The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 9:27 a.m., on Monday, May 10, 1999. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Ms. Jan Evans, Vice Chair

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

Mr. Bob Price

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. David Goldwater (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

The Chair recognized Assemblyman Richard Perkins, Assembly District #23. Mr. Perkins told committee members A.B. 220 had undergone a lengthy policy analysis in the Education Committee and he would address the money issues.

As a matter of perspective, Mr. Perkins said the bill came about in his mind just following the 1997 legislature and its support of the Redfield campus. The legislature supported the Redfield campus because of the donated land, private donations, and other support from the private sector.

Mr. Perkins was concerned the higher education needs in southern Nevada were not being met in view of the major growth that was occurring in the Las Vegas Valley. He met with Henderson Mayor James Gibson in August of 1997 and asked if Henderson would be interested in donating land for the purpose of constructing a state college and whether or not that college would fit into Henderson’s future development. Mayor Gibson’s positive response to both questions came approximately one year later. Mayor Gibson had identified a number of land parcels in appropriate areas that would support a college campus. It was Mayor Gibson that first started the discussion regarding the type of campus and had brought up the idea of a state college as opposed to either a community college or university. Mayor Gibson felt a state college would provide a third level of higher (Bachelor’s Degree) education to interested students at a lesser cost. The mayor had looked at several ideas in other states and was convinced a state college was appropriate for Nevada.

Mr. Perkins said he and the mayor had looked at a number of issues to include:

• The number of students trying to go on to higher education;
• The effects of the Millenium Scholarship Fund on higher education;
• The fact the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN) was bursting at the seams;
• The fact that Nevada was not producing enough educators; and
• The fact UNLV was meeting a higher enrollment growth than was probably appropriate.

When they looked at the money issues, it appeared to Mr. Perkins the capital monies were a wash. There were, however, people who questioned a third campus in southern Nevada when the existing two campuses were
already under-funded. Mr. Perkins said the campus at UNLV was "built out" if not today, in the very near future. One option other than a state college would be if the legislature would support a new college campus for CCSN. He pointed out if a third state college campus were built, some of the load would be taken away from the existing two campuses. Buildings would have to be constructed one way or another, whether they were added to existing campuses or were constructed for the purpose of a new campus. Mr. Perkins said enrollment growth would have to be funded whether or not students attended either of the two existing institutions or a third campus.

Mr. Perkins told committee members the cost to educate a student attending a university to a Bachelor’s Degree level was approximately $20,000. It would cost half that amount to educate a student to the same level in a state college. The higher cost associated with a university degree was attributed to the need for more facilities and laboratories and the fact universities had research and graduate programs. Those additional needs were built into the entire cost of each full-time equivalent student. He pointed out many of those facilities would not be necessary at a state college.

Mr. Perkins said it was possible one of missions of a state college would be additional teacher training. Meetings had been conducted with federal representatives to discuss teacher initiatives at the federal level and the possibility of bringing some of those ideas and associated dollars to Nevada. He pointed out many of the other curriculums in the business community that were not being met at UNLV could possibly be addressed at the state college level.

There were discussions being held regarding 4-year programs at CCSN, particularly in teacher training. Mr. Perkins said that scenario told him Nevada was not getting the job done and that the existing campuses were not working toward their primary missions because they were having to address other needs in the state. He said a state college system in Nevada would fill an intermediate niche and the other campuses could then return to their primary goals.

Mr. Perkins said research would show the University of New Mexico received many more dollars in research grants than UNR or UNLV. The University of New Mexico averaged $116 million per year in research monies while UNLV received approximately $17 million. He said a state college would relieve some of the burden of undergraduate education from UNLV and allow it to focus more on graduate programs and achieve the level of a research university.

Mr. Perkins told committee members Nevada was still structured like states half its size, i.e., Montana and North Dakota. He added Nevada was, however, actually keeping up in the community college and research doctoral areas. The western states averaged 8 students per 1,000 population in their state college systems and 19 students per 1,000 population in their community college systems. Nevada averaged 21 students per 1,000 population. In the research doctoral area, the western states averaged 21 students per 1,000 population. Nevada, however, averaged 18 students per 1,000 population. If Nevada were to rise to the level of 8 students per 1,000 population, with its current population, a state college could be filled with 14,000 students today.

