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 10:30 a.m., on November 16, 1999, at Henderson City Hall, Council Chambers, 240 Water Street, Henderson, Nevada.




Assemblyman Richard D. Perkins, Chairman

Senator Jon C. Porter

Mayor James B. Gibson

Regent Howard Rosenberg

Regent Mark Alden




Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst

Joi Davis, Committee Secretary




Jim Randolph, University and Community College System of Nevada

Bob Campbell, Campbell Company

John Case, Desert Research Institute

Regent Thalia Dondero, 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

Kelly Clayton, University of Phoenix

Regent Steve Sisolak, University and Community College System of Nevada

Alice Martz, Henderson Chamber of Commerce

Bob Kasner, Paragon Asset Management Company

Regent Jill Derby, University and Community College System of Nevada

Jane Nichols, University and Community College System of Nevada

Tom Anderes, University and Community College System of Nevada

Richard Wilkie, City of Henderson

Rick Bennett, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Leslie Fritz, Nevada State Education Association

Dan Anderson, Farmers





List of Exhibits


Exhibit A            Meeting Notice and Agenda

Exhibit B            Attendance Roster

Exhibit C        Meeting Packet

Exhibit D        Memorandum - UNLV in Henderson


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 at 10:30 a.m., recognizing the full committee in attendance.


Chairman Perkins noted that the Committee would be hearing from Dr. Jane Nichols, Vice-Chancellor, Academic and Student Affairs, University and Community College System of Nevada (UUCSN) on Agenda items 2, 3 & 4 combined.


Review of Institutional Models, Mission Statements, Carnegie classifications

Review of factors related to the creation of a new college in Henderson

Recommendation to the Board of Regents


Chairman Perkins thanked Dr. Nichols and staff for providing the materials to the Committee prior to the meeting.  Dr. Nichols thanked her staff and the Vice-Chancellor for Planning and Finance, Dr. James Randolph, for their assistance in addressing concerns of the Committee. 


Regent Alden asked that copies of the power-point presentation the Committee would be viewing (Exhibit C, Meeting Packet) be provided to those in the audience, as well as the Henderson Home News.


Dr. Nichols recalled that during the second meeting of the Committee, the feasibility study of the need for higher education expansion in Nevada was discussed.  At the last meeting, on November 9, 1999, the Committee discussed the steps necessary to obtain accreditation for a new college, which included a presentation by Dr. Sandra Elman, of Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges.  Noting there may be some review of that meeting, Dr. Nichols related her presentation would focus on the decision to create a new college in Henderson.


In deciding to create a new college, the Committee needed to answer the question:  “What type of institution of higher education should it be?”  In order to answer that question, four factors must be considered:


            1.            The Carnegie Classification System


Dr. Nichols said the Carnegie Classification System is used to describe a type of institution.  This scheme is currently in the process of being reviewed, but it is helpful in describing different types of higher education institutions.  In general, Carnegie classifications include:

§        Associate degree granting institutions

§        Baccalaureate degree granting institutions

§        Master’s or Comprehensive universities and colleges

§        Doctoral and Research institutions


Dr. Nichols said there is a trend now that the word “college” is being changed to “university” for 4-year institutions, but that does not determine the Carnegie classification. 


            2.            Types of Institutions


There are typically three tiers of institutions:


§        Tier One: Community Colleges – Two-Year degrees that offer certificates and associate degrees.  Some community colleges are beginning to offer selective baccalaureate degrees.  In Nevada, the Regents have approved Great Basin College in Elko to offer select baccalaureate degrees.  Community colleges are characterized by a strong community base, and controlled by local funding.  However, in Nevada, the community colleges are controlled and funded by the state.  Generally, faculty at this level have a higher teaching load, approximately five classes per semester.


Regent Alden asked whether it was less expensive to operate a 2-year institution than a 4-year institution due to a different teaching load.  Dr Nichols confirmed that per student, it is less expensive to operate a 2-year community college than a 4-year institution.


§        Tier Two: Baccalaureate/Master’s Colleges – May offer limited Master’s Degrees, and generally emphasize teaching.  These colleges are community-based or regionally-based, and the faculty have higher teaching loads than at the community colleges, but not as high as the universities, generally between 12-15 credits per semester.


§        Tier Three:  Universities – These are research-based with a mission for teaching and service.  Generally they offer baccalaureate, Master’s and doctorate degrees.  The faculty has reduced teaching loads in order to conduct research and provide service, generally nine credits per semester.


