaining a physical inventory.  It was determined in further questioning there is not 
currently a complete list of all facilities, roof conditions and types, and the proposed 
inventory would provide this.  Senator Raggio asked if there is currently a source of 
information regarding warranties on the roofs of the various state buildings.  Mr. 
Borges said the public works board has a database with this information.

Assemblyman Marvel questioned the need for the $200,000 state prison facilities 
inventory/study as part of the advance planning project.  Senator Raggio noted the 
question had been asked of Mr. Bayer in his testimony regarding the prison CIPs, but 
a firm answer had not been obtained.  Mr. Borges said he could not answer the 
question.  Mr. Marvel reiterated his doubts as to the need for the study.

Senator Raggio asked if any of the advance planning projects qualify for the use of 
other funds, such as federal funds from the Employment Security Division (ESD) for 
the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation building in Carson City. 
 Mr. Borges said the building may well qualify for federal funds.  

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Borges to explain the proposal regarding the purchase and 
renovation of the courthouse/fire station in Carson City.  He referenced CIP 95-G8, 
which concerns the courthouse/fire station project.  Mr. Borges said the project relates 
to an arrangement made several years ago between the State of Nevada and Carson 
City.  Under the arrangement the state was to have purchased the courthouse for use 
as part of a possible attorney general's office complex and would have torn down the 
old fire station to use the location for parking.  In exchange, Carson City obtained the 
rights to lease land across from the Sedway Office Building for the fire station that is 
now at that location.  Carson City has indicated that if the city proceeds with its plans 
for development, it will need the proceeds from the previously negotiated sale prior to 
the next session of the Legislature.  Subsequently, however, the city has indicated the 
possibility of retaining ownership of the building.  The proposal regarding the purchase 
and renovation is therefore pending.

CIP 95-S5 - Paving Repairs - $1,342,381

Description:  Maintain, repair, overlay seal and strip parking lots and access roads.


Senator Raggio inquired whether other funding sources might be available for any of 
the paving repair projects and how the projects relate to similar projects for which 
appropriations were provided by the 1991 and 1993 Legislature.  Mr. Knapp replied 
previous allocations have been based on approximately 50 percent of the requested 
amount.  Some of the projects have not been completed, and the remaining 1993 
appropriation will be expended on these projects.  The list of proposed CIP 95-S5 
projects is not prioritized, Mr. Knapp continued.  Projects from the previous legislative 
appropriations that could not be completed have "rolled onto" the list of proposed new 
projects.  Mr. Knapp said he is unaware of the availability of any additional sources of 
funding for these projects.

CIP 95-S6 - Asbestos and Lead Paint Abatement - $1,000,000

Description:  Asbestos and lead paint abatement as required for various building 
remodel and/or renovation projects.

Senator Raggio asked to what degree the asbestos and lead paint abatement are 
essential.  Mr. Knapp said the hazards of asbestos are obvious and suggested the 
possibility exists for litigation by state employees or site employees at state facilities 
 if the abatement does not occur.  He voiced the opinion the project is of great 
importance.  Senator Raggio inquired if the abatement is mandated by the federal 
government.  Mr. Knapp replied yes.  He said the asbestos abatement is a federal 
requirement.  If asbestos is encountered while remodeling or engaging in other work 
in an existing state facility, it must be abated or encapsulated.  Senator Raggio noted 
 the cost estimate for the project involving various buildings at the Nevada Mental 
Health Institute (NMHI) in Sparks and pointed out it is not yet known to what extent 
the buildings will be utilized.  Mr. Knapp responded the Department of Human 
Resources has indicated the intention to maintain occupancy of the NMHI facility and 
to refurbish the buildings at that location.  He noted UNR's Hartman Hall has been 
included in the abatement projects.

Senator Raggio inquired if the State Public Works Board is representing, with its $1 
million request for this project, the asbestos and lead abatement projects are essential 
for the State of Nevada to be in compliance with federal requirements.  Mr. Knapp 
replied affirmatively, stating that if the state proceeds with the plans and projects for 
the various facilities involved, the abatement must be performed to meet the federal 
requirements.

Senator Raggio remarked he has read articles indicating the asbestos abatement 
program might not be essential.  Mr. Knapp agreed some of the abatement program 
might be considered nonessential, but he emphasized it is required by federal law.  
Abatement must occur on projects in which asbestos is encountered or the project 
cannot proceed, because contractors will not continue to work in such situations.