Mr. Perkins’ conversations with Summer Hollingsworth, the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, and the Henderson Development Association had revealed one of the most difficult issues Nevada dealt with in attracting new businesses to Nevada, particularly in the high-tech field, was the lack of higher education support of a skilled workforce. He said that in addition to an education, a state college would provide economic development in Nevada.

In his mind, Mr. Perkins felt there were two questions to be resolved. One, did Nevada want a state college system. Mr. Perkins’ personal answer to that question was yes. Second, did the legislature want to site that state college in Henderson. He said the location was the more controversial portion of the bill. Mr. Perkins pointed out the campus would not be a "Henderson college." Rather, the campus would be a southern Nevada college. The sites that had been identified by Mayor Gibson were all situated well with transportation routes. Mr. Perkins said he was not aware of any group other than the City of Henderson, in southern Nevada, that was willing to come forward and offer parcels of land in the neighborhood of 200 acres in appropriate locations to site a higher education campus.

Mr. Perkins told committee members there were a number of community leaders in the Henderson area who were willing to provide private dollars. Should the bill move forward, language should be included to provide for private donations from the community. He said the pledge of donations from the southeastern Nevada community had been significant and would be supportive of higher education.

Mr. Perkins suggested to committee members a state college would provide an ideal learning environment. Henderson had always been known as a bedroom community and did not have some of the conflicts with higher education that were associated with other parts of the Las Vegas Valley. He made the statement who would have thought 30 years ago that UNLV would be what it was today. Due to UNLV’s location in the Las Vegas Valley, Mr. Perkins said he would be hard-pressed to send his son or daughter to live in a dormitory in that area. He said it was not that the campus itself was not safe, but its proximity to the strip and the unstable areas surrounding UNLV would give rise to some concern. If another college were planned in southern Nevada, those types of conflicting land uses could be avoided.

Mr. Perkins told committee members the bill included an appropriation for
$1 million and said that amount needed to be amended down. He felt the best model to follow would be the planning and implementation program used for the law school. The amount that had been put into that bill was $500,000 and
Mr. Perkins felt that amount would be prudent in moving the state college project forward.

The Chair asked how much land would be donated and if the campus could be built-out and not become land-locked. In early discussions with Mayor Gibson, Mr. Perkins’ suggestion had been that the land be of sufficient size to house an entire college campus with all necessary accoutrements. He said the parcels of land that had been discussed were in the neighborhood of 200 acres and above.

The Chair asked if consideration had been given to expanding UNLV to a satellite campus. Mr. Perkins said that issue had been discussed and, quite frankly, Dr. Carol Harter, President, UNLV, would rather go in the direction of a satellite campus. Mr. Perkins said if Bachelor’s Degrees were contained solely under UNLV in southern Nevada in perpetuity, that campus would probably expand to 40,000 students within the next five to six years.

The Chair recognized Mr. Marvel who asked if the proposed campus would be used primarily as a teacher’s college. Mr. Perkins responded it would be a full-fledged 4-year college. He felt a "teachers’ college" would be a significant cornerstone of the campus. Mr. Marvel asked how many teachers were imported from out-of-state to teach in southern Nevada and Mr. Perkins said approximately 1,500. Nevada produced approximately 400 teachers.
Mr. Marvel asked the potential of a state college educating teachers.
Mr. Perkins said teacher education had to be the cornerstone of whatever the state college became because teachers represented Nevada’s number one need. In a conversation with U.S. Senator Harry Reid, the idea of a national teaching academy being housed at the state college campus was discussed. Mr. Perkins was aware that President Clinton’s budget allocated a great deal of money towards teaching initiatives and education and hoped some of those dollars would come to southern Nevada. He pointed out those dollars would provide the diversity Nevada looked for in its teaching ranks.