Dr. Nichols indicated she would focus on the Baccalaureate/Master’s Colleges (Tier Two) since that appears to be the focus of the Committee.  She provided models of Baccalaureate/Master’s Colleges:



Dr. Nichols, turning to the issue of admission policies, said Baccalaureate/Master’s Colleges do not have a nationally accepted method of classifying institutions in terms of selectivity.  Usually, selectivity includes:  a) Rank in high schools, scores on standardized tests, and b) institutional acceptance rates.  The Peterson’s Guide is used for admission profiles, and provides a ranking by the institutions.  The categories and examples of the universities in those rankings, include:


Ø      Most Difficult – Stanford, Cal-Tech, Rice, Pomona

Ø      Very Difficult – UCLA, UC San Diego, Lewis & Clark, Reed

Ø      Moderately Difficult – UNLV, UNR, Arizona State, CalState, Sacramento, BYU, Oregon State, Southern Oregon University, and Evergreen State

Ø      Minimally Difficult – Eastern New Mexico University, and Portland State

Ø      Noncompetitive


Regent Alden asked whether it was acceptable to have open enrollment based on high school graduation or GED and but if a student was below a certain GPA then they could enroll in six credits or less, or should the standard be higher, and what would that be considered based on the above standards?  Dr. Nichols indicated the standard described by Regent Alden would typically fall under the “minimally difficult” or “noncompetitive” standard.  She commented that institutions within Nevada have struggled with the issues of admissions and selectivity because there are not many options for students.  Clearly, the community colleges within the state clearly have open admission policies, and the universities have higher standards for admission, while still creating ways for students to be admitted.  Dr. Nichols stated that admission standards would be a key question for the Committee in shaping the type of mission created.  If enrollment is to be limited, then admission criteria must be established fairly and accurately. 


Regent Alden said he was concerned with meeting access for all students, and that some students, for whatever reason, do not excel.  So, in the above instance, they would have the opportunity to go to college under the six-credit or less criteria.  Dr. Nichols asserted that care should be taken to not open that door, resulting in students at UNLV moving to Henderson.  Rather, the Committee may want to look at creating a mission for the state college that is different.

Turning to campus configuration (Exhibit C, page 9), Dr. Nichols noted that many institutions use the single institution model (Southern Utah University, Cedar City in Utah).  There are also single institutions, with multiple campuses (Great Basin College, Nevada, Arizona State/West Campus).  Another type of campus is the multiple institution, single site (Idaho State University, Idaho Falls, and a private institution, Ricks College).  In Nevada, experimentation in multiple institutions is underway in the Redfield campus, whereby UNR, TMCC and WNCC are joining together at one site to offer degrees.


Dr. Nichols said that when considering a new college, future trends in campuses warrants some thought:

Ø      High Tech Campus – includes Smart classrooms, Internet hookups everywhere, computers everywhere, video-conferencing and state-of-the-art technology.

Ø      User-Friendly Campus – exceed ADA requirements, safe and secure institutions, and functional in terms of services to students.

Ø      Environmentally Correct Campus – Landscaping appropriate to the area.


Senator Porter expressed his interest in the possibility of a partnership with KLVX-Channel 10, and using some of their equipment on the site for the new college; expanding distance learning.  Dr. Nichols agreed. 


Regent Alden mentioned that Senator Raggio has repeatedly advised that there were limited funds in the state, so any collaborative activities, particularly Channel 10, should be explored and utilized whenever possible.


Directing the Committee to the issue of mission statements (Exhibit C, page 11), Dr. Nichols said the mission statement of an institution defined the institution, the programs offered, the facilities that are built, the size of the institution, and the type of faculty to be hired.  She stated that the Committee could review the material provided on mission statements in further detail but she would like to highlight the following:

Ø      Every institution has a mission statement;

Ø      Each mission statement is unique;

Ø      Community Colleges have six basic factors to their mission:

·        Transfer courses

·        Developmental courses

·        General education courses

·        Occupational/technical/vocational courses

·        Community services/continuing courses

·        Counseling and advising


Dr. Nichols pointed out that the community college level maintains a great deal of support for all students and that is extremely important in defining the nature of the institution.


Regent Alden indicated a new institution established by this Committee should not impinge upon the mission of the community colleges. 


Dr. Nichols said a Baccalaureate/Master’s college usually had the following characteristics common to their mission statements:

Ø      Specific programs, including liberal arts and/or professional programs

Ø      Strong emphasis on teaching

Ø      Strong emphasis on student learning or experimental learning

Ø      Role of the college on the community


Within Research universities, Dr. Nichols related that often there are three common areas:

Ø      Education and Teaching – both graduate and undergraduate level

Ø      Public Service – includes the transfer of research to the community

Ø      Research


Regent Alden stated it was important not to impinge upon the missions of UNR or UNLV, as both institutions are meeting the criteria to be classified as Research universities.  Chairman Perkins asked how often an institution changed their mission statement.  Dr. Nichols replied that institutions review their mission statements for accreditation purposes every ten years, minimally.  Some institutions retain the same mission statement for many years, while others change their mission statements rapidly; it is at the discretion of the institution.  Chairman Perkins asked if changing the mission statement posed any problems with the Carnegie Classifications.  Dr. Nichols answered that no problems result from changing the mission statement; however, accreditation is based upon whether or not the institution carried out their mission. 


