MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF

THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE LOCATING

A 4-YEAR STATE COLLEGE IN HENDERSON

           

A meeting of the Advisory Committee to Examine Locating a 4-Year State College in Henderson (created as a result of Assembly Bill 220 - 1999) was held at 10:00 a.m. on October 1, 1999, at the Community College of Southern Nevada, Henderson Campus, 700 College Way, Room C-133, Henderson, Nevada.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mayor James B. Gibson

Senator Jon C. Porter

Regent Howard Rosenberg

Assemblyman Richard D. Perkins, Chairman

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT

 

Regent Mark Alden

 

STAFF PRESENT:

 

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst

Joi Davis, Committee Secretary

 

GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE:

 

Jim Randolph, University and Community College System of Nevada

Steven Horsford, R&R Advertising

Tamela Gorden, University and Community College System of Nevada

Sherwin Iverson, University and Community College System of Nevada

Steve Soukup, University of Phoenix

Jesse Horne, First American

Dan Andersen, Farmers Insurance

Gayle Rogers, Henderson Chamber of Commerce

Alice Martz, Henderson Chamber of Commerce

Bob Campbell, Campbell Company

Regent Steve Sisolak, University and Community College System of Nevada

Valerie Miller, Las Vegas Sun

Bob Kasner, Paragon Asset Management Company

Suzanne Ernst, University and Community College System of Nevada

Regent Jill Derby, University and Community College System of Nevada

Bonnie Rinaldi, City of Henderson

Leslie Fritz, Nevada State Education Association

Massimo DiEgidio Tate-Snyder Architects

Betsy Fretwell, City of Henderson

Jane Nichols, University and Community College System of Nevada

Tom Anderes, University and Community College System of Nevada

GUEST LEGISLATORS IN ATTENDANCE

 

Assemblywoman Gene Segerbloom, Clark County District 22

 

List of Exhibits

 

Exhibit A            Meeting Notice and Agenda

Exhibit B            Attendance Roster

Exhibit C        Binder of Material entitled Henderson State College Advisory Committee Meeting Needs Assessment.

Exhibit D        Proposed Calendar

Exhibit E         Potential Resources for Henderson State College Study

 

NOTE:           All Exhibits are on file at the Research Library and Fiscal Analysis Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

Roll Call

 

Chairman Perkins called the meeting to order and announced that all Committee members were present except Regent Mark Alden.

 

Approval of Minutes from September 3, 1999, Meeting

 

Chairman Perkins indicated he would accept a motion for approval of the minutes if no changes were noted.

 

            REGENT ROSENBERG MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE

            SEPTEMBER 3, 1999, MEETING.

 

            SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

Report on Preliminary Findings on the Needs Assessment for a 4-Year State College in Henderson

 

Dr. Jane Nichols, Vice-Chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs, University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), provided the Committee with a binder containing information she would be discussing regarding the needs assessment of a state college in Henderson, Nevada (Exhibit C).  Senator Porter asked if materials for the meeting could be provided to them earlier so they can review the information prior to the meeting.  Dr. Nichols apologized and indicated that in the future materials would be delivered to Committee members prior to the meeting.

 

Dr. Nichols said that in developing recommendations for a state college, several questions needed to be answered:

 

I.          Initial Feasibility – (October 1999) Is another institution of higher education necessary in Nevada to meet needs for access, institutional diversity, geographic availability or economic development?

 

II.            Institutional Mission – (December 1999) What should the institution’s mission be, given the need?  How will it relate to UNLV and CCSN?  Is Henderson a logical location for this campus?

 

Dr. Nichols said that if the UCCSN worked diligently with the Committee, the institutional mission could be developed by December 1999.  The mission sets the stage for all other decisions, such as location, programs, and the size of the institution.  Dr. Nichols said the mission would determine if the institution is going to primarily serve 18-22 year olds, working adults, or meet the needs of the community in relation to jobs and economics, or it could be designed as a traditional, liberal arts college.  If the Committee decides to proceed beyond the assessment phase, then an initial plan can be created:

 

III.            Creation of an Initial Plan (May 2000) – Given the mission, what are the estimated projections of initial and long-term costs for physical plant and operations?  What portion of this cost can be supported by private partnerships and donations?  By the state?  By the student?

