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 9:55 a.m., on Friday, December 10, 1999, at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Tam Alumni Center, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, 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




John Case, Desert Research Institute

Regent Thalia Dondero, University and Community College System of Nevada

Steve Soukup, University of Phoenix

Regent Steve Sisolak, University and Community College System of Nevada

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

John Filler, UNLV Faculty Senate

Kathy Robins, UNLV Faculty Senate

Bob Cooper, City of Henderson

Gene Collins, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Lonnie Wright, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Barbara Griffin, Tate & Snyder Architects

Hank Melton, Private Citizen

Bonnie Rinaldi, City of Henderson

Betsy Fretwell, City of Henderson

Carol Harter, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Juanita Fain, University of Nevada, Las Vegas


List of Exhibits


Exhibit A         Meeting Notice and Agenda

Exhibit B         Attendance Roster

Exhibit C        Meeting Packet

Exhibit D        Development of Master Plan and Budget for Proposed 4-Year College in Henderson, Nevada, provided by Dr. Jane Nichols, UCCSN

Exhibit E         Potential Campus Visits and Dates, provided by Dr. Jane Nichols, UCCSN


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 9:55 a.m., recognizing the full Committee in attendance.


Approval of Minutes


Chairman Perkins indicated he would accept a motion to approve the minutes of the November 9, 1999, meeting (Exhibit C, Tab 2), if no changes were forthcoming.









Chairman Perkins thanked Dr. Jane Nichols and Dr. James Randolph of the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) for their continued work in keeping the Committee educated and informed.  He stated the information they have provided greatly helped during the presentation he made to the Board of Regents on December 1, 1999.


Chairman Perkins recognized Regent Dondero, Regent Sisolak, and Chair of the Board of Regents, Jill Derby, in attendance.  He expressed his appreciation for their efforts in attending the meetings and dispensing information to the Board as a whole.




Report on Actions Taken at the December 1, 1999, meeting of the Board of Regents


Dr. Tom Anderes, Interim Chancellor, UCCSN, stated the Board of Regents took two actions at the meeting on December 1, 1999, which mirrored the recommendations of the Advisory Committee:



(a)       The development of a biennial budget request for operating and capital to be sent to the UCCSN for consideration;

(b)       Exploration of partnerships and gifts to support the startup costs;

(c)        Collaboration with UNLV and CCSN for appropriate partnerships and startup support.



Dr. Anderes stated that as a follow-up to the December 1, 1999, meeting, the Board’s search committee will meet at 1:30 p.m., on December 10, 1999, at the UCCSN southern office at 5550 West Flamingo Drive, Las Vegas, to discuss the issue of a founding president. 


Chairman Perkins noted that there were a number of people that asked questions at the December 1, 1999, board meeting, and he sensed that the meeting went well and the questions posed were answered well.  He noted that it has continually been reported that the process was very quick, and he concurred.  However, the process has been dictated to the Committee by deadlines outside the Committee’s control; either the pending legislative session, or the Board of Regents’ calendar.  He stressed that it was not the intention of the Committee to move so quickly as to stifle public input or debate. 


Discussion of Institutional Mission


Chairman Perkins said the issue of an institutional mission has been brought to the Committee on more than one occasion and some discussion has been held as to that matter.  He asked Dr. Nichols to renew the discussion on institutional missions.


Dr. Jane Nichols, Vice-Chancellor, Academic and Student Affairs, University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), directed the Committee to Exhibit C, Tab 4 which outlined key decisions for the Committee to make regarding the institutional mission of the new institution.  She indicated she would review previous material supplied to the Committee regarding institutional missions, and then the Committee might be able to take action on Item No. 1 – Type of Institution – in order to clarify the type of institution planned. 




            1.         Type of Institution – Carnegie Classifications


Dr. Nichols recollected that at the last meeting the Committee reviewed the categories of classification for higher education institutions.  From that discussion, it would appear that the Advisory Committee was interested in planning a Baccalaureate College in Henderson offering primarily undergraduate and limited master’s degrees.  This model would also emphasize teaching, and it would be regionally or community-based in its focus and mission.  Further, Dr. Nichols stated that faculty at the new college would have a primary responsibility for teaching and service.


Dr. Nichols indicated that the Committee might be able to make a decision on the above issue, but the following issues might require more thought, information, or public input.


            2.         Statement of Philosophy – Dr. Nichols stated the mission statements from various institutions had been provided to the Advisory Committee so they have had an opportunity to review those examples.


            3.         Program Emphasis – Dr. Nichols related that there has been articles in the press that indicate the Advisory Committee will be creating a college that emphasizes education or business.  Although those programs were discussed, no official decision has been made on that issue.


            4.         Type of Students – Dr. Nichols said the Advisory Committee needed to decide if the programs, class times and locations would be targeted toward traditional college age students (18-22 years), non-traditional students, or a blend of the two types of students.  Also, should the college have residential facilities?  When should classes be available?  Another aspect relating to students was the admissions criteria.  That was an important aspect of creating a system of higher education in the state, and will be of great interest to the Board of Regents as they review the total picture of access to all students.


            5.         Special Features – Dr. Nichols commented that it would be normal for a new institution to create a unique institution that might have a particular focus or strength. 