Mr. Marvel asked if a state college would stretch Nevada’s higher education dollar. Mr. Perkins said there were those who would disagree but for several reasons, he thought it would. First, he said, it would cost half the amount to teach someone to a Bachelor’s Degree level at a state college. There would be a certain number of students regardless of the number of campuses and available money would have to go with the students. Mr. Perkins did not feel support of a state college would take away from the other institutions.

Mr. Marvel then asked the difference between a state college and a university. Mr. Perkins said a state college taught primarily to a Bachelor’s Degree level and offered limited avenues to a Master’s Degree. Nevada’s universities offered from undergraduate through graduate programs and numerous Ph.D. programs at the doctoral level. A research university was the next level. Mr. Perkins said both universities in Nevada would like to attain the research level and attract research dollars.

The Chair recognized Vice Chair Evans who was aware there had been talk to expand CCSN to a 4-year program and wondered about the status of those discussions. Mr. Perkins said the project to provide teacher training was moving forward. Vice Chair Evans felt the bill had merit, would build capacity into the system, and would offer important new educational opportunities. She commented that she did not see either of the existing campuses shrinking as the result of another campus being opened. As the system continued to be expanded by the addition of professional schools such as the law school, and the possibility of a dental school, there would be a need for more resources. It was certain higher levels of expenditure would be faced by the legislature in the future.

Vice Chair Evans told committee members the state was not "making it" financially and that had resulted in the proposal to take a bigger and dangerous bite out of the Estate Tax Fund. Mr. Perkins agreed with the Vice Chair’s opinion but argued that an additional campus in and of itself would not create a need for additional dollars. He felt the only extra expense a separate arm of the system would incur would be those costs associated with administration.

The Chair recognized Ms. Giunchigliani who asked how the assumption that a state college would cost less had been derived. Mr. Perkins provided the following examples of differences in cost at the university level would include:

• Larger, more sophisticated libraries;
• Larger, more sophisticated student services buildings;
• Faculty being compensated at a higher level; and
• More sophisticated laboratories as a result of graduate student needs.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the needs assessment would include the volume of students required for the program to work. Mr. Perkins replied the needs assessment was more along the lines of whether or not Nevada wanted a three-tiered system as opposed to its current two-tiered system.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if discussions had been held regarding whether or not a state college would be an adjunct to UNLV or if it would be its own college. Mr. Perkins said that issue would have to be taken into consideration. In fact, he said, the bill was worded vaguely enough to allow for that type of decision. He pointed out language in the bill prevented the legislature from dictating to the university system since the system was the constitutionally empowered body for higher education. If the bill passed, Ms. Giunchigliani hoped the university system would begin to look beyond its current course offerings and times, particularly as they related to a teaching career. She asked if the project included capital improvement or General Fund dollars. Mr. Perkins said the fiscal note requested General Fund dollars to support a feasibility study. There were no actual construction costs. Ms. Giunchigliani stated the request would be a one-shot appropriation from the General Fund rather than from any of the higher education capital improvement budgets and Mr. Perkins said that was correct.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she had not signed-on to the bill because she wanted to hear the testimony. She reminded committee members of another bill they had heard regarding the needs for K-12 construction. She did not want to set a standard of more revenue being lost and the existing needs for K-12 construction not being met. While she agreed there was a need, she was concerned regarding the source of funding.

The Chair recognized Mrs. Chowning who told committee members she had heard the bill in Henderson in the Education Committee and it was heartwarming to see the community support. Using her own story as an example,
Mrs. Chowning said an individual would travel a great distance to receive a higher education. She was interested in providing the best education at the least cost for the citizens in her district who could least afford that education. Mrs. Chowning asked if Nevada was one of the last states in the Western Hemisphere to go to a three-tiered education system. Mr. Perkins replied Wyoming and Hawaii did not have state colleges. Neither did Arizona, but they had two research universities and one doctoral university.