 

IV.            Institutional Programs (November 2000) – Given the mission, community need, and private support, what degrees and programs should be offered?  Develop a 10-year plan.

 

Dr. Nichols suggested that a 10-year plan could include phasing-in the opening of the campus and the development of programs, financial feasibility, and looking ten years ahead in how the campus could evolve.  By January 2001, the goal would be to have a location for the college.

 

Turning to student access, Dr. Nichols, continued the PowerPoint presentation:

 

 

Dr. Nichols pointed out that there is no difference in the growth of each of the age groups in the state, but southern Nevada is projected to outpace the rest of the state in population growth in all age groups.  The college age group (15-24) is expected to grow 36 percent from 1999 to 2004.  Dr. Nichols directed the Committee to page 8 of Exhibit C, a chart of projected growth by age groups in the state.

 

·        “How many students will graduate from Nevada high schools and where will they go to college?”

 

According to the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), the number of Nevada high school graduates is projected to be the fastest growing in the United States.  The United States average growth for high school graduates is 20 percent, while Nevada, by year 2010, projects a 134 percent increase in the number of high school graduates.  It is estimated that 24,200 students will graduate from Nevada high schools in 2010.

 

Dr. Nichols pointed out that although the number of high school graduates in Nevada is large, many of those students do not go on to college.  The college continuation rate in Nevada (39 percent) is the lowest in the United States. The average college continuation rate in the United States is 59 percent and is expected to grow to over 60 percent by 2010.  Projections reveal that if that percentage remains the same (25 percent of high school graduates enroll at UCCSN institutions) then 6,000 freshman will enroll in higher institutions in the state by the year 2010.  However, the Regents have set a goal to increase the rate of students continuing to college, from the current 39 percent, to 60 percent by the year 2010.  If that goal is reached, the rate of students continuing on to college would increase to 60 percent, with 45 percent remaining instate and 15 percent going out-of-state.  With that projection, 11,000 students are expected to enroll in UCCSN institutions by the year 2010.  Dr. Nichols pointed out that projections are conservative because the UCCSN anticipates that the Millennium Scholarships will encourage students to remain instate to go to school. 

 

·        “What has been achieved and what is needed in terms of access for students?”

 

Looking at fall headcount data for 1987 to 1998, the chart on page 13 of Exhibit C reveals that enrollment at UCCSN has grown 65 percent; 96 percent for the southern institutions and 30 percent for the northern institutions.  However, even though the enrollment figures have increased across the state, enrollment has not kept pace with the growth of population.  Population rates have grown at a much faster rate than the percentage of the population attending college.  Dr. Nichols explained that the “college participation” rate (page 15, Exhibit C) is the relationship between enrollment and population – enrollment per 1,000 population.  Looking at the western states, Nevada is one of the most underserved states in the west for access to higher education with 43 out of 1,000 citizens attending higher education.  This ranks Nevada 13th out of the 15 western states.  The national average is 50 out of 1,000 citizens that attend higher education.  In addition, a review of these same statistics by region shows northern Nevada with its four institutions has a participation rate of 55 students per 1,000 population—exceeding the national average.  However, southern Nevada with its two institutions has a participation rate of 39 students per 1,000 population. 

Dr. Nichols commented that the Board of Regents have set a goal to increase Nevada’s college participation rate to 55 students enrolled per 1,000 population statewide.  Taking into account projected population growth, the state would have to accommodate an additional 70,000 students with 61,000 of those students coming to the southern part of the state.

 

·        “Why don’t students enroll in college?”