            6.         Relationship with Henderson – Dr. Nichols stated the relationship with Henderson and the state needed to be discussed; whether within the mission there would be a special definition or relationship with the city of Henderson.  Regent Alden said he would like to add a strong core curriculum to the type of Institution.  This was done at UNR in the 1970’s and the process was near completion at UNLV.  The core curriculum at both universities was currently at about 50 hours.  Also, he would encourage continuing to offer masters and doctorate programs at the two universities, but discourage offering masters and doctorate programs at the new state college.


Chairman Perkins asked if the core curriculum aspect was included in the program aspect or the Carnegie Classifications.  Dr. Nichols said the core curriculum was important and appropriate under the Carnegie Classification.






Senator Porter clarified that the Committee was choosing from the following types of institutions:  1)  Research Institution;  2)  Baccalaureate College; and 3)  A 2-Year Institution.  Dr. Nichols said a Master’s/Comprehensive College could also be considered.  She directed the Committee to page three behind Tab 4 of the meeting packet (Exhibit C), which outlined the Carnegie Classifications.  She further explained that Baccalaureate I (strong liberal arts college) and Baccalaureate II have not being distinguished by the Committee at this time.


Chairman Perkins said that by choosing a Baccalaureate College, the Advisory Committee was distinguishing the institution from the mission of the community colleges and from the two universities in the state.  Dr. Nichols said that was correct, and clarified that there would not be a duplication of UNLV’s mission.  Chairman Perkins commented that the Committee had no intention of encroaching on the missions of the existing institutions in the state.  He brought the motion back to the floor for a vote.




Chairman Perkins asked if there was any discussion on No. 2, Statement of Philosophy.  He noted that Dr. Nichols appropriately deemed this to be an item that should involve the founding president, together with the thoughts of the Board of Regents.


Regent Alden agreed.  Regent Rosenberg inquired into the issue of higher teaching loads.  Dr. Nichols said that was a task that was done by the institution. 


Mayor Gibson directed his comments to Item No. 6, Relationship with Henderson.  He said he agreed that discussions with the administration and the founding president would be necessary for philosophy and student program matters.  However, as to the relationship with Henderson, he recollected that approximately one year ago when the concept of a state college began, he had thought the name of the college would be “Nevada State College” and to his knowledge, no other name has been urged by the City of Henderson.  He said the City of Henderson viewed this as an opportunity to participate in a statewide and regional discussion about education in southern Nevada, including the improvement of availability and access to education, to continue to interest children toward higher education, and folks wishing to retrain themselves or seek a degree. 


Chairman Perkins thanked Mayor Gibson for his comments, and concurred with his sentiments.  In addition, Chairman Perkins noted that the City of Henderson offered to support additional higher education in the state.  Although names for the college have been brought forth, that decision was premature.  He reiterated that the new college was not for Henderson residents alone, but for all residents in the state, and out-of-state students as well.


Regent Alden said he would recommend to the founding president that a Community Advisory Group regarding a relationship with Henderson be established as soon as possible.


Senator Porter, directing his comments to Item No. 5, Special Features of the College, said he would like to include as priorities of the mission, cultural diversity and technology.  He stated that one of the largest challenges faced by the state was a cultural diversity.  Further, technology is the future of education and a new facility for public television was needed.  He suggested that the site of the new state college be that location.  A partnership was needed with public television because of educational access statewide.


Dr. Nichols said she appreciated the Committee’s discussion on the issue of the name of the college.  She advised that although no name was determined for the new college, the UCCSN has collected information on other names in the country that might resemble potential names for the site.  At the appropriate time, that information could be provided to the Committee.


Chairman Perkins said he wanted to address the perception from the public that the concept of a new college was moving “too quickly.”  He asked if anyone in the audience wished to address Items 2 through 6, regarding the institutional mission (Exhibit C, Tab 4), to provide input on the record.  Those items included:  Statement of Philosophy; Program Emphasis; Students; Special Features of the College; and the Relationship with Henderson. 


Gene Collins, President, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and former state assemblyman, thanked Senator Porter for his comments on cultural diversity.  Mr. Collins said the NAACP supported the concept of a new college in Henderson because it would enhance the opportunity for disadvantaged students to obtain an education, at a discounted rate, hopefully.  It has been stated that Clark County was the most diverse community in the country.  If that were true, it would make good business sense to educate the most diverse individuals.  A new college would open avenues for all minorities to obtain higher education.  If education was the key to the future, then a new college could bring about change in the economy.


Chairman Perkins thanked Mr. Collins for his remarks.  Regent Alden expressed appreciation for Mr. Collins’ comments.  Chairman Perkins asked Mr. Collins to review the items being discussed by the Committee and forward any suggestions the NAACP may have to the Committee.


Regent Sisolak testified before the Committee, indicating support for the concept of a “third tier” in higher education.  However, he was concerned with the fast pace that the Advisory Committee has undertaken, especially in the past thirty days.  Regent Sisolak said that rumors were generated about moving schools or colleges from one institution to another institution, and he has received much feedback as a result of those rumors.  The rumors were destructive and have resulted in a difficult situation on some of the campuses.


