MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF

THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE LOCATING

A 4-YEAR STATE COLLEGE IN HENDERSON

           

A meeting of the Advisory Committee to Examine Locating a 4-Year State College in Henderson (created as a result of Assembly Bill 220 - 1999) was held at 10:00 a.m., on Friday, February 4, 2000, at the University of Nevada, Reno, Jot Travis Student Union, Alumni Room, 1664 North Virginia Street, Reno, Nevada.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Assemblyman Richard D. Perkins, Chairman

Senator Jon C. Porter

Mayor James B. Gibson

Regent Mark Alden

Regent Howard Rosenberg

 

STAFF PRESENT:

 

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst

Brian Burke, Senior Program Analyst

Joi Davis, Committee Secretary

 

GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE:

 

Joseph Crowley, University of Nevada, Reno

Jane Nichols, University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN)

Rick Bennett, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)

Phil Speight, City of Henderson

Bonnie Rinaldi, City of Henderson

Betsy Fretwell, City of Henderson

Sherry Blunt, University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)

Bob Dickens, University of Nevada, Reno

Richard Moore, Founding President

Mary Spoon, University of Nevada, Reno

David Sousa, University of Nevada, Reno

Bob Shriver, NCED

Walter Estay, Tate & Snyder Architects

Linda Ahlmeyer, Private Citizen

Patty Chambers, UNR Faculty Senate

Jeffrey Elias, University of Nevada, Reno

Ted Batchman, University of Nevada, Reno

Jannet Vveeland, UNR Faculty Senate

Ashok Dhingra, University of Nevada, Reno

Tom Clark, R&R Partners

Pat Miltenberger, University of Nevada, Reno

Neal Ferguson, University of Nevada, Reno

Tony Calabro, University of Nevada, Reno

Dan Masgrove, City of Las Vegas

Vicki Taylor, City of Henderson

Bristol Ellington, City of Henderson

Mike Gilmartin, R & R Partners

Cy Ryan, Las Vegas Sun

Sean Whaley, Las Vegas Review Journal

 

 

List of Exhibits

 

Exhibit A            Meeting Notice and Agenda

Exhibit B            Attendance Roster

Exhibit C        Meeting Packet

 

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

 

1.         Roll Call – Introductory Comments

 

Chairman Perkins called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m., recognizing a quorum of the Committee was present.

 

Chairman Perkins thanked everyone present for assisting with the process of establishing a new state college.  He invited Dr. Joseph Crowley, President, University of Nevada, Reno, to make a few comments.

 

Dr. Crowley stated he was pleased to have the Advisory Committee on campus.  He recognized the difficult approach the Committee faced in proceeding toward the establishment of a new institution, especially since new endeavors were not always greeted with positive expressions. 

 

Dr. Crowley commented that he has supported the idea of a new institution in Henderson from the beginning.  He stated that in order to meet the higher educational needs of the state, the issue of additional institutions must be addressed by state decision-makers.  Since Henderson was now the second largest city in the state, it was logical to place a new institution in that area.

 

Dr. Crowley acknowledged that one of the most difficult issues to face the Advisory Committee was locating funds to build the new institution.  Dr. Crowley stated that many time over many years he has heard, “Where are we going to find the money?”  He went on to provide examples of those times:

 

 

Dr. Crowley stressed that the history of higher education in the State of Nevada has been that “money follows need.”  He commented to the Committee that some persons will speak in opposition to the concept of a new state college, but he supported the establishment of a state college in Henderson, and he supported the decision of the Board of Regents in appointing Dr. Moore of the Founding President of that institution. 

 

Turning to the name of the new institution, Dr. Crowley indicated that he has heard of several possibilities, and wanted to comment on the subject because of the painful naming of the University of Nevada, Reno—the only institution in the UCCSN that did not have input in its name.  He stated that in 1968, without an opportunity for anyone from the institution to provide input, the Board of Regents attached “Reno” to the name of a statewide institution and that has bothered people ever since.  Dr. Crowley opined that it would be a problem if the new institution was called Nevada State College or Nevada State University without affixing a location to the name.  He urged the Committee to consider a name that included the location.

 

Dr. Crowley concluded with thanking the Committee for allowing persons from northern Nevada to express their views about the new institution in southern Nevada.

 

Chairman Perkins thanked Dr. Crowley for his comments and acknowledged the benefit of the Committee for having Dr. Crowley’s expertise and knowledge in the state’s history of higher education.  He thanked Dr. Crowley for his support in the new institution.  In addition, Chairman Perkins thanked Dr. Crowley for his financial contribution to the new state college.

 

Regent Alden acknowledged Dr. Crowley for his exemplary skills as senior president in the UCCSN and for his comments to the Committee.

 

Senator Porter extended his appreciation to Dr. Crowley for his words, especially the thoughtfulness with which Dr. Crowley acknowledged the difficult process that has been met with some objection along the way.

 

Chairman Perkins thanked the Committee and audience for allowing him to deviate from the agenda, and asked for further indulgence.

 

Chairman Perkins stated that when the Advisory Committee first began holding meetings to examine the possibility of a new state college, there was a member working right along with the Committee during that process, Dr. James Randolph.  Chairman Perkins thanked the family of Dr. James Randolph and announced a moment of silence in his memory.

 

 

2.            Approval of Minutes

 

Chairman Perkins indicated he would accept a motion to approve the minutes from the December 10, 1999, and January 4, 2000, Committee meetings (Exhibit C, Tab 2), if no changes were forthcoming.

 

            SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE

            DECEMBER 10, 1999, AND JANUARY 4, 2000, COMMITTEE MEETINGS.

 

            MAYOR GIBSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Regent Alden asked that a correction be made to page five of the minutes of the December 10, 1999 meeting; the last sentence of paragraph one should state:  “He stated he would like to encourage continuing to offer masters and doctorate programs at both universities, but discourage offering masters and doctorate programs at the new state college.” 

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 

3.            Review of Activities Relating to the Development of Implementation Plan

 

Chairman Perkins invited Dr. Richard Moore, Founding President of the new 4-year state college, to address the Committee.

 

Dr. Moore informed the Committee that it was a distinct honor to work as the Founding President for the new state college for the past three weeks.  He commended the City of Henderson for locating offices for himself and his secretary, and all their support in helping him in the site review process for a new campus.  He stated he was encouraged by the work to date and was hopeful that dramatic announcements could be made in the future to suggest some partnerships resulting in the successful completion of the new campus.  He thanked Dr. Jane Nichols, UCCSN, who has been instrumental in a number of helpful endeavors:

 

            1.  She has continued the connection to the accrediting officer who will later be the accrediting agency for the new institution.  He noted that Dr. Nichols would be suggesting a consultant to work with him to ensure there will be a smooth transition toward accreditation. 

 

            2.  Dr. Nichols assisted in identifying faculty who might serve on a national basis to provide a faculty basis to the institution prior to full operation.  Eventually, the faculty plan that is devised will be brought before the Advisory Committee and the Board of Regents to obtain input.

 

            3.  Dr. Nichols has been instrumental in working with the City of Henderson to hold a series of public forums on the campuses of the different institutions in the system.  She has completed three of those forums to date, and the City of Henderson has provided recorders to complete an objective report of the occurrences during those meetings. 

 

Dr. Moore related that the process for the implementation of the new state college was well underway with strong planning and much participation.  He thanked the Advisory Committee for their support.

 

Chairman Perkins asked what shortcomings needed to be addressed in order for the planning process to proceed appropriately.  Dr. Moore replied that fundraising had begun, and that he would be bringing before the Board of Regents at the next meeting, a request to form a foundation, along with the appropriate legal documentation for foundation board members.  In addition, completion of paperwork was necessary before funds and donations could be properly deposited.  Dr. Moore stressed that fundraising was just one of five important endeavors, and that process has begun.  Also, the Board of Regents will need to adopt By-Laws for a foundation and a charter membership.  Determining who will be the founding members of that foundation would be needed.  Lastly, Dr. Moore said the continued support from the City of Henderson was vital to a successful process.  He indicated he was grateful to the City of Henderson’s planning team.

 

Dr. Moore advised the Committee that he would be begin visiting selected campuses and, to the extent that the Committee would be available, he would appreciate attendance by the Committee members on some of those site visits.  He informed the Committee that on Monday, February 7, 2000, a site visit to Claremont University was scheduled.  He said it was helpful to see the campuses of other institutions and talk to other Founding Presidents.

 

Senator Porter thanked Dr. Moore for his comments.  He acknowledged Dr. Moore’s experience with other states that have expanded in the area of higher education, and asked whether the Committee’s experiences and frustrations establishing a state college in Nevada were similar to existing establishments when they underwent the same process.

 

Dr. Moore replied that what Nevada was experiencing during this process was normal.  He explained that his experience in this area stemmed from his years in California.  The model that was being considered for the new state college in Nevada was similar to California State colleges and universities.  He said there have been four state colleges initiated in California in the past five years.  The most recent state college in California was the California State University Channel Islands, in Ventura County.  This college moved directly into the service area of Cal-State Northridge, which has made Cal-State Northridge nervous and frustrated.  Letters of objection have been written in newspaper articles, and they have petitioned the state in an attempt to demonstrate that there was not enough money for the college. 

 

Continuing, Dr. Moore explained that a little over a year ago, a new state college was established; California State University Monterey Bay.  That facility moved into the service area of San Jose State, which opposed initiation of that institution, and resisted programs that had been offered at the new facility due to duplicity or competition with San Jose State.  Another example was at San Diego State University San Marcos, which was opposed by the University of San Diego.  Dr. Moore said the nervous culture that surrounded the establishment of a new institution was healthy and normal, and it was good to address concerns that resulted from those comments.

 

Lastly, Dr. Moore stated that during the five years he has been in the State of Nevada, there has been strong anxiety that the state would not fund the enrollment growth that has occurred during that time, but the Legislature and the Governor have met the state’s needs by funding higher education.  In fact, all the shortages that were discussed during the last legislative session were met.  Nevada has a strong and responsive history for meeting needs.

 

Senator Porter expressed his interest in the availability of private dollars.  He asked whether Dr. Moore was looking into the use of private funding, or whether the mission was strictly for public dollars.  Dr. Moore replied that he was pursuing an option for the state to have a public/private mix of the college at one location.  For example, a private institution could be placed on the same site as a public institution, and the two facilities could share the use and cost of resources, such as a library or security.  Dr. Moore advised the Committee that he has put the word out to other organizations that run universities in an attempt to find out whether a partnering could occur.  He stated that the Claremont Colleges were independent but shared a common library, police department, recruiting department, and dining facilities.  Dr. Moore reiterated that he has initiated conversations to find other people interested in investing resources or time with the Committee’s efforts; however, no commitments have surfaced.

 

Senator Porter asked whether Dr. Moore had an opportunity to talk to people at Channel 10 in southern Nevada about a possible partnership since that company will be building a new facility to incorporate distance learning, etc.  Dr. Moore responded that he has scheduled an appointment with folks from Channel 10, and he hoped a partnership in television and cable Internet for students could develop. 

Senator Porter thanked Dr. Moore for all his efforts. 

 

Regent Alden said the state had a strong partnership, including articulation agreements with the Sierra Nevada College in northern Nevada and it would be appropriate to talk with persons at that institution.  Dr. Moore related that he has had preliminary conversations with people at Sierra Nevada College already.