 

Dr. Nichols informed the Committee that the UCCSN performed a survey of Nevada high school graduates who did not plan to continue on to college, which resulted in the following:

 

·        Can’t afford college right now (62%)

·        My grades are too low (33%)

·        I don’t need a college education for my plans (24%)

·        It is more important that I work than go to college (23%)

·        College is too far away (11%)

·        The College I could go to doesn’t offer the program I want (10%)

 

Dr. Nichols opined that the Millennium Scholarships could alleviate some of the above obstacles for students wishing to attend college.  Further, the survey looked at why students left the state to attend out-of-state institutions.  The most recent data (1996), revealed that 2,450 students left the state to go to public institutions (42%), private/independent (10%), private, for-profit (30%), and private, religious (18%) (See Exhibit C, page 19).

 

Senator Porter asked how comparisons were made with participation rates between the northern and southern higher education institutions in the state.  For example, he has two children attending the University of Nevada, Reno, who are from southern Nevada, so where would they be counted for statistical purposes?  For example, on page 16 (Exhibit C), the participation rate for the northern region is 55 per 1,000 population, and he wondered if his two children were counted in that figure.  Dr. Nichols replied that students were identified based on where they are enrolled.  She agreed that they should look at that closer to determine the number of students at UNR from southern Nevada and the number of students at UNLV from northern Nevada.  Chairman Perkins asked Dr. Nichols to provide that information to the Committee so they could get a sense of the numbers of students going south/north to attend higher education institutions in the state.  Dr. Nichols indicated the UCCSN would perform that analysis and provide that information to the Committee.

 

Returning to page 19 of Exhibit C, Dr. Nichols said the size of institution that students  leaving the state chose to attend has also been analyzed:  Fifty-three percent attend small institutions (under 5000) while only 17 percent attend larger institutions (10,000).  So, it would appear that students chose to attend smaller institutions when they leave the state.  Next, the survey considered the type of institutions that students chose when they leave the state:  Doctorial (32 percent), Baccalaureate/Non-Doctorial (27 percent) and 41 percent leave the state to attend institutions that are below the baccalaureate level—many of those are technical colleges or specialized colleges. 

 

In response to Regent Rosenberg’s request, Dr. Nichols said she would provide a list of the names of the institutions college freshman attend when they enroll out-of-state.

 

Continuing, Dr. Nichols said students have limited choices if they remain in the state to attend higher education institutions.  Mayor Gibson asked what percentage of students enrolled in Nevada’s institutions are from out-of-state.  Dr. Nichols said that approximately 20-25 percent of students served at our universities are from out-of-state, and that diversity is desirable.  Enrollment at our community colleges, although varied, is predominantly in-state, but an estimate of out-of-state enrollment would be ten percent.  Community colleges tend to be more regional in nature. 

 

Dr. Nichols turned to the impact a new college may have on UNLV and the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN).  She stated that both institutions have grown and are expected to grow at a rapid rate.  Dr. Carol Harter, President of UNLV, has stated that UNLV enrollment at year 2010 is expected to be at 40,000, and Dr. Richard Moore, President of CCSN, has projected enrollment to increase to 80,000 students in the year 2010 (page 21, Exhibit C).  Both CCSN and UNLV draw students from all over the Las Vegas valley.  UCCSN did an analysis (by zip codes) of the students enrolled at both institutions and found that approximately 25 percent of the students enrolled at CCSN and UNLV live within the driving distance of Henderson.  Therefore, approximately one quarter of the students might chose to go to a new college instead of the institutions to which they are currently enrolled.  Dr. Nichols pointed out that there are approximately a quarter million people living within easy driving distance of Henderson.  Comparing the numbers of students enrolled in higher education to the population in the Henderson area, it is a low college participation rate.  The UNLV is currently offering courses at the CCSN Henderson Campus and would continue to do so if the need were still present.

 

Dr. Nichols suggested that several factors should be considered in terms of the impact, if any, that a new college would have on CCSN and UNLV:

 

 

Even with conservative assumptions, Dr. Nichols continued, the Regents’ goals for access exceed projected enrollment figures of CCSN and UNLV. 