Regent Sisolak expressed concern regarding the funding for a new college.  While there is much community support in Henderson, he feared that tuition increases will be imposed on students to fund the new college.  He emphasized that students were already overburdened with the rising costs of books and annual tuition increases and technology fees, so he did not want to see students having to carry the burden of the cost of a “third tier” of higher education. 


He stressed that the Governor’s office has indicated that funds this biennium were limited.  Regent Sisolak said an equity problem has been identified for some institutions, and the Legislature has assisted in approximately 25 percent of that problem, but there remained areas that needed attention.  He asked for more detail on where the funding for the new college would be coming from, and for assurances that tuition increases would not subsidize a new state college.  In addition, Regent Sisolak stressed that there should be no negative impact on any of the existing institutions in the state as a result of a new state college.


Regent Sisolak concluded by reiterating that while he supported the concept of a new college, he was concerned about the money that was needed to make it happen.


Regent Alden stated that with regards to setting student tuition, the Board of Regents have a policy that has been in place for approximately four years, which is the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) plus one percent.  He stated that he hoped that tuition policy remained in tact.  However, there were external pressures, aside from a new college in Henderson, which might result in a greater rate of increase.  He encouraged the Board of Regents to stay with the tuition policy that has been in place for the past four years.


Regent Sisolak commented that if there were already external pressures, without a new institution, then pressures would be increased more with the establishment of a new institution. 


Regent Alden noted that 4-year colleges and community colleges that serve a regional area should have the support of local entities.  There were only a few states, Nevada included that did not support that concept.  This did not necessarily refer to new taxes, but could mean money coming back into the state budget for higher education. 


Regent Sisolak asked whether Regent Alden was referring to local support in relation to community colleges, or the new state college as well.  Regent Alden said the state college in addition to community colleges.  Regent Sisolak asked if Regent Alden believed that the City of Henderson should direct tax revenues to the state college.  Regent Alden said that was correct, although it would be just a small percent.  In addition, there was a problem with hard revenues supporting higher education throughout the state because enrollment growth was increasing at a more rapid pace than the growth rate of the state budget. 


Regent Sisolak indicated he would not advocate for any special taxes from Henderson for the state college.  Regent Alden said it did not necessarily have to be a special or additional tax.  Regent Sisolak said he would not advocate for any of their tax revenues, not knowing their tax situation.


Senator Porter expressed appreciation for Regent Sisolak’s conservatism.  In looking at the UCCSN, growth rates, budgetary issues, and other important issues, the Committee has been shown figures that reveal the cost of educating students at a state college was one-half to one-third the cost of educating students at a university.  So, the Committee was looking at a significantly less cost for educating all students in the state. 


Regent Sisolak said he agreed that there was a reduced cost based on a state college model, if there was a state college already established.  However, the start-up years and the cost per student, per FTE would be greater than either the community colleges or the universities, because of the initial fixed administration, including a president, a Provost, and several vice-presidents, etc.  He stressed that all those costs would be divided by a very small FTE in the beginning years.  Currently, dollars were being stretched throughout the existing campuses and institutions within the state, and that would only worsen by adding another institution. 


Senator Porter indicated that the Committee was looking at providing responsible answers to projections expected 5-10 years from now.  In reviewing funding sources, the Committee has been shown figures on the amount of federal funding Nevada received for higher education.  He asked why the state of New Mexico brought in $180 million in federal grants, yet Nevada brought in only $35 million.


Regent Sisolak said one reason could be that the facilities in New Mexico were more improved than the facilities in Nevada.  For instance, the hard sciences at UNLV are grossly under-funded and there was a drastic shortage in terms of square footage space relating to hard sciences and engineering.


Senator Porter said New Mexico State brought in $102 million in federal grants, and the University of New Mexico brought in nearly $77 million.  Yet UNR brought in $25 million, and UNLV, a research institution, was nearly $10 million.  So, when looking at fiscally responsible ways to secure the future of the university systems in the state, federal grants should be a major source.  Someone needed to research the inequity.  He asked what the Committee could do to assist the UCCSN to capture more federal dollars.


Regent Sisolak stated that he would like to see a comparison in the figures identified by Senator Porter, which showed the square footage for science and engineering, and lab space at the two institutions in New Mexico and compare that to what is available at Nevada’s two institutions.  He speculated that there would be a direct correlation between the square footage and the amount of federal funds brought into the hard science programs.  The federal funds will only go to the facilities that can accomplish the research. 


Continuing, Regent Sisolak said not only would there be the cost of implementing an entirely new state college system, but there was the large cost of bringing the two universities up to the level they need to be at in order to compete with other states such as New Mexico, for federal dollars. 


Senator Porter said this debate has certainly underlined the importance of proper funding.  However, in seeking dollars for the next decade and finding the proper facilities and workforce for the future, short-term and long-term visions were required.  So, in looking at the shortage in dollars, all the money and areas of funding need to be reviewed.  Regent Sisolak said he would ask staff to come up with figures regarding federal funding related to the disciplines and facilities.