CIP 95-S7 - Underground Storage Tank Removal and Replacement - $1,000,000

Description: Removal and replacement of underground petroleum storage tanks in 
various locations.  

Assemblyman Marvel requested explanation of the "Miscellaneous" item ($135,000) 
in the construction cost category.  Mr. Knapp said this is an allowance for removing 
storage tanks, in accordance with the federal EPA mandate, that are unexpectedly 
encountered.  Mr. Marvel asked the purpose of the Petroleum Fund working capital 
request ($100,000).  Mr. Knapp explained the fund is "seed money" to enable the 
public works board to do the work that may qualify for rebates from the Petroleum 
Fund.  The work must be performed, and then applications for refunds of a percentage 
of the cost can be submitted.  Assemblyman Marvel inquired if the state qualifies for 
the underground tank fund.  Mr. Ghiggeri affirmed the state does qualify for such 
funds.

Senator Raggio inquired what would happen if the Legislature fails to appropriate the 
funds necessary for the underground storage tank removal.  Mr. Knapp replied the 
tanks would remain underground, and the state would be in violation of EPA 
requirements.  He did not know what the precise consequences of being in violation 
would be.

Assemblyman Hettrick remarked he had, at a business location, two underground 
tanks, one which held 10,000 gallons and the other, 1,000 gallons.  He had the tanks 
removed because of the EPA requirements.  He said it cost him far less to remove both 
tanks ("probably less than $10,000") than the estimated cost of removing a single 
tank in this CIP.  Further, he stated, an option to removing the tanks is to fill them 
with sand and leave them in the ground.  Mr. Hettrick said he chose to have the tanks 
removed because of where they were located.  He questioned the need for the A&E 
Design and Supervision services for this project and the estimated cost ($187,425) of 
this service.  


Senator Raggio voiced the opinion it is unnecessary to spend $1 million for removal 
of the storage tank if the EPA requirements can be satisfied simply by filling the tanks 
with sand and leaving them in the ground.  Mr. Knapp said the board has had 
consultants review the storage tanks to determine the removal needs.  He said if the 
tanks are found to be leaking, testing and evaluation must be performed and any 
contaminated soil must be removed.  He remarked that if the work is not required, the 
funds are not expended.

Senator Raggio said this project request would be a hard request to fulfill.

Senator Coffin cautioned if a tank is left unfilled in the ground and it springs a leak, the 
resulting mitigation of damage would be extremely costly.  

Assemblywoman Chowning asked to receive a copy of the results of a survey 
concerning security at certain state facilities, the status and location of the security 
upgrade at the Belrose office of the Welfare Division in Las Vegas, and whether funds 
have been budgeted to provide parking lot security for workers leaving the building at 
the Belrose facility.  Mr. Knapp said a study of the three facilities referenced by Mrs. 
Chowning was completed, and the public works board received the report.  However, 
he stated, the former manager of the State Public Works Board, Tom Stephens, 
obtained the reports as soon as they arrived and reviewed them.  Mr. Knapp said he 
was told by Mr. Stephens the reports contained vital information that should not be 
leaked to the public, and they were placed under lock and key.  He stated he has yet 
to see the reports and does not know where they are located.  The estimates of the 
work to be done are the result of the study, he continued.  Mr. Knapp clarified Mr. 
Stephens's reason for not wanting the contents of the report publicized was that the 
report pertained to security with respect to door locks.  He said it would be necessary 
to contact the original consultant, who is based in Las Vegas, to provide the 
information requested by Assemblyman Chowning.  Mrs. Chowning said she would 
contact Mr. Stephens for the information.

CIP 95-S11 - Seismic Safety Work - $257,218

Description: Structural strengthening of unreinforced masonry buildings.


Senator Raggio said the fiscal analysis staff will direct questions to the public works 
board regarding specific buildings that are to be reinforced over the biennium, and 
related questions.  He reminded the public works board representatives to provide as 
 soon as possible the supplemental information requested by committee members.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:53 a.m.



RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:



	
Sue Parkhurst,
Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:





Senator William J. Raggio, Co-Chairman


DATE: 	



Assemblyman John W. Marvel, Co-Chairman


DATE: 	





Assemblyman Morse Arberry, Jr., Co-Chairman


DATE: 	





Senate Committee on Finance
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
Joint Subcommittee on Higher Education/CIP
March 14, 1995