 

Senator Porter asked how the Regents determined their assumptions.  Dr. Nichols replied that the goals set by the Regents were established based upon regional and national college participation rates and the desire to increase the college participation rate in Nevada to at least the national average.  In other words, they did not just project these figures based on where they are now in enrollment (39% college participation rate), but instead projected by using the Regents’ goals as the standard (55% college participation rate).  Even with the projections of the two presidents from the southern institutions, there would not be enough “slots” for students enrolled in higher education by 2010. 

 

Senator Porter asked whether the information provided is indicating that there will be 42,000 additional students enrolled in higher education by 2010, and that number is higher than projected.  Dr. Nichols answered that there are two different figures to consider.  She directed the Committee to page 12, Exhibit C, which shows that the UCCSN has computed they will need 11,000 freshman by the year 2010 to reach their goal if the same rate of students going to college out-of-state continues; if the Millennium Scholarship does not impact that fact.  She clarified that 11,000 is only the freshman enrollment rate, not a total enrollment figure.  Then, the freshman enrollment rate figure must be brought through the total enrollment figure over a period of four to six years, bringing an additional 61,000 students to institutions in the south and 9,000 students to the north.  Based upon those figures, and projections from the presidents of the two southern institutions, there will be a gap if the Regents’ goal is realized. 

 

Senator Porter asked if the gap in students not being served would be 40,000.  Dr. Nichols replied the number of students not being served by the year 2010, with their projections, would be approximately 10,000.  Senator Porter indicated that he would like additional clarification but in the interest of time, he would seek his answers at a later date. 

 

Turning to an item she called “Human Capacity” (page 25, Exhibit C), Dr. Nichols asked: 

 

 

Dr. Nichols said the most significant difference is noted at the bachelor’s degree level, with 10 percent of the population in Nevada holding a bachelor’s degree, yet the average in the western region of the United States is 14 percent.  This places Nevada last in the western states for Nevadans age 25 years and older holding a bachelor’s degree. 

 

 

In reply to Senator Porter, Dr. Nichols said the 48 percent figure was a national statistic and she would check if similar information reflecting only Nevada statistics was available. 

 

In deciding whether to create a new higher education institution, the Committee may want to determine whether a new institution would increase the number of Nevadans obtaining bachelor’s degrees.  Further, what impact would the new institution have on the overall educational attainment of the citizens of Nevada?  During the 1997-98 school year, UNLV and UNR awarded 3,896 bachelor’s degrees; 2,365 by UNLV and 1,418 by UNR. 

 

Dr. Nichols stated that if the Regents’ goal is accepted (14% of the population attains the bachelor’s degree level of education), then the average number of bachelor’s degrees awarded would increase to 8,514. 

 

Senator Porter asked how the graduation rate in Nevada compared with other states.  Dr. Nichols said both universities do well in their retention rates.  The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has created a cohort of students that the UCCSN has followed, which includes students other than athletes, and that shows the state compares well with other states with comparable institutions, and both UNLV and UNR have similar retention rates. 

 

Dr. Nichols stated that the needs assessment on a proposed new college has shown that there is an economic development role for a new institution.  For instance, personal prosperity and regional economic development are increasingly tied to baccalaureate/graduate degree production—precisely the levels where Nevada is most deficient.  Higher education institutions tend to attract new industry, support economic diversifications, provide manpower for high tech jobs, and result in higher-paying jobs in the region. 

 

A review of available options to address the projected higher education demand and need in the state include:

 

 

Senator Porter stressed that the Committee should be looking at any “artificial boundaries” that may exist so the state can provide access for additional students at no cost to taxpayers.  Hopefully, the Committee can find a way to encourage more private opportunities.  In addition, Senator Porter said he disagreed with the comments made regarding distance learning.  Acknowledging that Nevada adequately compared to the national rate of 4 percent; he believes distance learning is the future of education, not only in urbanized Clark County, but statewide.  He would like to encourage the Board of Regents to look at distance learning as a future avenue for the state.  There are a number of schools in Clark County that do not have access to classes offered elsewhere in the state.  On another note, KLVX-Channel 10 in Las Vegas is currently moving to digital technology and perhaps the UCCSN could form a partnership with that organization as they reconstruct new facilities.