Chairman Perkins apologized to the Committee and the audience for diverting from the agenda, although the topic of funding was appropriate.  However, with the projections in growth and enrollment that the Committee has been apprised of, if steps were not taken now to create an institution for a high quality education at a lower cost, and the money was directed in the fashion it always has been, the discussion of a state college, in order to save money, will remain a concept rather than a reality.  He opined that it was more fiscally prudent to implement the process presently, with some off-set from donations and pledges, then to wait ten years. 


Regent Sisolak said the most prudent approach, in his opinion, would be to secure the land for the facility first, as was done with the Redfield campus in Washoe County, whereby the land was purchased some twenty years prior to development of the land.  The cost of building a new institution was excessive now and will be more expensive ten years from now, but there were also discussions regarding two new campuses for CCSN, one in Mesquite and Pahrump.  Further, UNLV was looking into two satellite campuses, and the two universities were in the process of becoming Research I institutions.  He was concerned with the funding of all these endeavors, noteworthy as they may be, the projects should be prioritized.


Regent Sisolak informed the Committee that he heard more of the day-to-day complaints from students rather than the philosophical debates brought before the Committee.  He concluded his comments by stating that he was certain all interested parties could work together on these issues.  He also commended the Committee for its work and noted that the forum of the Committee has been extremely open and has provided significant opportunity for public input and testimony.


Regent Alden said in addition to federal grants, the UCCSN brings in grants from other sources, such as private industry.  The total grants and contracts for fiscal year ending June 30, 1999, was $159 million.  However, that still was not enough because both universities had shortages in research and lab facilities.


Chairman Perkins noted that the information the Committee received to date did not reflect what other state’s institutions received from gifts and grants from local communities.  He pointed out that if it costs $15,000 per year to educate a student to the baccalaureate degree level at a university, and $7,500 at a middle tier institution, then every year the state waits to adopt that middle tier, the state will be spending $7,500 more per student for all the students that could be rerouted to a state college.  That was why the Committee was working so aggressively to accomplish its goal.




Use of a Consultant in Developing Information


Chairman Perkins said this agenda item would help identify and specify items for the Committee on the use of a consultant, and set out a time frame for accomplishing those tasks.


Chairman Perkins directed the Committee to Exhibit C, Tab 5 of the meeting packet, which identified potential uses for the Consultant:


            1.         Mission Statement, Degree Programs and Services provided by a Four-Year College in Henderson.


            2.         Campus Development.


            3.         Enrollment Planning, and Operating and Capital Costs.


He stated that additional matters could be included in the above items, however he would direct the discussion in the matter presented.


Mark Stevens, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Fiscal Analysis Division, said the material under Tab 5 of the meeting packet (Exhibit C) outlined potential areas that a consultant could provide services to the Committee.  He said the timetable to complete the work was a driving force for the Committee to determine the tasks of a potential consultant.


Mr. Stevens pointed out that the proposed calendar (Exhibit C, Tab 8), reflected an April 6, 2000 meeting of the Board of Regents.  At that meeting, a review of the initial capital lists from all the campuses and the operating budget priorities will be reviewed.  He advised that the Committee might want to keep that time line in mind when deciding matters to be completed by a consultant. 


Mr. Stevens said the Committee needed to outline the tasks the consultant should perform.  Once that was accomplished, the Committee had a couple possibilities:


            1.         Allow the City of Henderson, along with some of the consultants they routinely work with, to accomplish some of the tasks outlined in Exhibit C

            2.         Authorize the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) to enter into a contract with a consultant chosen by the Committee to perform the tasks. 


If the Committee chose to go through the LCB contract process, Mr. Stevens recommended that the Committee outline areas where a consultant was needed, and then staff could develop a Requirements Document based on those needs.  Mr. Stevens indicated there probably was not enough time to go through the Request for Proposal (RFP) process.  Perhaps the Committee, with staff, could develop a list of consultants that may wish to bid and then a Requirements Document could be forwarded to those prospective consultants with a request to have them bid on the document.


Chairman Perkins asked Mr. Stevens to explain to the Committee the process the Committee to Study the Funding of Higher Education took to secure a consultant contract under an expedited manner.  Mr. Stevens stated the Committee to Study the Funding of Higher Education did not have the time to undergo a full RFP process so they appointed a subcommittee to review consultants that would best be able to accomplish the tasks.  The subcommittee selected the top three selections from a list of prospective consultants, and those three consultants were chosen to bid on a Requirements Documents that was developed by university and legislative staff.  The consultants were given two weeks to bid on the Requirements Document and then the Committee authorized the subcommittee Chairman to make the final selection from the bids.


Mr. Stevens said if the Committee was able to outline the tasks of a consultant, then staff could begin working on a Requirements Document and it could be mailed out to the consultants that were chosen at the next meeting of the Committee.  However, potential consultants would need a couple of weeks to bid on the document--bringing the timetable to early February.  Allowing a couple of months for the work to be accomplished, the deliverables would be due by early April.  Mr. Stevens indicated that the City of Henderson, and their consultants, could be used and that might eliminate some time constraints.  He simply wanted the Committee to be aware of the timing involved in the contract/consultant process. 


Chairman Perkins pointed out, once again, that the Committee was not purposely moving through the process quickly, but simply trying to gather and provide the necessary information to the Board of Regents so they could make educated decisions.  Mr. Stevens concurred; pointing out that it would be helpful if information for a potential 4-year state college was available to the Board of Regents at their April 6, 2000 meeting where the capital budgets for all the institutions would be reviewed.


Chairman Perkins said the other challenge for the Advisory Committee was securing a founding president.  He opined that the process would be greatly benefited once that occurred.


Regent Rosenberg asked whether April 2000 was the last possible date or if the June meeting was acceptable.  He expressed concern that the important tasks of getting information to the Board of Regents would be accomplished too fast and a more careful review was needed.  He stressed the need for the process to be done properly.


Dr. Anderes replied that the Board of Regents approves the final budget in August 2000, which is then forwarded to the Governor on August 15, 2000.  However, it was important that some dialogue takes place in April 2000 so the new college was placed in the process in conjunction with other capital and operating projects.  Although it will be an evolving process, at least some preliminary data should be provided to the Board of Regents so a placeholder on the operating and capital side of the concept can be developed.  The June 2000 meeting was mostly a final point because by that time the institutions have built their final budgets.  If it comes in later than that, then there would not be enough time to incorporate the new college as a priority and consider the amount of funds it would require. 


Dr. Anderes said it would be best that the Committee have something by April 2000, even if it was preliminary, because it could evolve from there.


Chairman Perkins stressed that there were several factors that affected the Committee’s timetable:  1) There was no meeting scheduled for the Committee until February 4, 2000; and 2) The Committee had not framed the areas of work for a consultant. 


Mayor Gibson said he did not believe legislative staff was suggesting that the time would be compromised to complete a study, and that Mr. Stevens was trying to explain the delays that could be reduced.  That did not mean there would be a less in-depth study, it just clarified access at an earlier time. 


Dr. Nichols provided an additional document regarding tasks for the consultants entitled “Development of Master Plan and Budget for Proposed 4-Year College in Henderson, Nevada” (Exhibit E).  Dr. Nichols said the document took into consideration that there may or may not be a founding president on board, and there may be limited funds budgeted for the use by a consultant. 


Continuing, Dr. Nichols said Task I required the assistance of a consultant and involved a community-wide survey and focus group discussions in consultation with staff and the founding president.  This would assist in identifying the key issues in getting information from the public.  She said the major task for the consultant would be the collection of data, including public opinion, public input, Regent’s input, and student input.  Dr. Nichols stated this was the initial step in the process of designing the mission statement for the new institution.  She pointed out that Task I should be completed by March 1, 2000, and that date was chosen in light of the Committee’s meeting schedule of March 3, 2000, and in preparation of the Board of Regents’ meeting.


Dr. Nichols said that Task II was made with the assumption that the City of Henderson was working on a site for the new college and a contribution of the site to the effort.  Dr. Nichols said it was important that Henderson take the lead on the property issue because that would be helpful in the initial site estimates, development and improvement costs.  At this time, the Committee needed an estimate of the costs of the property.  In addition, a campus master facility plan should be made and based on a strong, academic plan.  A preliminary idea as to Task II could be accomplished in the next several months, and that vision will change and improve over the next few years as development progressed.


Dr. Nichols said Task III did not need the services of a consultant, and could be accomplished by UCCSN staff and by the hiring of a founding president.  She pointed out that when the Committee began thinking about operating budgets and a presentation to the Regents and the Legislature on budget issues, that involved the development of an enrollment plan, which leads to a startup date.  She stated those projections would be the basis of the budget.  The founding president and the existing institutions were critical to the process.


Betsy Fretwell, City of Henderson, said the City would like to assist the Committee with the new college project.  If the Committee agreed with the tasks identified by Dr. Nichols, then the City would like to know how they could best assist the Committee to meet the timelines of the Board of Regent’s planning process in the Spring 2000, and for legislative deliberations the following year. 


Ms. Fretwell advised the Committee that the timeline for community surveys, public forums and/or focus groups, was six to 12 weeks.  She pointed out that in relation to the directions listed under Tab 5 of the meeting packet (Exhibit C) that would only accomplish 1(a).  To accomplish items 1(b)-(e), Ms. Fretwell opined that the founding president should be on board.


In addition, Mr. Fretwell indicated that the data gathering and summary data (Task I) was helpful in the campus development piece (Task II).  The City of Henderson had pre-qualification lists and knowledge of different sites in the community that may be beneficial to the Committee to expedite that process.  She said the discussion by the Committee has revealed that some discussion as to capital needs would be needed by April 2000.


Ms. Fretwell offered ongoing staffing as well as a variety of other methods by the City of Henderson in accomplishing Task I and Task II of the lists identified for potential consultants.  She said the City of Henderson was available as a staff resource to the Committee to assist in meeting important deadlines.  She stressed that the City of Henderson would never compromise quality or depth to meet expedited timeframes, and the City has available resources to keep the process moving.


Chairman Perkins said that the Advisory Committee was created by the Legislature and therefore certain rules must be followed when considering consulting work.  He asked Mark Stevens to address the rules to which the Advisory Committee was bound in hiring consultants.