The Chair recognized Senator John Porter, Clark District #1. Senator Porter told committee members as with most projects, it was necessary to establish need and vision to accomplish the project. Aside from needs and vision, location was also important. He said there was no question the university system needed to expand certain areas of its educational program. He felt the study would address many of those needs. The vision, he said, was to allow a community to adopt the proposed educational process. Senator Porter said the area that troubled him the most was that of location. Specific to the politics in southern Nevada, Senator Porter believed the study would indicate there was a need for a state college and the community of Henderson would be the ideal site. He told committee members one of the optimum ways to provide the best education to Nevada’s K-12 students was to have a premiere school of education. He felt strongly it was time Nevada became entrepreneurs in education and a state college would provide a step in that direction.

The Chair recognized Dr. Richard Jarvis, Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada. Dr. Jarvis spoke on behalf of A.B. 220 and said the Board of Regents had indicated they would welcome passage of the bill and the opportunity to conduct the study in a manner that would provide follow-through. He advised committee members the Board of Regents had not yet made a decision regarding implementation of a third-tier. A great deal of time had been spent deciding whether or not a third-tier of education was a worthwhile case to study. Dr. Jarvis said cost savings were largely realized at the state college level by faculty who taught larger student loads and the fact that competitive salaries for faculties at state colleges nationally were less than those at universities. There would be a greater amount of instruction delivered per faculty salary dollar, the primary component of undergraduate education. He explained teaching loads at state colleges were typically an average of four per semester. At research universities those teaching loads would be cut by half. Dr. Jarvis explained UNLV needed to have the opportunity to expand its graduate and research programs. He saw the establishment of a state college and the future of UNLV to be very clearly linked, i.e., the future of UNLV to become a research university and the opportunity to meet the baccalaureate needs of the Las Vegas Valley.

Dr. Jarvis said if Nevada were compared to other states in the west, the place where the educational attainment of its population was most different from the rest of the west was at the baccalaureate level. There were fewer adults in Nevada’s population with Bachelor’s Degrees than any other state in the west. That scenario would set up a demand for those students to either go to a 4-year school or to attend UNLV.

The Chair recognized Mr. Marvel who asked if the decision regarding a state college would be made purely at the discretion of the University Board of Regents. He commented the people of southern Nevada were deserving of a study regardless of whether it was performed by the University Board of Regents. Mr. Marvel asked if another group was willing to undertake a study should the Board of Regents choose not to do so. Dr. Jarvis replied the University Board of Regents had expressed its willingness to conduct the study and would intend to proceed should A.B. 220 pass. He said the first decision would be whether or not the university system should expand to a third tier. If the answer to that question was "yes," the second question would be whether or not the college should be sited in Henderson. Dr. Jarvis told committee members if the board determined they would not expand to a third tier, the process would be ceased and no additional funds would be expended from
A.B. 220.

Addressing Mr. Perkins, Mr. Marvel asked if Dr. Jarvis’ explanation was the intent of the bill. Mr. Perkins was confident the University Board of Regents would provide positive answers to the two questions. He said first and foremost in his mind was that Nevada needed a state college and, in his opinion, that college should be sited in Henderson. Mr. Marvel felt location was not an issue and that a person would travel the necessary miles to receive a higher education.

The Chair recognized Elizabeth "Betsy" Fretwell who represented the City of Henderson. Ms. Fretwell told committee members it went without saying the City of Henderson was in support of A.B. 220.

The Chair recognized Jim Richardson who represented the Nevada Faculty Alliance Chapters in the university system. Given the understandings that had been articulated by Assemblyman Perkins and Dr. Jarvis, Mr. Richardson wanted to go on record as wholeheartedly supporting A.B. 220. He was personally extremely delighted to see the outpouring of interest in developing more capacity for students in Nevada. Frankly, he said, there was an embarrassing situation in terms of Nevadans being able to gain a higher education due to a lack of capacity. The regents would be studying with great interest and in considerable depth, exactly how to meet Nevada’s needs.