 

Dr. Nichols responded that Senator Porter’s comments were right on target.  In fact, funding was approved for KLVX to convert to digital technology and UCCSN is currently working with the station on distance education issues.  Dr. Nichols added that distance education seems to primarily attract students older than 22 years of age.  Senator Porter said in addition to college degrees, he believes distance learning is the future for primary and secondary education as well.

 

In conclusion, Dr. Nichols summarized the information UCCSN has developed in terms of the assessment needs for a new state college:

 

INITIAL FEASIBILITY:  Is another institution of higher education necessary in Nevada to meet needs for access, institutional diversity, geographic availability, or economic development?

 

 

Regent Rosenberg said students seeking a publicly-supported bachelor’s degree in Nevada are limited to two choices:  1) community college or 2) a doctorial/research university.  Although Dr. Nichols has indicated this is “institutional diversity” he believes it is more likely “program availability.”  What difference does it make where the program is located if the instruction could be delivered?  Dr. Nichols replied that some students perform better in certain types of schools and there is a “match” in education between the type of college or university and the needs of the student.  Students who can afford to go out-of-state make that choice based upon what is best for them.  In Nevada, if they cannot afford to leave the state, their choice is limited.  Regent Rosenberg asked whether the “choice” for Nevada’s students relates specifically to the size of the institution.  Dr. Nichols answered the choice involves not only the size of the institution, but also the mission of the institution.

 

Chairman Perkins asked if the Committee members felt the report provided by the UCCSN (Exhibit C) has satisfied the access needs for students in Nevada.  The Committee members made no comment so Chairman Perkins directed Dr. Nichols to proceed in the direction set forth in her report.

 

Chairman Perkins asked if there was any public testimony so he could manage the remainder of the agenda.  Seeing none, the Committee proceeded to the next item.

 

Discussion on Scheduling of Future Meetings and Topics to be Reviewed

 

Dr. Nichols provided the Committee with a Proposed Calendar (Exhibit D).  She noted that the suggested timeline works closely with the Board of Regents’ calendar.  If the Committee plans to bring recommendations on whether to proceed with the planning and implementation process to the December 3, 1999, Board of Regents’ meeting, then certain issues will have to be determined swiftly.  Therefore, three committee meetings are suggested between now and the December 3, 1999, Board of Regents meeting.  A meeting is proposed on November 5, 1999, to look at different types of institutional models and begin a discussion of the institutional mission.  Dr. Nichols related that she has been in contact with Dr. Sandra Elman, the Director of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, which is the regional accrediting body, and she is available on November 9, 1999, to make a presentation to the Committee on what it takes to create a new college.  Also, during the months of October and November, 1999, the UCCSN would be happy to set up trips to tour different campuses within the western states, and set up public forums in Henderson during those months so community members can have an opportunity to voice their opinions on the type of college they would like to see in their community.  The City of Henderson has allowed the UCCSN to participate in surveys to gather more information about needs in the Henderson area.  By the November 18, 1999, meeting, they would hope to have a better idea of what the needs are in the Henderson area, and a list of recommendations could be provided to the Board of Regents. 

 

Next, the December 10, 1999, meeting would be the adoption of an institutional mission along with a review of funding options, including public and private partnerships.

 

During February and March, 2000, the Committee would need to get ready for preliminary reports to the Board of Regents in April for initial capital requests and operating budgets.  Then, in May and June 2000, the final request will need to be presented to the Board of Regents for the capital budget request and in August for the operating budget request. 

 

Dr. Nichols conceded that the timeline was fast and was done so in response to the Committee’s direction at their last meeting. 

 

Regent Rosenberg asked if the timeline provided by Dr. Nichols would give the Board of Regents an opportunity to work through the budget with the Chancellor.  Dr. Nichols answered yes.