Mr. Stevens said although he has not spoken with Legislative Counsel, he believed that if the Advisory Committee chose to have the City of Henderson perform a portion of the work identified on the lists, through their consultants, then the Legislature would enter into an inter-local agreement or contract with the City of Henderson for those services.  A Requirements Document or a contract would be performed under the rules in place in the City of Henderson.  Mr. Stevens indicated he would verify that process with Legislative Counsel. 


Chairman Perkins said the discussion on the use of a consultant has indicated that the Advisory Committee would most definitely wish to hire a consultant for Task I and Task II, and that the City of Henderson has offered their services on both of those items.  However Task III did not require the use of a consultant.  Dr. Nichols said that was correct.


Regent Alden expressed concern for the money that would be needed to hire consultants and a founding president.  He stated he did not believe those two things could occur under the current budget.  The only other ways to obtain funding would be to seek funds from the Interim Finance Committee (IFC), allocate operating funds out of the central administration or lean against soft money raised in Henderson between now and March 1, 2000.


Regent Alden said some of the issues that involved the development of a master plan, should be discussed closely with the founding president.  Therefore, he would prefer to develop a more limited scope of what had to be done by a consultant at much less the cost.  He asked what had been budgeted for the cost of a consultant.


Mark Stevens, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said that $50,000 to $75,000 was the amount available for the Advisory Committee to use on a consultant, based on the budget outlined in the Meeting Packet (Exhibit C, Tab 6).  Regent Alden said the budget did not appear to take into consideration everything needed.  He recognized that the Committee needed to move quickly, but also thoughtfully.  So, if the City of Henderson was available, that resource should be utilized.  Also, the Committee should be working closely with the founding president so that resources and tasks are not duplicated. 


Chairman Perkins asked if the Committee was in accord with Dr. Nichols’ suggestion that Tasks I and II should be handled through a consultant, and that Task III could be handled through the UCCSN staff, in conjunction with the founding president.


Mayor Gibson said the City of Henderson was committed to some of the cost of getting the identified tasks completed.  He said the City was serious about public outreach and this was not the City’s first effort in that forum.  The inter-local agreement concept has been alive in the state for many years, and in the past several years there has been a concerted effort, when a need has arisen, to work together and spread the cost of accomplishing certain tasks across jurisdictions.  He said the City of Henderson was not at all averse to assisting the Advisory Committee.  If the City Council of Henderson determined that the cooperative effort to a site plan and the realization of a state college was a high priority, there would be a shifting of resources.  He said the input that has been provided by the Dr. Nichols and the staff at the UCCSN has been the guiding light in moving the process forward. 


Mayor Gibson said the City has discovered that much can be accomplished in a short period of time and the City has initiated fine planning processes and the result has been nothing but quality. 


Chairman Perkins again asked if the Committee agreed that Tasks I and II as identified in the Meeting Packet (Exhibit C, Tab 5) could be handled by a consultant, and that Task III could be accomplished with staff and the founding president.  The Advisory Committee concurred.


Turning to Task I, Chairman Perkins said the Advisory Committee should outline the requirements for a consultant.  He asked if the draft of those tasks (Exhibit C) were acceptable to the Committee.  He outlined those tasks as follows:





            a.         Conduct surveys, focus group discussions, public forums, etc., to get a sense of:

                        i.          What the mission of a 4-year college should be;

                        ii.         What degree programs should be implemented; and

                        iii.        What specific services should be provided by the college?


            b.         Formulate a draft mission statement.

            c.         Develop a list of possible degree programs.

            d.         Develop a list of services.

            e.         Identify potential partnerships.


Regent Alden stated he agreed with the above tasks for a consultant.  Chairman Perkins said he would like to add that the above items should be performed in conjunction with the founding president. 


Ms. Fretwell pointed out that the Advisory Committee might wish to specify that the data gathering should be “community-wide.”  She suggested that the Committee chose a wide representation so that reliable data was available to formulate the mission, the programs, and the partnerships, and so there was no misconception among consultants during the process. 


Chairman Perkins said that it was helpful to clarify that the input should come from all parties in the state, not just the City of Henderson. 


Dr. Nichols pointed out that items 1(b)-(e) might require a timing issue in that 1(a) should be completed in the timeframe discussed (March 2000), but that items 1(b)-(e) may continue into a longer timeframe.  In addition, items (a)-(e) may need to be broken down further, as the Committee might not be able to afford all those tasks and other means may be necessary. 


Ms. Fretwell said the information that resulted from the completion of Item 1(a) would be powerful for the founding president to then accomplish items 1(b)-(e).  Also, the City of Henderson could be directed to prepare draft language in the contract that indicated certain phases were dependent upon the founding president or the Advisory Committee.


Chairman Perkins agreed that Item 1(a) should be separate from items 1(b)-(e).  He indicated that preliminary findings from a consultant on items 1(b)-(e) should be accomplished by March 1, 2000.  The Advisory Committee concurred.  Chairman Perkins asked if there was a suggested date for final findings.


Chairman Perkins clarified that final findings on Item 1(a) and preliminary findings for Items 1(b)-(e) would be March 1, 2000, and asked for a suggested date for final findings for Items 1(b)-(e).