Providing examples of missions statements from the UCCSN and out-of-state institutions, Dr. Nichols related that the complete text of the examples she would be highlighting were contained in the appendix of the meeting packet (Exhibit C).


Community College of Southern Nevada



University of Nevada, Las Vegas



Dr. Nichols said the mission statement of UNLV values teaching, and their mission statement has shaped the institution on artistic endeavors and the strong role that art and theatre plays in the community.


University of Nevada, Reno



Dr. Nichols said UNR’s mission statement is very traditional and was written quite some time ago. 


Turning to mission statements from out-of-state, Dr. Nichols highlighted the following:


Evergreen State College


Dr. Nichols reminded the Committee that Evergreen State College is a newer institution and is a Baccalaureate Degree institution with selected Master’s programs.


Dr. Nichols related that Evergreen State College was a very different institution, as defined by their mission statement.  All courses are interdisciplinary and faculty teach outside their area of expertise in teams within the classroom. 


Mayor Gibson asked where Evergreen State College ranked on the admission profile in terms of selectivity.  Dr. Nichols responded that Evergreen State College was at the “moderately difficult” level for admission standards.  In further response to Mayor Gibson, Dr. Nichols replied that the student body at Evergreen was approximately 3,500.


Dr. Nichols added that Evergreen is a public, liberal arts college, and was created in the State of Washington by the Legislature in response to regional needs and political issues in the state.  Evergreen was created as an experimental campus at the time it was established.


California State University at Monterey Bay


Dr. Nichols indicated this was a fairly new institution and was created because a facility became available.  Looking at this mission statement, it was clear that the institution was positioned to meet the needs of working class, low-income, multicultural students.




Southern Oregon University


This institution is located in Ashland, Oregon, and has a 5,000 student enrollment.  The institution was founded in 1926.


Dr. Nichols related that the popular Shakespeare Festival is located in Ashland, Oregon, and it was the partnership between the festival and the campus that formed the fine and performing arts portion of the institution.  She said the campus at Southern Oregon University is attractive, well equipped and secure. 


Southern Utah University


This institution is located in Cedar City, Utah and was established in 1897.  The institution is changing in its mission statement and nature. 


Dr. Nichols concluded her presentation on mission statements and commented that she hoped the Committee would be thinking about the mission statement for the new state college because that defines the uniqueness of the college.


Regent Alden acknowledged that the creation of a mission statement is important because the curriculum that supports the mission must be interwoven otherwise accreditation will not occur. 


Regent Rosenberg asked whether guidelines were available describing what a 2-year institution and a 4-year institution should do in relation to their mission statement.  Dr. Nichols replied that within academic standards there is much flexibility in designing the institutional mission, with the faculty shaping the level of learning based on the degrees offered.  In other words, anything can be emphasized (i.e., technology, ethics, etc.) 


Factors related to the creation of a new college in Henderson


Dr. Nichols began by looking at factors in support of a 4-year college in Henderson:


Ø      Student Demand

Ø      The Need for Choice

Ø      Human Capacity

Ø      Economic Development

Ø      Opportunities


Regent Alden interjected that he wanted to reiterate, for the record, his desire to have a list of the courses offered by UNLV, the enrollment for those courses, and what the current enrollment numbers were at UNLV for students that have the zip code that is in the City of Henderson area, including Boulder City and Laughlin.  He indicated that he would like the data to go back four or five years, for all semesters, and also for CCSN and its various sites.


Dr. Nichols indicated she would attempt to get that data, but she was uncertain whether the data could be obtained as far back as five years because they have not been retaining that particular type of data for that length of time.  She added that her presentation would include information on the current trends at the CCSN Henderson campus.  She cautioned the Committee on how that data, once supplied, was used.  She opined that students come to those campuses from a wide variety of areas, for a wide variety of reasons. 


Returning to factors in favor of a state college in Henderson, Dr. Nichols continued:




UCCSN believes the demand for additional baccalaureate level capacity will continue to grow at a dramatic rate, and is driven by many considerations.  Further, the expanding population in Nevada, especially in the southern region and the college-age population, is growing dramatically.  In addition, the new millennium scholarships will eliminate financial barriers for many students and the number of high school graduates will continue to increase.  Dr. Nichols stated that there was a desire by citizens of the state for more higher education and additional degree opportunities.  There was also an increased demand for a highly trained, educated workforce, as well as a continued demand for public school teachers.