 

The Committee discussed the dates in the Proposed Calendar (Exhibit D).  Dr. Nichols reiterated that November 5th and November 9th were both designated as committee meeting dates.  Dr. Nichols suggested that those two dates be combined into one long meeting on November 9, 1999, which is when Dr. Sandra Elman is available.  The Committee agreed to meet on November 9, 1999, at 12:00 noon.  Seeing that November 18, 1999, was not a convenient date for the committee, Dr. Nichols suggested that November 16, 1999, be made an alternate; the Committee agreed to meet on November 16, 1999, at 10:00 a.m., in place of November 18, 1999.

 

Chairman Perkins asked the Committee to consider the other dates outlined on the Proposed Calendar (Exhibit D) and suggested that the Committee could approve those dates at a future meeting.

 

Review of Available Resources

 

Mark Stevens, Legislative Counsel Bureau, advised the members that the Committee has a budget of $500,000 that was appropriated through Assembly Bill 220.  He directed the Committee to the budget prepared by the UCCSN (Exhibit E) for preliminary review and consideration. 

 

Dr. Nichols said the proposed budget entitled “Potential Resources for Henderson State College Study” (Exhibit E) contains all the items the UCCSN thought would be necessary to proceed through an implementation plan of a new state college:

 

1.            UCCSN Chancellor and staff – no cost to the Committee for this support.

 

2.            UCCSN Doctoral Intern, John Case, Assistant Vice President at Desert Research Institute (DRI).  Dr. Nichols explained that Mr. Case was enrolled in a doctorial program and must complete an internship so DRI has offered to release him to work with the Committee on finance, capital and academic planning purposes.  That cost has been approximated at $26,200.

 

3.         The hiring of a consultant firm to assist in the development plan is estimated at $50,000.  Dr. Nichols said if the implementation plan is to be completed by spring 2000, the UCCSN could use some external help.  She stated that an RFP could be prepared and brought to the Committee for their approval.  This may include local or out-of-state firms that are accustomed to working in the area of planning facilities.

 

4.         Hiring of a founding president – If the Committee decides to proceed with the hiring of a founding president, that person would need to be hired in cooperation with the Board of Regents.  Dr. Nichols said it is common to hire a founding president when opening a new college.  The new president establishes the institution around the mission created.  She pointed out that it is the president’s job to secure funding and to establish a phase-in plan of the institution, and that could be anywhere from two to five years.  The UCCSN has estimated the search cost for a founding president at $30,000.  Further, if hiring were to commence in July 2000, the search would have to commence in approximately January 2000. The salary range for a founding president during FY 2000-01 is projected at $150,000 - $170,000, with a benefits/housing and car allowance of $41,000.

 

5.            President’s operating expenses for FY 2000-01 is estimated at $75,000.

 

6.            President’s support staff – 2.0 FTE, for the second year is estimated at $140,000.

 

7.         Dr. Nichols said the Committee has received an offer from Kerr-McGee for the creation of an office in Henderson for staff to be located and for the new president during the planning stages of the college implementation phase.

 

8.            Equipment and furniture for staff, start-up is estimated at $10,000.00.

 

Regent Rosenberg commented that the search cost of $30,000 was low.

 

Chairman Perkins acknowledged that the Committee was allocated $500,000 and asked fiscal staff whether that funding could be used for hiring a founding president.  Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), stated that the Committee would have to approve the plan to hire a founding president and then the Committee would reimburse the UCCSN for the costs incurred in that endeavor. 

 

Mr. Stevens stated that the budget presented by the UCCSN totals more than $500,000 so if the Committee wishes to proceed in the direction outlined by the UCCSN, then staff from UCCSN and LCB could get together to refine the numbers.

 

Chairman Perkins asked if the budget could be augmented with private money.  Mr. Stevens said that was definitely possible.

 

Chairman Perkins asked whether the Committee was comfortable with the budget proposed by the UCCSN.  Senator Porter said he approved the budget conceptually, especially in light of the comments made regarding funding under Assembly Bill 220.  Regent Rosenberg said the Committee needed to recognize that the proposal was based on a “step system” and those steps could be interrupted at any time and that would change the budget figures.

 

            SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO APPROVED EXHIBIT E AS THE

INITIAL WORKING BUDGET OF THE COMMITTEE.