Dr. Nichols said the report from the Advisory Committee to the Legislature was due September 1, 2000.  Perhaps by the June meeting of the Board of Regents the final findings on those items could be presented.  Ms. Fretwell asked whether the final findings could be in September 2000, noting that Items 1(b)-(e) could change through that time, based on what was discovered.  Chairman Perkins said that would be covered by the language of the tasks.  For example “draft” mission statement, and “possible” degree programs, so there was room to amend those items, based on that language.  He asked if June 1, 2000 was an adequate timeframe for final findings on Items 1(b)-(e).  The Committee members indicated that was fine.


Chairman Perkins said he would accept a motion that would approve the preparation of a Requirements Document that would provide the scope of work included and discussed under Tab 5 (Exhibit C), including tasks to be performed in conjunction with the founding president.  That final findings for 1(a) and preliminary findings on 1(b)-(e) be provided to the Committee by March 1, 2000, with final findings for Items 1(b)-(e) by June 1, 2000.


Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, asked if the motion included the use of the City of Henderson in those efforts.


Ms. Fretwell said if the Advisory Committee approved a Requirements Document in January 2000, and then that document was provided to a select group of qualified consultants, then it would not be until the end of January that the contract was signed and work could begin.  She said Mr. Stevens was intending that not only the Requirements Document would be provided for the Committee to approve, but also having recommendations for the consultants would come before the Committee at that time as well, in order to expedite the process.


Chairman Perkins asked whether the City of Henderson would be involved in Task I as well as Task II.  Ms. Fretwell said the City of Henderson would be happy to assist with Task I because the things discussed and revealed in Task I would assist them in Task II, and it can all be facilitated through existing processes.  She said there was constant staff support within the City of Henderson that would be available to the Committee to make the process move swifter. 


Chairman Perkins stated he would accept a motion to have staff prepare a Requirements Document and a list of potential consultants for the Committee to review at the next meeting, and that Task I and Task II, would be completed in conjunction with the founding president with final findings for 1(a) and preliminary findings for 1(b)-(e) by March 1, 2000, and final findings for 1(b)-(e) by June 1, 2000.


Mayor Gibson asked if that would include an inter-local agreement that charges the City of Henderson with that responsibility.  Chairman Perkins asked if a consultant was doing Task I or whether the City of Henderson was performing Task I.


Mark Stevens said his understanding of the process just outlined would not afford the Committee the time needed to accomplish all the tasks identified by March 1, 2000.  The legislative process would require the Requirements Document to come to the Committee at the January 2000 meeting, and then it would take another two-three weeks for the awarding of that contract.  However, if the City of Henderson model was used then the Requirements Document could be compiled along with the list of contractors and then as soon as it was authorized, work could begin. 


Mayor Gibson asserted that if an inter-local agreement was entered into whereby the City of Henderson agreed to Tasks I and II, the City could be formulating the best consultants to work on those tasks.  Then, the City of Henderson could delegate tasks to its consultants, with the responsibility of reporting back to the Advisory Committee. 


Mr. Stevens said the Committee could do as suggested by Mayor Gibson, or the Committee may want to approve the Requirements Document and the tasks of the Consultant at the January 2000 meeting.

Regent Rosenberg said the information was needed right away and therefore the process needed to be underway.  He suggested that the Committee ask the Legislative Counsel Bureau to work with the City of Henderson to find the most expeditious and efficient way to accomplish the tasks identified.


Senator Porter said since the City of Henderson had the time and resources to expedite the process, which did not mean the Committee intended to circumvent the public process. 










Senator Porter clarified that the inter-local agreement would be in conjunction with the staff of the Legislative Counsel Bureau and the UCCSN staff.  Mayor Gibson included that in his motion. 


Chairman Perkins added that the work being done under the Requirements Document would be reported back to the Advisory Committee for acceptance or rejection.


Senator Porter commended everyone for working on these partnership efforts.


Ms. Fretwell said perhaps clarification was needed to specify that the Advisory Committee should direct the City of Henderson to work together until the next meeting to define the scope of work for consultants to perform, and to allow the City of Henderson to provide the Committee with a recommendation on those duties but the time of the next meeting.  That would allow the City of Henderson to use all the means available to them, including all the legal requirements that must be followed, and allowing for the consultant to start work in January 2000.


Regent Rosenberg asked when the next committee meeting was to be held.  Chairman Perkins indicated that the next meeting was scheduled for February 4, 2000, but a meeting in January 2000 was also needed.


Chairman Perkins commented that Ms. Fretwell’s concerns were inherent in the motion.  Seeing no further discussion, Chairman Perkins brought the motion back to the floor for a vote.




Review Resources to be used for Needs Assessment and Implementation Plan


Chairman Perkins directed the Committee to Tab 6 of the Meeting Packet (Exhibit C), which outlined potential funding allocations.  He reminded the Committee that a tentative budget had been approved at an earlier meeting, and this was the second proposed budget for the Advisory Committee.  He noted that the first portion of the budget was designed with a founding president coming on board in July 2000.  The rest of the budget brought additional costs to the budget by bringing the founding president on board commencing February 2000.


Chairman Perkins also pointed out that the budget provided for potential savings as well—up to $25,000 in consultant fees and another $45,000 in search costs for the founding president, which could vary depending on the action taken by the Board of Regents.