Dr. Nichols said the projections for the year 2010 reveal a 62 percent population growth in Southern Nevada, with a 42 percent overall population increase statewide.  Nevada high school graduates are expected to grow by 160 percent.  In Clark County that would be an increase of high school graduates from 7,385 to an estimated 19,200.  In addition, the college-going rate would increase (the Regent’s goal) from 25 percent to 45 percent.


UCCSN estimates that 6,400 high school graduates will be eligible for the Millennium Scholarship within the first year (2000), and that number is expected to approach 17,000 by 2010. 


Dr. Nichols said the preliminary enrollment plan is that by 2010 UNLV is expected to serve 30,000 undergraduate students and CCSN anticipates 90,000 students. 


Dr. Nichols stated that the UCCSN has been working on something called “The Baccalaureate Degree Gap” and she will supply information on that issue to the Committee in a Memorandum at a later date.  It appears that opportunities to get a baccalaureate degree will need to grow more than the current system can accommodate.  This year UNR and UNLV, together, granted 3,896 baccalaureate degrees.  Looking at the projections for the year 2010, the gap that exists for baccalaureate degrees to meet the goals, would be 5,312 degrees. 


Mayor Gibson asked for clarification.  Dr. Nichols said if projected enrollments were used for UNR and UNLV and the graduation rate stays the same, the number of degrees to be granted would be 5,688.  An additional 5,312 degrees would be required to meet the Regent’s goal.


Regent Rosenberg said that the projections for UNVL (30,000) and CCSN (90,000) would be reduced if a college in Henderson were established.  He asked if there was a ratio between new people coming into the system and whether there would be a loss of students to UNLV and CCSN.  Dr. Nichols said she would like to answer the question; however, she could only offer her professional opinion.  She stated that as different types of education, along with different points of entry are created, more students would participate, and more students would remain in Nevada to attend higher education institutions.  Therefore, the overall number of students would increase, but nobody can say whether the opening of a new college in southern Nevada would take students away from UNLV and CCSN.


Dr. Nichols continued with the factors in support of a establishing a new state college in Henderson.




Currently, students have two choices for attending higher education in Nevada.  The state has community colleges offering associate degrees, with GBC now offering selected baccalaureate degrees.  In addition, the state has research level universities offering baccalaureate, masters and doctoral degrees.  As Nevada’s population continues to increase, more choices might need to be offered.


Turning to the chart on page 28 of the meeting packet (Exhibit C), Dr. Nichols stated UNR was shown as a Doctoral institution, and UNLV was shown as a Master’s/Comprehensive institution.  However, UNR should actually be listed under Research, and UNLV should be listed as Doctoral.  The next chart (Exhibit C, page 29), showed that UNLV and UNR were both working to become Research institutions, a critical move for the state.  However, with that process underway for the two universities, then no institution would be characterized as Doctoral, Master’s or Baccalaureate in the Nevada.  New Mexico, with a similar population as Nevada, has five institutions, three at the Masters/Comprehensive level.  The state of Utah has two Research institutions, one Masters/Comprehensive, and one Baccalaureate institution.  In response to Mayor Gibson, Dr. Nichols stated that the chart on page 29 was depicting only public institutions, and the data was from 1995.  In addition, she noted that there was no comprehensive, residential baccalaureate private institution in southern Nevada. 






Dr. Nichols pointed out that the human capacity factor involves the benefits of having an educated citizenry in the state.  Nevada has fewer citizens who hold degrees beyond an associate’s degree than all other western states.  It is believed that the more highly educated the population, the greater benefits returned to the community and state by its citizens.


In further support of the human capacity factor, Dr. Nichols stated that individuals benefit from higher education by generally having a higher income level and improved standard of living, along with additional knowledge, skills and a sense of accomplishment and reward.


The question has been posed that if more baccalaureate degrees were obtained in the state, would there be enough jobs.  That answer is shown in the next factor for consideration:




Dr. Nichols stated that the establishment of a 4-year institution would keep more students in Nevada, bring more out-of-state students to Nevada, support business and industry, while improving the educational level of the workforce in the state. 


Mayor Gibson said it was clear that the factors in support of a new college in Henderson were interdependent, and if the institution did not have a student body and a faculty that fit the mission, the institution would not succeed.  Therefore, the issues relating to selectivity and admissions become fundamental in the process.


Dr. Nichols addressed the final factor in support of a new college.





Dr. Nichols stated that very few institutions were created recently because the process was difficult; waiting five years for accreditation and obtaining a sponsoring institution required time and commitment.


A review of the institutions that have been created in the past ten years revealed one or more of the following:



Chairman Perkins said that the demand factor, solely, would create the need for a new facility.  The Committee continues to look at the new facility as serving students from all over Nevada and outside Nevada.  The opportunity is exciting in that the institution can be created from the ground up for students all over the state.


Dr. Nichols concluded that the factors in favor of a new college in Henderson (Demand, Choice, Human Capacity, Economic Development, and Opportunity) are strong and persuasive.


Turning to factors of concern in creating a four-year college in Henderson, Dr. Nichols posed the following question:




Dr. Nichols said the Committee had discussed other options.  For instance, a branch campus in Henderson could be established, or there could be an expanded, joint CCSN/UNLV campus in Henderson.  Or, selected 4-year degrees could be offered at the CCSN Henderson campus.  The expansion of distance education is another option, as is raising incentives for private colleges and universities to come to the state and build an institution.


Looking at the option of a branch campus of UNLV in Henderson, Dr. Nichols stated the most recent model of this concept was the Arizona State University-West Campus.  The UCCSN has looked at that campus and discussed the creation of that campus with several persons who worked on getting it established.  Dr. Nichols said the Arizona State University-West Campus was a complete campus, including all support services.  It is comprehensive in nature, with selective 4-year degrees being offered.  In addition, she stated that there was some reduced administrative costs in this option, which also made accreditation easier.  Dr. Nichols informed the Committee that Dr. James Randolph, Vice-Chancellor for Finance and Administration, has researched the matter, and he did not find any cost savings in this model.  She commented that in some respects a branch campus still resulted in limited student choice because it would not be a distinctly new campus.  Further, the land and operating funds, and some level of administration was needed with a branch campus.


Dr. Nichols provided the Committee with information from UNLV on what courses had been offered by UNLV at the Henderson campus (Exhibit D), for the fall semester and summer term of 1999.  She thanked those at UNLV for putting the information together in such short notice.  She pointed out that the UNLV program in Henderson was very active. 


Dr. Nichols returned to discussing the options in lieu of a new institution.  She stated that another option could be to create a joint branch of CCSN and UNLV in Henderson.  Such a concept would be similar to institutions created in Texas, Illinois, Michigan and Idaho.  She said an expanded joint CCSN/UNLV branch campus in Henderson could increase the programs offered by UNLV.  Generally, CCSN would provide the first two years of education, and UNLV would provide the second two years of education.  It would be comprehensive in nature, and there would be selective 4-year degrees offered on site.  Dr. Nichols noted that there would be a reduction in administrative costs, and accreditation would also be easier.  However, decisions and coordination problems would be likely to increase.


Another option would be to offer selected 4-year degrees at CCSN, such as the model at Utah Valley College.  Dr. Nichols said this option resulted in reduced administrative costs and quick start-up costs; however, accreditation was more difficult because CCSN would have to become accredited to offer the baccalaureate degrees.  Dr. Nichols related that this model lacked the 4-year college environment because the first two years were at the community college level.  She added that the facility in Henderson might be adequate to add selected 4-year degrees and change the mission of CCSN, and administration costs would be limited.  However, data on the Henderson campus has shown that there was a 30 percent growth in enrollment from the fall of 1997 to the fall of 1999, and there is a strong growth in the university transfer courses and in the evening courses at that site.  Dr. Nichols indicated she would provide the Committee with that data in writing.


Another option in lieu of a new college in Henderson would be to expand distance education.  Dr. Nichols said this type of model was proposed for North Snohomish-Island-Skagit Higher Education Center, located in a remote area in Washington.  All courses would be delivered by distance education to that site.  Dr. Nichols indicated that such a model could be established in southern Nevada with UNR and UNLV offering upper division programs using distance education and delivery systems.  A distance education model would not require much in administrative costs, nor would there be any accreditation problems.  However, distance education does not appeal to all students, was not comprehensive, and there was not much community support for that type of model.  In addition, the technology and computers that were needed for distance education required substantial funds.


Dr. Nichols described the Private College model, such as Sierra Nevada College.  She stated that there was strong support for a private college in the state; however, tuition was much higher for students at private institutions, and limited state funds were involved.  However, creation of a private college was beyond the control of the state or the UCCSN, and required private support and interest for that type of model to occur.


Dr. Nichols said although there currently was no model for creating a 4-year state college in Henderson, the models at Southern Oregon University and Evergreen State College have been discussed.  Creating a new college, including all support services and 4-year degrees and select master’s degrees, then a new faculty could be created, perhaps emphasizing teaching.  This model would require a level of energy in the area of accreditation, as well as community support, land and operating funds, facilities and administrative costs.


In deciding whether Nevada can afford to build a new college in Henderson, Dr. Nichols said the Committee might wish to consider three factors:


·        Start-up costs of land and basic building.  Dr. Nichols stated that few colleges built in the country today were built almost exclusively with state dollars.  In order for the large start-up costs to be established, some private support will have to be established as well.