 

            MAYOR GIBSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

Chairman Perkins invited Steven Horsford, R&R Advertising, and his client from Kerr-McGee to address the Committee.

 

Rick Stater, General Manager, Kerr-McGee, stated that Kerr-McGee was willing to provide a temporary facility on their property located on the northwest corner of Van Wagenen and Lake Mead Drive, including utility hook-ups for the duration of the feasibility/implementation phase of this study.

 

Chairman Perkins asked what type of facility was being offered.  Mr. Stater replied that there were options, depending on the needs of the Committee.  For instance, they could provide a 24 x 60 or a 36 x 60 modular office structure.  Each structure has multiple offices and a conference room. 

 

Jill Derby, Board of Regents, confirmed that Kerr-McGee was offering an empty site which they would place a modular structure for the temporary needs for as long as necessary.  Mr. Stater concurred.

 

Senator Porter expressed his appreciation to Kerr-McGee for their assistance.  Mayor Gibson commented that the location under discussion was VanWagenen and Lake Mead, and acknowledged that Kerr-McGee has been active since the beginning of the discussions of a potential state college and he appreciates their support.  He said there are other organizations also very supportive of the activities of the Committee.

 

Public Testimony

 

Chairman Perkins opened the meeting to public testimony.  With no public testimony forthcoming, Chairman Perkins thanked Dr. Jane Nichols and her staff at UCCSN for the presentation before the Committee.  Additionally, he thanked the Board of Regents as there have been various discussions along the way and everyone is working toward the same goal--to improve the access of higher education for students. 

 

Chairman Perkins mentioned that he is also a member on the Committee to Study the Funding of Higher Education, and he would be looking to stabilize higher education funding in the state.  That has been an issue for some time and if a true commitment to higher education in the state is to be made, the funding of higher education must be stabilized.  It is his goal to work through that funding process.  Continuing, Chairman Perkins said working on the existing study to present a “third tier” in higher education is an exciting proposition and he is happy to be a part of it.  After the 1997 legislative session, he had concerns about the Redfield campus, and although he is not critical of that process, he began conversations with Mayor Gibson at that time regarding the possibility of other sites in southern Nevada.  However, the vision of a “third tier” belongs to Mayor Gibson who brought forth the concept of a state college. 

 

Mayor Gibson thanked Chairman Perkins for his kind comments.  In addition, he brought forth the subject of a Subpoena regarding pending litigation between the City of Henderson and Studio Enterprises, Ltd.  Mayor Gibson said he was not sure whether LCB was counsel for the Advisory Committee regarding that litigation, but wondered what direction the Committee needed to take in response to the Subpoena. 

 

Mark Stevens, LCB, stated that Legislative Counsel is responding to the Subpoena and complying with the document request.  Mayor Gibson commented that as far as he knew there were no documents available to satisfy the Subpoena.  Mr. Stevens said there were discussions during the 1999 legislative session regarding potential sites, but no specific sites were identified.  However, the Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau was reviewing the records of the session and if anything is located, the Committee will be advised.

 

Mayor Gibson stated that in his role as coordinating public presentations that were made to various bodies and civic organizations on the matter, to which he was in attendance, there was never a time that the site mentioned in the Subpoena was ever recommended, suggested, or considered.

 

Senator Porter said he was unaware of what was being discussed.  Chairman Perkins advised the Committee that a Subpoena had been brought to his attention yesterday.  Apparently, Studio Enterprises, Ltd., had some potential development or project that was under consideration to be built in the City of Henderson and it ultimately fell through.  Records have now been subpoenaed to see if the site they were going to use for their development was ever under consideration for a state college.  He said his recollection is that no specific site was ever mentioned in any of the discussions of the state college.  The site that is the subject of the lawsuit is located in the southeast area of Henderson.

 

With nothing further to come before the Committee, they adjourned at 11:35 a.m.

 

 

 

                                                            _____________________________________

                                                            Joi Davis, Committee Secretary

 

______________________________________

Assemblyman Richard D. Perkins, Chairman

 

Date:  __________________________