Senator Porter reminded that Committee member Regent Mark Alden committed $10,000 of his personal funds to the project.  Regent Alden indicated that was correct, and those funds would be forthcoming as soon as the 501(C)(3) was completed.  Mayor Gibson related that the 501(C)(3) was near completion.


Mark Stevens stated that routine committee expenses, based on the language in Assembly Bill 220, were paid out of the legislative fund.  He pointed out that the $10,000 listed in the budget as “committee expenses” represented travel related to campus visits.  He stressed that if the site visits were not performed, or the visits were done for less cost, there would be additional savings in that category of the budget.


Regent Rosenberg asked whether the salary figures listed in the budget were “up-to” the amount shown.  Chairman Perkins said that was true and that the figures listed for salaries were provided by the UCCSN.  Mark Stevens, Legislative Counsel Bureau, clarified that the $210,000 outlined for the founding president for FY 2000-01 included salary and fringe benefits and that dollar amount was comprised by the UCCSN.  However, if the Board of Regents approved the concept of a founding president, it would be up to the Board of Regents to set the salary.  Regent Rosenberg thanked Mr. Stevens for that clarification.


Chairman Perkins noted that the budget that identified “other potential costs” puts the budget at $542,883, and that sum exceeded the appropriated sum of $500,000 for use by the Committee.  However, Regent Alden identified three additional areas to obtain funding, should the need arise.


Chairman Perkins stated that if there were no further questions or comments, he would accept a motion to approve the proposed budget.










Discussion of Advisory Committee visits to college campuses


Dr. Nichols provided a list of potential campus visits (Exhibit F) with potential dates for those visits.  She asked that the Committee give her a sense of commitment or interest in visiting some of the types of campuses that have been discussed, or suggest additional campuses that might be worthwhile to visit.


Dr. Nichols asked whether other Regents from those on the Advisory Committee wished to attend the site visits, at their expense, would be able to attend as well.  Chairman Perkins said the Advisory Committee would welcome the participation of additional Regents on the site visits.  He noted that the Committee just approved the budget that provided for $10,000 to be spent on site visits, so no further action was needed at this time.


Chairman Perkins suggested that members of the Advisory Committee that wished to attend campus visits should contact Dr. Nichols so she could put together some schedules for visits.  He extended the offer to visit campuses to the Advisory Committee members. 


Dr. Nichols asked if any of the suggested site visits should be eliminated.  Chairman Perkins said the Advisory Committee would rather see additional potential sites, rather than eliminate any sites. 


Senator Porter said he would prefer not to visit very many sites if it was not needed. 


Review of Advisory Committee Timetable and set next Meeting


Chairman Perkins reminded the Committee that the next meeting of the Committee was set for February 4, 2000; however, based upon earlier discussions, that date would not accommodate what needed to be accomplished.  He asked the UCCSN, the City of Henderson, and legislative staff to suggest potential dates in January 2000.  Mr. Stevens, Legislative Counsel Bureau, suggested a date early in January 2000 because the sooner the committee meeting occurred, the sooner the consultants could begin their work.


Chairman Perkins asked the Committee to review the week of January 3, 2000.  Mayor Gibson said that week was fine but he would prefer to meet in the afternoon.  Chairman Perkins noted that the meeting in January 2000 would not encompass too many agenda items and therefore could easily be accomplished in the afternoon.


Senator Porter said earlier in the day or later in the day was best during that week. 


The Committee agreed to meet on January 4, 2000 at 3:30 p.m.  Mayor Gibson said it might be useful to hold the meeting at Henderson City Hall because the City would be providing input at that meeting.  Ms. Fretwell noted that there was a city council meeting scheduled the evening of January 4, 2000.  Mayor Gibson said that would not be a problem.


Public Testimony


Chairman Perkins opened the meeting to public testimony on any agenda item.  Seeing none, he closed the meeting to public testimony.




Chairman Perkins said the Committee’s discussions and deliberations were good and the democratic process allowed for public input and for differences of opinion and debate to be aired.  He noted that there was an editorial in yesterday’s paper referring to the speed of the Committee’s actions and whether a new state college might be a mistake. 


He asked anybody who might be concerned with the process to take a look at the persons involved in the process, either from the staff side of the equation or the five Advisory Committee members.  He said the collective reputations of those involved were important to each individual, and nobody wished to cause harm to their reputation personally or amongst each other.


He said the Advisory Committee was working to ensure that the new state college would be of high quality.  In addition, Chairman Perkins acknowledged Senator Porter’s earlier comments of the wonderful partnership that was developing as a result of the new college process. 


Chairman Perkins said that when the concept first came up during the 1999 legislative session, the make-up of the Committee was discussed and changed numerous times.  He opined that the diversity of the Committee composition has provided for high quality discussions and he appreciated the partnership that has developed between the legislative branch, executive branch and Regents.


Chairman Perkins thanked everyone for contributing their energy and work to the goals of the Committee.  He stated this was the most exciting government project in which he had been involved.  Generally, there was not much enthusiasm for city halls, jails and police stations that had to be built, but there was a great deal of enthusiasm for a new state college.


There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 a.m.




                                                            Joi Davis, Committee Secretary






Assemblyman Richard D. Perkins, Chairman


Date:  __________________________, 2000.