Dr. Richardson commented on the fiscal side of the bill. He said there were members of the alliance who were concerned about their own funding if the regents determined it was feasible to go forward with a state college. He felt the record should be clear that increased capacity would require additional funding and was delighted with what the folks in Henderson were doing as real momentum-building to produce more resources so more Nevadans could receive a higher education. Mr. Richardson felt there would be a significant increased need for General Fund expenditures to pay for higher education in Nevada’s future. He hoped tax revenues would be able to keep up with that need. He also appreciated Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s leadership regarding bonded indebtedness problems and how the state could assist in building educational facilities at every level. At its last meeting, the Capital Improvements subcommittee cut a number of higher-education projects from its list, including eight at UUCCSN. He personally felt a state college at Henderson was a good idea whose time had come. As committee members may be aware, there was a bill in the Senate to conduct a formula study over the next biennium. If both bills passed, those conducting the formula study would have to take the advent of a state college into consideration.

The Chair recognized Mr. Marvel who asked if a formula study for a state college would differ from that of a university and how would they mesh.
Dr. Richardson said the point he tried to make was that any cost savings factors associated with a state college would have to be considered by those individuals conducting the formula study. Having not seen the formula study bill, Mr. Marvel asked if every tier would be studied. Dr. Richardson said the bill itself simply talked about the structure of a committee and provided an overall charge to review the formulas being used. It was modeled similar to the formula study the legislature had authorized in 1985 that led to the current set of formulas.

The Chair recognized Rick Bennett, Government Relations, UNLV.
Mr. Bennett wanted to dispel media reports that UNLV was against a state college in Henderson. UNLV’s long-term strategic plan suggested there should be some type of campus in the Henderson/Green Valley area, the Summerlin area, and the North Las Vegas area as well. That plan took into consideration the issue of access in view of the tremendous growth in the Las Vegas Valley. He said funding was the issue in whether or not an addition would be in the form of a branch campus or a state college and pointed out the existing institutions were not being adequately funded.

Mr. Bennett told committee members he took offense at Mr. Perkins earlier testimony regarding the safety of the UNLV campus. He had a daughter
1-year away from attending UNLV and felt very comfortable and safe about sending his most cherished possession to that institution. Mr. Perkins said there must have been a misunderstanding regarding his earlier testimony. He clarified that he believed the campus was safe, but the surrounding areas were questionable.

The Chair asked if there was further testimony in opposition to, or in favor of, the legislation. There being none, the Chair declared the hearing on
A.B. 220 closed.

The Chair recognized Steve Clark, Nevada Commission on Veterans’ Affairs who expressed the commission’s support of S.B. 263. He said the bill would provide appropriate representation to Nevada’s 500,000+ veterans, their spouses and children.

The Chair asked Mr. Clark to explain the bill. Mr. Clark told committee members the bill would remove the Office of Veterans’ Affairs from under the Office of the Military and make it a standalone agency. There were no costs involved with the legislation. The Chair asked why the change was being requested and Mr. Clark said the veterans in Nevada wanted their own representation through the office’s executive director. The Chair asked if there had been any opposition from the Office of the Military and Mr. Clark said there had been none.

The Chair recognized David Pennington who appeared before committee members on behalf of Major General Clark and the Nevada National Guard. He advised the Office of the Military had no opposition to the bill. He explained the Office of Veterans’ Affairs had its own funding and administration and the reason it had been moved under the Office of the Military was purely legislative in nature.

The Chair recalled the reorganization in 1993 had originally placed the commissioner’s office under the Department of Motor Vehicles and then under the Department of the Military. He asked if the move to be a standalone agency was a plus for all parties involved. Mr. Clark explained the office would take on an entirely new mission when it assumed administration of the veteran’s home, to include the addition of 200 new employees. He pointed out the office did not have any function with the Office of the Military. The same had been the case when the office was under the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The Chair asked Mr. Hataway how the budget division felt about the request. Mr. Hataway told committee members the budget division had not taken any specific position regarding the proposed move. He said the move would be the result of a political decision on the part of the legislature. The Chair asked
Mr. Hataway to provide committee members with the recommendation of the budget office and Mr. Hataway said that he would.