 

Chairman Perkins informed the Committee that he spoke with someone who founded two colleges in California and he has validated that the questions being raised, the growing pains, the turf protection issues, etc., were normal aspects to the process.

 

 

4.            Status Report from the City of Henderson

 

Betsy Fretwell, City of Henderson, introduced Bonnie Rinaldi, also from the City of Henderson.  Ms. Fretwell provided the Committee with a status report on the activities of the City of Henderson, pursuant to the Contract.  She stated there were three distinct public outreach activities that should occur before the March 1, 2000 deadline:

 

 

 

 

Ms. Fretwell stated that the information derived from the public forums would assist UCCSN and Dr. Moore in drafting the mission statement and identifying degree programs.

 

Ms. Fretwell indicated that the above activities played a significant role in the development of the mission statement and the program areas of the new institution, and provided insight into potential partnerships.  After the draft mission statement was completed, Ms. Fretwell suggested additional general public outreach meetings should take place to obtain feedback on the draft mission statement and program areas to be offered.  She clarified that the first step was to focus on the needs and how the needs drive the development of the mission.  The next step was to look at how the mission meets the needs.  Ms. Fretwell indicated that the City would be looking to hire a consultant to assist in the second series of public outreach forums.

 

Ms. Fretwell stated that Dr. Nichols and Dr. Moore were both interested in the accreditation process, and therefore would be working with academic experts to assist the Committee and the City in developing an academic plan for the state college.  During the second phase of public outreach sessions between March – June 2000, the academic planning by experts could occur.

 

Regent Alden disclosed that he discussed with Dr. Nichols the possibility of a partnership between the UCCSN and the state to ensure a trained workforce.  He acknowledged that a budget must be provided to the Governor by August 15, 2000, and information needed to be provided to the Board of Regents prior to that.  He encouraged private partnerships and private fundraising efforts.  Regent Alden envisioned that approximately $5 million would be needed between now and July 1, 2001 for the operating costs of the new state college, and he estimated a capital budget in the amount of $100 million would be required. 

 

Dr. Nichols stated that as to the needs assessment, she was working with the State Department of Employment and Training and Rehabilitation on employment needs in the state for collecting data for the process.  In addition, there were various professional groups that have been contacted to obtain data on the needs of the state.  Dr. Nichols informed the Committee that campus hearings on budgets were scheduled for the first two weeks of March 2000.  All of the institutions were preparing preliminary enrollment plans for the next biennium and the new college would need to be included in that process.  Therefore, the new college needed to have a preliminary operating budget and a proposed model for funding completed by March 7, 2000. 

 

Ms. Fretwell added that the Nevada Development Authority has partnered with a variety of development authorities across the state to complete a statewide, comprehensive employment needs assessment.  Although that data will be useful in the future, the study will not be concluded in time to meet the deadlines posed by the Committee. 

 

Regent Alden suggested that the Committee strongly view the General Fund revenue source for June 30, 1998, June 30, 1999, and June 30, 2000, using CCSN and UNLV figures as the baseline for the non-recurring operating portion of the budget. 

 

Regent Rosenberg acknowledged that academic experts might be used to help develop programs for the new college.  He stated that there were excellent people within the system and it would be beneficial to ask some of those persons to help with programming for the new college.  He commented that it was important to involve the other institutions in the planning of the new college, and he hoped that faculty from other institutions in the state would attend some of the public forums to learn more about the new college.

 

Bonnie Rinaldi, City of Henderson, provided an update to the Committee on campus site development.  She stated that within the next couple weeks, the site analysis would be completed, and included an analysis of development costs.  All the sites that have been reviewed are 300 acres or more.  In addition, they have been looking at room for future expansion on the site.  The City has focused its efforts on what site would make the most successful college campus, and what would be best for the community and students.  Ms. Rinaldi said that the work to date was completed with City of Henderson resources, and no funds designated by the contract have been used for site analysis.

 

Regent Rosenberg asked to specifically describe development costs.  Ms. Rinaldi explained that development costs included the cost of bringing roadways, water, sewer lines, and electricity to the site, etc.

 

Regent Alden suggested that the Advisory Committee project the site beyond 25 years.

 

Senator Porter asked Regent Alden to clarify his earlier comment that approximately $100 million would be needed for capital costs of the project.  Regent Alden replied that he simply thought that as much money as possible would be needed for capital so he was estimating on the high end.  Additionally, Senator Porter asked Regent Alden to comment on his estimate that $5 million was needed for an operating budget.  Regent Alden replied that the $5 million he referenced was for pre-costs, prior to establishing the operating budget.  Further, He stated it would be easier to go to the Legislature to ask for operating funds if private donations were available for non-recurring costs, prior to the campus opening.  Senator Porter said he did not believe the Committee would be asking the 2001 Legislature for $5 million for this project.  Regent Alden expressed appreciation for Senator Porter’s clarification, but his intent was simply to say that the more funds that could be raised privately, the better it would be to obtain state funds.

 

Dr. Moore, addressing the site analysis, informed the Committee that his research of campuses has included the number of acres required, and he anticipates that the site development plan should include campus expansion projections into the next 35 to 50 years.

 

 

 

 

5.            Review of Resources and Approval of Budget

 

Chairman Perkins directed the Committee to the proposed budget document (Exhibit C, Tab 5) and asked Mark Stevens, Legislative Counsel Bureau, to review the budget. 

 

Mr. Stevens pointed out that an update to the budget had been provided to include actions taken since the previous review.  He stated that $75,000 was allocated for consultants, and several other costs have been identified, including the Founding President, support staff for the Founding President, operating expenses, $10,000 for furniture and equipment, and $10,000 for committee expenses, bringing the total expenditures to $575,000.  Mr. Stevens advised that the appropriation in Assembly Bill 220 (1999) was for $500,000 so that would leave an additional $75,000 to be generated.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stevens stated that initially the Committee hoped that the consultant costs could be held at $50,000.  If that occurred, then the budget would be reduced by $25,000.

 

Chairman Perkins asked for comments or questions from the Committee.  Seeing none, he moved to the next agenda item.

 

 

6.            Discuss and Approve Agreement between Committee and UCCSN

 

Mark Stevens, Legislative Counsel Bureau, pointed out that the on page one of the Agreement (Exhibit C, Tab 6), under Section II, the language indicated that the UCCSN agrees to provide a Founding President for the new state college beginning January 15, 2000 and ending June 30, 2001, and one FTE staff and necessary office equipment.  Additionally, on page three of the Agreement, the payment schedule outlines that $415,000 would be allocated to UCCSN for payment of the Founding President and related costs.  The payments would be provided to the UCCSN once per quarter.

 

Mr. Stevens said the remainder of the Agreement was standard language. 

 

Chairman Perkins explained that the Agreement was necessary because the language in Assembly Bill 220 (1999) did not clearly designate funding to a particular entity.

 

            REGENT ALDEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN

            UCCSN AND THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

 

            REGENT ROSENBERG SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 

 

 

 

7.            Approve Recommendation to the Board of Regents concerning the naming

            of the new 4-year state college

 

Dr. Jane Nichols, Vice-Chancellor for Student and Academic Affairs, UCCSN, directed the Committee to Tab 7, Exhibit C, and stated that her staff had prepared a background document regarding the use of the names “university” and “college.” 

 

Within the overview provided, the history of state colleges was researched and the context of Carnegie classifications was used.  She recollected that the Advisory Committee had approved that the new college would be a Baccalaureate institution and planning has been implemented to include Baccalaureate degrees with selective master’s programs.  After reviewing the history of the evolution of the names “university” and “college” it was concluded that “college” would be the most appropriate name for the new institution, and that was what the UCCSN recommended.

 

            REGENT ROSENBERG MOVED TO NAME THE NEW INSTITUTION,

            NEVADA STATE COLLEGE AT HENDERSON.

 

            REGENT ALDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Upon Mayor Gibson’s inquiry, Regent Rosenberg clarified that he would like to see the name Nevada State College at Henderson, and he did not want to use a comma instead.

 

Chairman Perkins stated there might be a consistency that needed to be maintained within the UCCSN.

 

Dr. Crowley said he has gone through the tortures of the use of the word “college” or “university” and whether to include the location in a name, and when he attended meetings and needed to recite the full name of the institution to which he is President, he always says “University of Nevada at Reno.”  He encouraged the Committee to retain “at Henderson” with the name of the new state college.

 

Dr. Richard Moore, Founding President, opined that he would like to see a license that would allow for a variety of ways for the name of the new college to be listed.  He suggested that the Advisory Committee make the suggestion to the Board of Regents that the name be Nevada State College and that an identifier of “Henderson” could be left to the Board of Regents or others to decide.

 

Regent Rosenberg respectfully disagreed.  He stressed the importance of having at Henderson especially if additional state colleges are established in the state.  He said the design of the logo could contain more of a level of freedom.

 

Dr. Moore commented that in actuality, it was the students who ultimately name an institution.

 

Chairman Perkins reminded the Committee that the Board of Regents would make the final decision, and it was up to the Advisory Committee to simply make a recommendation.  He suggested that the Committee could recommend that the name be Nevada State College with an identifier of “Henderson” but let the Board of Regents determine how the locator should be presented with the name.

 

Dr. Crowley added that UNR was located in approximately 14 out of the 17 counties in state, so in order to be totally accurate; all those names should be included after the name. 

 

Regent Rosenberg said he felt strongly about the name Nevada State College at Henderson.  Regent Alden reiterated that the Board of Regents would be making the decision and the Committee was simply making a recommendation as to the name of the institution.

 

Chairman Perkins brought the motion back to the floor for a vote.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 

8.            Advisory Committee Visits to College Campuses

 

Dr. Moore informed the Committee that the site visit to another campus was scheduled for Monday, February 7, 2000, at Claremont.  He indicated that approximately 10-12 people have made reservations to attend that site.  The second visit will take place at Southern Utah University on February 9, 2000, with two people scheduled to attend.  A third site visit has been scheduled for Southern Oregon University for February 28, 2000.

 

Chairman Perkins stated that any of the Committee members interested in attending any of the site visits should contact Dr. Moore directly.

 

 

9.            Review Advisory Committee Timetable – Set Next Meeting

 

Dr. Nichols apologized for not working with the Legislative Counsel Bureau staff in advance, and indicated that the UCCSN staff had a problem with the next proposed meeting date of the Committee on March 3, 2000.  She reminded the Committee that internal budget hearings would be conducted during that time, but March 17, 2000, would be a convenient date for the UCCSN staff to attend the next meeting of the Advisory Committee.

 

Chairman Perkins noted that the first deliverable for the City of Henderson process was March 1, 2000, so he would like to meet as soon after that date as possible.  Dr. Nichols related that budget hearings would be held on March 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9. 

 

Chairman Perkins asked whether the Committee would be available to meet on Saturday, March 4, 2000.  The Committee agreed to meet on Saturday, March 4, 2000, at 10:00 a.m., perhaps at one of the sites selected for the public forums.  Dr. Nichols indicated she would set up a meeting location.

Chairman Perkins asked whether the May 5, 2000, meeting date was acceptable to the Committee, and stated that location would be determined at a later date.

 

 

10.       Public Testimony

 

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

 

 

11.            Adjournment

 

There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

 

 

 

                                                            _____________________________________

                                                            Joi Davis, Committee Secretary

 

 

 

 

______________________________________

Assemblyman Richard D. Perkins, Chairman

 

Date:  __________________________, 2000.