·        Ongoing costs of operation.  Dr. Nichols directed the Committee to the Appendix in the Meeting Packet (Exhibit C), and pointed out that the page entitled “WICHE States, Public Institutions – 1995” and the column addressing Education and General (E&G) Expenditures, per FTE (scaled to 2-year institutions).  These figures represent the relationship of operating costs between one type of institution and another.  Looking at the cost of education, a student in Nevada scaled to the community college costs it is $3.28 for $1.00.  Looking at the total figures, scaled at $1 for a two-year institution, the four-year, non-doctoral costs $1.48 per student in the western states; whereby the doctoral costs $3.22 per student in the western states.  The same type of pattern is shown for all institutions, including private institutions.  Overall, the total is $1.57 per student for a 4-year non-doctoral, compared to a $1 for 2-year, and $3.29 for doctoral.  Dr. Nichols turned to another chart in the Appendix (Exhibit C), where percent distributions were listed.  She explained that these figures represent, across the western states, the percent of distribution of students in different types of institutions.  For instance, 56 percent in 2-year institutions, 15.6 percent in 4-year institutions, and 28 percent in doctoral institutions.  In Nevada, 53.8 percent of our students are in community colleges and 46 percent are in doctoral institutions.  She reminded the Committee that those figures had increased because the information depicted in the Appendix was from 1995.


Senator Porter went back to a previous chart that showed Nevada’s cost of educating a student at $3.23 FTE for doctoral institutions.  Dr. Nichols said that was not an actual cost, but was a relative scale.  Senator Porter asked why Nevada had a higher number compared to many of the other states.  Dr. Nichols replied that she did not have an answer based on actual figures; however, she opined that the number for Nevada relates to the number of institutions in the state, the enrollment in those institutions, how the costs are distributed among those institutions, and the number of external dollars that were brought in from federal research funds to support those research institutions.


Senator Porter asked Dr. Nichols to provide him with a more comprehensive answer in the future.


Regent Alden, returned to page 45 of the Meeting Packet (Exhibit C) and noted that Senator Raggio has made it clear that support in state dollars would not exceed 20 percent of the total General Fund budget.  Regent Alden said it was his understanding that Nevada was one of the few states that did not receive local revenue sources for its community college.  He suggested that additional revenue sources should be researched and local entities could be encouraged to think about funding sources for local institutions because support will be needed for the new institution.


Senator Porter commented that a serious look at the “doctoral dollars” as shown in the figures in the Appendix and perhaps improving the receipt of grant dollars would free dollars from other areas.  Dr. Nichols informed the Committee that the UCCSN was working with the Legislature on the Committee to Study the Funding of Higher Education during this interim.  Specifically, in looking at the cost of institutions in Nevada compared to similar institutions, costs in the state were not excessively high.


Senator Porter clarified that he was simply looking at Nevada’s cost of $3.23 per student as compared to the same category in Idaho being $1.51 and $1.26 in South Dakota.  Therefore, perhaps additional grant monies could be located by reviewing that issue.  Dr. Nichols agreed.  Further, she stated it was a key question for the universities to see what it would take to increase their position in federal funding and in public/private partnerships to enable them to be more competitive and bring in more federal dollars.


Regent Rosenberg, directing a question to Regent Alden, asked how institutions obtained funds, other than through federal grants.  Regent Alden said community college and state colleges that are not Research institutions, normally receive revenue sources from local taxing authorities, such as city or county funds, which supply revenues to the institutions.  Continuing, Regent Alden said a new state college in Henderson would open the door for collaboration, such as with Channel 10, in order to reduce state dollars and public scrutiny. 


Directing the Committee to another table within the Appendix (Exhibit C), Dr. Nichols pointed out that the total E&G Expenditures per FTE in the west, for a 2-year institution is $6,847; 4-year non-doctoral is $10,741; and doctoral is $22,521.  In Nevada, the cost for 2-year institution is $4,804; $7,549 for a 4-year non-doctoral; and $15,534 for a doctoral institution.  She noted that arguments could be made about what was included in E&G, and that these figures were from 1995.  However, the point is to recognize that there is a difference in relative cost for different types of institutions.  Regent Alden commented that the data revealed that it cost less to operate a 4-year, non-doctoral institution than it does to operate a doctoral Research institution.  Dr. Nichols said that based upon the FTE, per-student rate that was correct.


Dr. Nichols noted that there would be major pressures to meet the access needs of higher education in the state.  In fact, the enrollment projections by CCSN and UNLV were dependent on state support.  She stated that both CCSN and UNLV have made plans to meet the needs of students in southern Nevada.  For example, UNLV has preliminary plans for Summerlin, and CCSN is working on a plan in Mesquite.


Chairman Perkins concurred that affordability was an important factor for consideration.  Assuming that the cap on state support was 20 percent, and $1 serves 100 students at UNLV, does the data indicate that that same $1 would serve 200 students at a 4-year, doctoral institution, and even more at a community college.  However, working with the same funding formula described, it would appear that establishing a 4-year, non-doctoral institution would allow more money for higher education.  Dr. Nichols replied that it would cost less to educate the same number of students if there were different layers of education available.


Chairman Perkins said when considering building a new institution, what ramifications should be considered as to cost whether to build it at CCSN or UNLV.  Dr. Nichols answered there would be no difference in cost if a new institution were built at either location.


Regent Alden said he would support a recommendation to forward to the Board of Regents to locate a 4-year institution in Henderson with emphasis on the areas of business, teacher education, and communications. 


Senator Porter concurred with Regent Alden; however, he asked whether the Committee wanted to limit the scope at this time as to the specific mission.  Regent Alden said he would modify his proposal to not define the scope of the mission at this time.


Regent Rosenberg asked if there was a motion before the Committee.  Chairman Perkins said there was not.  Regent Rosenberg indicated he would like to make a motion in conjunction with Regent Alden’s comments. 


Chairman Perkins informed the Committee that Dr. Nichols had not concluded her presentation and a motion could be brought forth after the Committee has had the opportunity to hear all the information presented.  At that time, the motion could be framed more thoroughly and it may be important to involve a founding president in the creation of missions, if that is the direction of the Committee.


Mayor Gibson stated that if the Committee is careful and selective, the right person is recruited for the job as founding president, that person would bring with them the experience and be motivated to bring the right components together to implement the mission.  He said as the Committee began to describe the mission, it should be understood that it is not an “all things for all people” endeavor.  Rather, the mission should address meeting certain, specific needs. 


Regent Rosenberg interjected that the Committee was dealing with two separate issues:  1) A recommendation to the Board for the institution; and 2) A founding president.  Mayor Gibson said he understood that, he was simply addressing the proposed motion that specified the scope of the institution, and in that regard, he felt that defining the scope of the mission should be done at a later date.


Dr. Nichols said she was delighted a motion was forthcoming because she would like to take the Committee’s recommendation to the Board of Regents.  She informed the Committee that two recommendations needed to go to the Board of Regents in December 1999, if a new institution was processed.  First, there needed to be a recommendation to move forward to plan a new institution.  That recommendation included:  1) The creation of an operating budget; 2) Discussions of a mission statement; 3) The creation of a capital plan, etc.  In order for the budget to be ready for the Legislature, the UCCSN needed the budget approved by the Board of Regents by August 2000.  The Board of Regents’ approval of operating priorities, capital projects, enrollment projections, and tuition and fee revisions take place in June 2000. 


Chairman Perkins asked who would create the operating capital budgets for a new institution.  Tom Anderes, Interim Chancellor, UCCSN, responded that the institutions were currently in the beginning phase of that process.  Initial budget discussions would take place in March and April 2000, with action by the Board of Regents in June 2000.  Each institution develops budget requests based on the guidelines from the UCCSN.  Chairman Perkins asked who would advocate for a new institution in Henderson during the UCCSN budget process.  Dr. Anderes replied that it would likely be persons who have been working on the project in the system, along with a subset of the Advisory Committee to Examine Locating a 4-Year State College in Henderson, which could act as a “surrogate” as the Committee developed the process.  However, if a founding president were hired, that person would advocate for the new college.


Chairman Perkins asked what barriers there were in expediting a location for the new institution and the choice of a founding president, if the Board of Regents approved the concept at their December 1999 meeting.  Dr. Anderes said nothing should preclude the Committee from moving forward in that fashion; however, the Board would like a sense of the funding sources for the new institution.  At some point, the Legislature will be making final approval of the concept and the Board does not want to move forward with a founding president and then have the project not funded by the Legislature.


Chairman Perkins said he was concerned that there would be disadvantage for the new college if a founding president was not advocating for the institution during the budget process.


Jill Derby said it was her understanding that the appropriation from the Legislature for the Committee could be used to hire a founding president.  Mayor Gibson said the Committee had previously discussed not exhausting all the appropriation dollars so some of the start-up costs could be handled through that appropriation.


Chairman Perkins recollected that the Committee approved a proposed budget at an earlier meeting.  He asked Mark Stevens, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Fiscal Analysis Division, to comment.  Mr. Stevens confirmed that the Committee discussed a tentative budget at a previous meeting.  That budget included funds for a founding president if that was what the Committee decided and the Board of Regents approved.  He suggested the Committee review the tentative budget and make some final decisions.


Senator Porter said anyone who accepts the position of founding president must understand that there are certain risks involved as the process moves forward. 


Regent Alden asked if a 501(C)(3) non-profit entity was created for a state college in Henderson, funds could be raised to supplement the project.  Mark Stevens, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated that was correct.  Regent Alden said once the 501(C)(3) was created, he would commit $10,000 to get the state college project started.


Chairman Perkins thanked Regent Alden.  He advised that the Committee might wish to consider the factors listed on page 47 before defining a motion for recommendation to the Board.  Some of those factors included:






Dr. Nichols noted that there was no date regarding the hiring of a founding president, so she asked if the date for that to occur was open-ended.  Chairman Perkins said the hiring of the founding president should occur as soon as possible.


Mayor Gibson said the objective should be to recruit the founding president by January 2000 so as the budget process commenced, an advocate for the new institution was on board. 


Regent Alden asked that the Advisory Committee be included in a search committee for the founding president of the new state college.  Regent Derby said if the Board of Regents approved the concept, a search committee could be appointed immediately.


Senator Porter, seeking clarification of the motion, asked that the Committee still be involved in drafting the mission statement and the selection/recommendation for the founding president.  Dr. Anderes responded that it was his belief that the final selection of a founding president would be by the Regents.  However, the process could incorporate other individuals, or the Committee could make a recommendation to the Board, with the Board making the final selection.  Chairman Perkins and the Committee concurred.


Chairman Perkins brought the motion back to the floor for a vote, adding that the motion generally incorporated the items outlined on page 47 of the meeting packet (Exhibit C).




Discussion of Advisory Committee visits to College Campuses


Dr. Nichols advised that if the Committee wished to visit different models and campuses, the UCCSN would be happy to set up such tours some time in February, March or April 2000.  If the Committee thought that would be helpful, she would proceed with scheduling some site visits.


Regent Alden acknowledged that the Committee had limited resources, and therefore it may not be necessary to visit other campuses at this time.  In his opinion, the funds would be better suited to the task of a founding president.


Regent Rosenberg said it would be a good idea to visit other campuses, particularly Evergreen College.  He emphasized that the Committee had an opportunity to create an exciting institution in Henderson and it would be good to see other models to aid in that endeavor.


Chairman Perkins indicated that it would likely not cost a great deal to set up site tours.  He asked if the Committee would be able to access other campuses through “virtual” visits, including photographs and data from other institutions.  Dr. Nichols answered that virtual visits would definitely be possible, as well as presentations by presidents from other institutions.  In addition, the entire Committee need not attend the campus tours, but if just a few members wished to tour facilities that could be set up as well.  She said the UCCSN has considered tours to Evergreen, Cal-State Monterey, Southern Oregon, and Southern Utah.  Chairman Perkins indicated that the Committee could discuss setting aside a minimal amount of money for those site tours for those members wishing to do so.


Review of the Advisory Committee’s Timetable


Chairman Perkins said the next suggested Committee meeting was for December 10, 1999, and asked if that was acceptable to the Committee.  He noted the timetable provided in the meeting packet (Exhibit C, Tab 6), outlined future meetings in conjunction with the scheduled meetings of the Board of Regents.  After reviewing the meeting dates for the Board of Regents, the Committee agreed to meet on December 10, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., at UNLV.  Chairman Perkins noted the next meeting scheduled for the Committee was scheduled for February 4, 2000. 


Mayor Gibson commended Dr. Nichols and her staff for the very helpful presentation and the work the UCCSN has put into providing information to the Committee.


Regent Alden thanked Regent Derby, Regent Sisolak, and Regent Dondero for attending the meeting and supporting the efforts of the Committee.


Public Testimony


Leslie Fritz, Learning and Public Policy Specialist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), thanked the Committee for their work, as well as the work performed by Dr. Nichols and others at the UCCSN.  Ms. Fritz stated that the NSEA viewed the prospect of a new college in Henderson as an exciting proposition, and appreciated the opportunity that a new institution represented to new teachers and current teachers in the state, particularly in southern Nevada.


Ms. Fritz asserted that the teacher shortage in the state was an important issue, and was more apparent in southern Nevada.  The NSEA believed a new institution could address the teacher shortage problems in the state.  In addition, with the implementation of the new academic standards in the state, and the increasing need for quality professional development of the existing teacher workforce, a new college would provide a tremendous opportunity.


Ms. Fritz said the NSEA is supportive of a new college in the state.  However, the NSEA was concerned with the ability of the state to fund a new institution and all other education matters in the state adequately.  Chairman Perkins said that the filing for the 501C-3 was nearing completion and funds could be accepted in support of the new institution soon, should the NSEA wish to support those efforts.


There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 12:25 p.m.




                                                            Joi Davis, Committee Secretary





Assemblyman Richard D. Perkins, Chairman


Date:  ____________________, 2000.