The Chair recognized Senator Jacobsen who represented the western district of Nevada. He said S.B. 263 was very simple legislation and admitted he had a conflict in that he chaired the Veterans’ Commission. He pointed out to committee members the Office of Veterans’ Affairs had originally been a standalone agency but, since the reorganization in 1993, had been moved from pillar to post – first under the Department of Motor Vehicles and then under the Office of the Military and General Clark. While the Office of the Military was unable to provide office space, General Clark had attended all commission meetings and had been an excellent advisor. The Senator said the office had the General’s blessing to become a standalone agency. He said the move was not only a necessity, in view of the clinic in southern Nevada and the new veterans’ home, but one the many veterans in Nevada supported.
Senator Jacobsen told committee members the commission was active with good attendance. There was currently one vacancy due to death. The Executive Director, Chuck Abbott, was leaving the agency and the Governor had indicated he would not fill he position until the end of the 1999 Legislative Session.

The Chair asked for an explanation of the fiscal note. Neither Senator Jacobsen nor Mr. Clark was aware of a fiscal note. The Chair asked that committee members be provided with an explanation of the fiscal note. The Chair again questioned the need for the move in view of the 1993 reorganization that had been performed in an effort to save money. Senator Jacobsen said he appreciated that fact and apologized for the lack of information regarding the fiscal note.

The Chair recognized Mr. Dini who expressed his opinion the bill was the result of the wishes of the veterans themselves. He felt the veterans had lost their autonomy over the years and the agency deserved to be built up and guide its own destiny in state government. When it came to the reorganization, Mr. Dini explained there were several agencies that had just been "thrown in the pot" and the Office of Veterans’ Affairs had been one of those agencies.

The Chair asked if there was further testimony in opposition to, or in favor of, the legislation. There being none, the Chair declared the hearing on
S.B. 263 closed.

The Chair recognized Maynard Yasmer, Administrator, Rehabilitation Division. Mr. Yasmer introduced Marty Ramirez, Department of Employment, Training, Rehabilitation and Financial Management. Mr. Yasmer explained S.B. 190 requested no funds, but rather asked that two existing revolving accounts be combined. The first account was $25,000 and the second account was $35,000. By combining those accounts, he explained, the agency would have a singular $60,000 funded amount that would provide for better service to its clients. He said the bill also provided for a cap of $90,000 but did not fund the $30,000 difference. Mr. Yasmer said he had requested the $90,000 cap to provide for additional funding during the biennium should it become necessary and only if the agency found legal and appropriate non-state, non-federal monies, such as program income, to place in that account.

The Chair asked if there was further testimony in opposition to, or in favor of, the legislation. There being none, the Chair declared the hearing on
S.B. 190 closed.

The Chair recognized Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, who wanted to review several budget closing items with committee members as follows:

• First was an error that appeared in the closing sheets of the Real Estate Administration budget. The explanation staff had provided was correct; however, the reduction was not included in the appropriation. That reduction was $16,509 in the first year, and $945 in the second year.

• The second area was regarding the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA) budget. Due to the passage of A.B. 181 out of committee, there were four support positions within various budgets of the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, that needed to transfer with BADA to the Department of Human Resources.

• The third area was regarding the priority list that had been established for additional funding should it become available. Examples included decreasing the state waiting list for the CHIPS program in Aging Services, the Schools-to-Careers program for $1 million that was not in the Governor’s budget, and a request by the Supreme Court budgets for additional monies beyond the
  13 percent level at which the Assembly had closed. He had not included the Supreme Court item on the priority list even though the Senate had. He wanted verification from committee members that his assumption was correct.

The Chair recognized Ms. Giunchigliani who stated that even though the Assembly subcommittee had closed with the 13.7 percent increase in General Fund support that both the Senate and Assembly had agreed on, that percentage had already been increased to a level of 28 percent by the Senate. She said the Assembly subcommittee chose not to add anything further to the priority list.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:43 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Debbie Zuspan,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE: