SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

MINUTES OF THE meeting of the

joint SubCommittee on higher education/capital improvements

of the

senate committee on finance

and the

assembly committee on ways and means

Seventy-First Session

February 23, 2001

The Joint Subcommittee on Higher Education/Capital Improvements of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, February 23, 2001, in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

Senator Raymond D. Rawson

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Mathews

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT

Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Mrs. Barbara K. Cegavske

Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.

Mr. David E. Goldwater

Mr. Lynn C. Hettrick

Mr. Richard D. Perkins

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst

Mark W. Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst

Brian M. Burke, Senior Program Analyst

Judy Jacobs, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Dr. Jane A. Nichols, Chancellor, System Administration Office, University and Community College System of Nevada

Dr. Ashok K. Dhingra, Vice President, Finance and Administration, University and Community College System of Nevada

Dr. Carol C. Harter, President, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, University and Community College System of Nevada

Dr. Stephen C. McFarlane, Interim President, University of Nevada, Reno, University and Community College System of Nevada

Daniel G. Miles, Vice Chancellor, Finance and Administration, System Administration Office, University and Community College System of Nevada

Larry J. Eardley, Budget Director, Finance and Administration, University and Community College System of Nevada

Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration

Dr. Richard Moore, Founding President, Nevada State College, Henderson, University and Community College System of Nevada

Dr. Carol Lucey, President, Western Nevada Community College, Carson City, University and Community College System of Nevada

Senator Raggio announced the schedule for the day and suggested those testifying confine comments to the major decision units for the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) and any new items that should be brought to the attention of the committee that require clarification.

UNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM OF NEVADA

Dr. Jane A. Nichols, Chancellor, System Administration Office, University and Community College System of Nevada, reminded the committee the budget is built on the new formula that was created by the interim Committee to Study the Funding of Higher Education. (See Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 01-4, Exhibit C of the minutes of the meeting of the Legislative Commission’s Budget Subcommittee held on January 25, 2001.) She explained that, instead of funding for instruction at 100 percent of the formula, it provides that all areas of the budget be funded at approximately 85 percent of the formula.

Dr. Nichols stressed that the formula is built on a 3-year rolling, weighted average for full time equivalent (FTE) enrollment calculations, with weights of 20 percent, 30 percent, and 50 percent for the 3 years preceding the year funded. She noted this is the first time the formula model has been used. She opined the model provides stability for the state and the institutions, and it prevents large variations in enrollment growth or decrease from affecting the institutions’ ability to plan.

Dr. Nichols said she anticipates that at least one institution may need assistance with a hold-harmless because of the formula process. She noted the hold-harmless had been discussed during the formula study, and she believes there may be a need for Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC) to have a temporary additional allocation to keep the college at its adjusted base. She pointed out that would mean no increase there until the enrollment catches up with the new formula. She said that will occur before the next biennium.

Dr. Nichols turned to the first two pages of a briefing document prepared for the hearing (Exhibit C) distributed to committee members. She drew attention to the 67 percent enrollment growth in the annual average FTE from 1989 to 1999. She noted the growth rate calculates to just over 6 percent each year, and it is expected to continue. She said the greatest growth, as depicted on page 2, has occurred in the community colleges, driven primarily by the growth at the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN).

Dr. Nichols called it “good public policy” that education is less expensive for both students and the state at the community colleges. She said the appropriate use of community colleges as an entry point for college baccalaureate degrees, is good policy. She anticipates that policy will continue and enrollment this year will be greater than last year’s enrollment. She stated there was an increase of 1 percent for fall of 2000 over fall of 1999 in FTE students. She acknowledged that is not an annual average because spring enrollments have not been added.

Senator Raggio asked when the spring count will be available. Dr. Nichols replied it will be submitted on April 1. She said the preliminary figures are constantly being revised and may be less than projected by the Governor.

Dr. Nichols attributed the total enrollment drop to the CCSN decrease, which she indicated is a one-time phenomenon. She explained if apprenticeships and pre-classes at CCSN are excluded, the regular enrollment growth was 17.9 percent. She opined that growth will not continue into the next biennium, but she pointed out the funding is based on historic enrollment, not projected enrollment.

Commenting on the 2 percent cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for professional employees addressed in the Governor’s budget, Dr. Nichols noted the Governor asked UCCSN to come up with a 2 percent match. She said the basis for his recommendation was sound, given the flat budget recommendations for other state agencies. However, she explained, the growth in the budget for the system is because of the growth in enrollment, and the budget is driven by the formula. She said the growth areas occur in only 7 of the 22 budgets.

Senator Raggio asked what the total cost of the 2 percent match will be. Dr. Nichols answered it will be approximately $16 million for the system’s 2 percent over the biennium. She clarified it will be approximately $5.5 million in the first year and $10.5 million in the second year.

Dr. Nichols acknowledged the dilemma faced by UCCSN is that 75 to 80 percent of the resources are devoted to positions and related fringe costs. Any reallocation of funds internally, she said, whether due to reorganization or elimination of programs, requires a reduction of positions. She said the institutional responses collected to date generally indicate the numbers of positions that will have to be eliminated or left vacant to achieve the required 2 percent match. She noted those estimates are in addition to the impact of the planned vacancy savings factors that the Governor already included in his recommendations.

Dr. Nichols stated it will not be possible to solve the problem until the final spring enrollment figures are available, and she acknowledged assistance will be needed to find a source to fund the full 2 percent.

Senator Raggio noted the discussion regarding the 2 percent match was held between the Governor and the system prior to the time the Governor presented his budget. He pointed out the situation is not something being thrust upon the system. Dr. Nichols agreed. She said at the time the matter was discussed, the Board of Regents had recommended a 3 percent COLA, and other possibilities were discussed that have been eliminated since the Governor’s full budget was presented.

Dr. Nichols acknowledged the tuition and fees are less than national rates and those in other Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) member states. She drew attention to page 3 of the handout (Exhibit C) depicting the fee and tuition schedule. She stated Nevada has maintained a philosophy of low tuition and low financial aid, because only low financial aid has been available for students. She said with the advent of the millennium scholarships, the system will study non-resident fees in hopes of having a recommendation for an increase for the second year of the biennium. She noted that is not represented in the budget in hand. She added the system will conduct a study during the calendar year that will propose fee increases beyond normal growth rate for the biennium of Fiscal Years (FY) 2003 to 2005. She pointed out that will affect the next budget, not the current budget.

Regarding indirect cost recovery, Dr. Nichols commented both the University of Nevada, Reno, (UNR) and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, (UNLV) return a percentage of their indirect cost recovery from funded grants to the state. She requested an opportunity to work with the Legislature to establish a long-term goal to keep the indirect cost recovery on the campuses to build needed research programs. She pointed out that is not represented in the budget and is not a part of the formula recommendations. Yet, she said, UCCSN would like the indirect cost recovery returned to the campuses in full.

Dr. Nichols said the dollar amount of cost recovery in the budget is $5.5 million. She stated it breaks down into $3.5 million from UNR, $1.9 million from UNLV, and $122,000 from UCCSN that comes into the state from indirect cost recovery. She said, “This is the potential margin of funding that our campuses use to build funded research and grants, and infrastructure to support that.”

Senator Raggio asked when the university system will recommend non-resident fee increases. Dr. Nichols replied the system intends to conduct a study, take it to the board for approval, and include it for the next biennium. She voiced hope the study and recommendation may be complete before the end of the present legislative session. She noted the board must hear anything regarding fees two times before it can give approval, so there may not be an official approval reached before the June board meeting. She said it might be possible to give the Legislature an unofficial estimate of potential revenue before the end of session.

Mr. Arberry asked how early in June the board will meet. Dr. Nichols responded it will not be before the end of session, but she should be able to report an estimate to the Legislature after the meeting on April 16 and 17. She opined the maximum potential revenue will be approximately $1 million.

Dr. Nichols reported The Executive Budget included three items from the special priorities and one-shot list submitted by the system. One was partial funding for the Harry Reid Research Center at UNLV, listed under number 4 on page 6 of the handout, and it was the only special priority request included in the Governor’s budget. The other requests, depicted under one-shot requests on page 7, were priority 2, funding for the system computing services equipment, and partial funding for priority 9, Nevada State College start-up costs.

Dr. Nichols called attention to priority number 5 on page 6 requesting system administration support positions. She said the $457,218 would provide one attorney and two auditors. She explained at present the system attempts to conduct both performance audits and regular internal audit functions, but because the system has grown in size and complexity, and demands for accountability continue to increase, the system would like legislators to consider the request.

Senator Raggio asked which positions of the priorities listed on page 6 are funded from other sources. Dr. Nichols responded the end-of-life issues program at UNR under priority number 4 is a federally-funded program. She said the $746,700 is currently a federal grant that will end during the next fiscal year. The request will provide for the work to continue.

Senator Raggio asked whether there is any likelihood the federal grant will continue. Dr. Nichols answered there is no possibility that it will.

Senator Raggio asked whether the attorney and two auditors being requested under item 5 are existing positions. Dr. Nichols replied they are not, and the request is not to replace any other funding source. The requested positions are entirely new, she noted.

Dr. Nichols added the seventh priority for the School of Pharmacy is new, and voiced her belief the remainder on the list are also new.

Senator Raggio inquired whether the Economic Geology program in request number 8 has been funded with an outside grant. When Dr. Nichols confirmed that it has, Senator Raggio requested that notations be made if there are already existing positions for which the funding source is going away or will be difficult to obtain. Dr. Nichols indicated her belief the third item, Financial Management for the School of Medicine, is a current position funded by indirect cost recovery, which would place the position under state funding.

Senator Raggio asked why the position cannot continue to be funded as it has been. Dr. Ashok K. Dhingra, Vice President, Finance and Administration, University and Community College System of Nevada, interjected the source of revenue for the financial management position is the practice plan dollars and the dean’s tax. He explained the dean’s tax is collected from the practice plan dollars. He said the dean’s tax funds are used to support new programs and additional programs to initiate new ideas.

Senator Raggio asked whether the funding for the position could continue under the same source if necessary. Dr. Dhingra replied, “If we had no choice, yes.”

Dr. Nichols suggested the system compile a list for the Legislature. Senator Raggio asked whether any others on the list could be identified for which funding could continue. Dr. Carol C. Harter, President, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, University and Community College System of Nevada, responded several items for UNLV under item 4, including the Office of Research, the Super Computer Center, and the Harry Reid Research Center, are being funded from the indirect cost recovery. She said there are two positions under the research office, one for the Super Computer Center, and one for the Harry Reid center, which can retain funding.

Dr. Harter added there are several positions funded through dollars generated by the activity itself for the Center for Business and Economic Research and the Cannon Survey Center listed under item 8, and the Nevada Institute for Children under item 9. She explained the Nevada Institute for Children under item 9 is funded by grants for research into children’s issues. She indicated the Center for Business and Economic Research and the Cannon Survey Center charge each client for their surveys.

Dr. Harter said the positions being requested for the law school and the dental school are new, not current, positions.

Senator Raggio asked whether any of the positions identified by Dr. Harter can be continued under the present funding processes. Dr. Harter responded, “If we had no other choice, they can continue.”

Dr. Stephen C. McFarlane, Interim President, University of Nevada, Reno, University and Community College System of Nevada, noted the Planetarium K-12 Outreach under item 10 is presently funded by ticket sales for planetarium programs. He said there is one professional position and one assistant position. He said the point of the request is to make the funding stable, because ticket sales and gifts to the planetarium have wide variance. He pointed out the item is relatively small, but said it would help to stabilize the outreach program funding.

Senator Raggio requested that Daniel G. Miles, Vice Chancellor, Finance and Administration, University and Community College System of Nevada, compile the information for the committee, including any omissions. Mr. Miles agreed to do so.

Dr. Nichols turned to page 7 of her handout (Exhibit C) to explain some of the one‑shot items. She said the actual figures for the Hold Harmless for TMCC will not be known until the final enrollment numbers are in, but she acknowledged it will be less than $1.4 million, probably less than $1 million. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Miles to inform the committee when a realistic estimate of the final enrollment figures can be made.

Dr. Nichols explained that the second item, funding for System Computing Services Equipment, will complete the National Science Foundation grant that funded the high-speed Internet connectivity for scientists out of state. She stated those are new costs for the system.

Dr. Nichols said the university system has a commitment from the federal government through the National Science Foundation for the third item, the Experimental Program for the Stimulation of Competitive Research (EPSCoR). She described it as UCCSN owing $1.3 million on a match for an existing National Science Foundation grant. She said in the next biennium a new $1.5 million infrastructure grant will be available to the state from the National Science Foundation, and there will be continuing grant availability from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Department of Defense.

Dr. Nichols stated the total of the three commitments that are ensured for the next biennium is $3.8 million. She noted that does not include the new opportunities that may be available. She said there is currently $1.25 million from the estate tax included in The Executive Budget for the next biennium. She said, “We know that this $4 million will be essential to allow us to take advantage of the federal dollars that are available to us under the EPSCoR program.” She asserted EPSCoR always brings in the best bargain, dollar for dollar. She noted that in the last 3 years over $3 million in state funds has directly leveraged over $13 million from the National Science Foundation.

Calling attention to item 4, Applied Basic Research, Dr. Nichols pointed out the applied program requires the campuses to match the grant by at least 2 to 1 through private funds or other funding sources. She declared the program has been very successful, with economic benefit, and expressed hope the program will build. She said there is currently $4 million allocated for the Applied Basic research program in The Executive Budget from the estate tax, and the request is for an additional $4 million from one-shot funding. Senator Raggio pointed out that means it would come from the General Fund. Dr. Nichols agreed.

Dr. Nichols said the Workforce Development Grants item under number 5 is a new proposal and has never been funded by the state.

Citing the request for $3.8 million or $4 million for the third item in the one-shot items, EPSCoR, Senator Raggio asked for clarification. Dr. Nichols replied the Governor’s budget includes $1.25 million in estate taxes, and UCCSN is asking for an additional $4 million. She explained the $3.8 million she referred to earlier does not include the EPSCoR grants that will be available in the next biennium. She clarified that the $1.25 million covers part of the $3.8 million, making the total additional request $2.65 million to meet current commitments.

Dr. Nichols said the requests for Workforce Development Grants is a new proposal. She pointed out there is no direct funding to the community colleges for working with businesses to meet workforce needs. She explained the programs are not usually covered under the revenue-producing FTE, and the funds would allow the community colleges to build those programs in cooperation with business.

Mr. Dini asked whether UCCSN works with the Division of Economic Development to obtain grants, or whether there are any federal grants for economic development funds available for the workforce proposal. Dr. Nichols responded all the community colleges work to obtain extra grants and participate in the workforce development, but it is neither sufficient nor flexible enough for a new business or an existing business that has immediate need of a workforce.

Dr. Nichols noted no funds were allocated for equipment for the last biennium, and item 6 asks for $6.5 million for equipment. She said the request is for equipment outside of the formula-driven equipment funds, which are related to instruction and personnel needs. She explained many of the campuses are having accreditation issues because of lack of funding for technology labs, classroom enhancements, and other institutional needs. She noted each campus has an outline of different needs, and the current list totals approximately $30 million, so $6.5 million represents a scaled-down request.

Mr. Arberry asked how much is presently included in the formula funding for equipment. Mr. Miles responded the formula provides start-up equipment funds for new positions and on-going replacement funds, and a set amount of funds for each professional and classified position within the formulas. He said the funds are primarily directed for technology such as computer replacements needed by the faculty and staff, and at the 85 percent level as recommended in The Executive Budget, those amount to $13 million in the first year and $11.4 million in the second year.

Dr. Nichols referred to a book of responses to questions in a memorandum from the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) dated January 28, 2001. (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.) Turning to question 7 regarding gender equity funds that were placed into the budget by the Governor, she singled out the portion relating to distribution. She said The Executive Budget recommends $1,457,876 for UNLV for the biennium, and $700,000 for UNR for the biennium. She related further discussion within the system and between UNR and UNLV has resulted in an agreement that UNLV will support the needs at UNR. She asked that the funds be redirected by keeping the same total for the biennium at $2,157,876, but that it be split equally between the two institutions. That will give each university $1,078,938 for the biennium.

Dr. Nichols explained UNLV had just completed a study of gender equity needs, and based on the study submitted the larger figure. UNR had not completed a study, but further discussion indicated building both programs at both institutions is essential, and the split seems the best way to keep them moving forward for this biennium.

Mr. Arberry asked whether UCCSN is examining the gender equity report to determine the next step. Dr. Nichols responded the request should not indicate that the needs at UNLV are any lower. She submitted the need is clearly justified at the higher level, but the change is in recognition that this is a long-term process that will have to be addressed within availability of funds. She said the study will stand, and it is continually updated.

Senator Raggio stated that the staff has compiled information on the undergraduate ratio of males to females. He said the last ratio at UNR was approximately 45 males to 55 females, and when the soccer program was added it brought the ratio to more nearly even. He said the ratio at UNLV was 47 percent participation by female athletes, a significant increase over the 33 percent in 1996. He noted the campus female enrollment has risen to 54 percent. Dr. Nichols interjected it is actually 56 percent this year, and it continues to rise. Senator Raggio surmised the figures support the need for a serious commitment to gender equity, but he approved of the recommendation in order to avoid a dispute based on sectional considerations.

In response to question 11 of the LCB memo, Dr. Nichols noted it relates to the use of performance funding. She said the interim study committee made the recommendation on the new formula, and the system is in the process of developing new guidelines. She promised that by March 23 details will be submitted on the distribution of those funds, and the basis for distribution. She said it will be a bonus that is based on performance, with a baseline established in the first year of the biennium. She said once the institution receives the funds, which are not continuing funds, they will be distributed based on performance. She acknowledged the right incentives must be established to improve the number of degrees and certificates awarded, and reward success, not just enrollment.

Dr. Nichols stated special emphasis will be placed on the success of minority students. She admitted the exact formula has not been worked out yet. She indicated incentives for research and workforce development will be added to the criteria for distribution of the funds, giving both universities and community colleges the opportunity to participate.

Senator Raggio emphasized there was limited discussion on the issue of the $3 million performance funding. He explained a few other systems have incentives in place, which is why it was added. He acknowledged there may be some reluctance to simply toss out a number for performance funding, whether it is $3 million or more or less, without more detail on the specifics as listed in the response. He pointed out the system has had since last year to consider the use of any performance funding, and what it is going to be based upon. He alerted UCCSN the sum could be considered “ethereal” unless a strong case can be made with genuinely important uses for the funds.

Senator Raggio suggested the performance funding could be allocated to some of the shortfall problems. He voiced concern that the case has not been strong for the funding. Dr. Nichols agreed and said the system is caught in a delay in the planning process, and long-term planning is just beginning with the help of the Rand Corporation. She explained the matter has been intentionally delayed in order to provide a better outline of where the system is headed, while she also admitted the delay has caused problems by providing insufficient information to the Legislature.

Senator Raggio reiterated the possibility of using some of the funds for other needs, and then re-instituting the request in 2 years when better information is available. Dr. Nichols agreed to consider the suggestion, but said the concept is valuable and she did not want to lose it in the long term. Senator Raggio concurred that the interim committee felt it was important enough to include in the budget, but repeated his suggestion that it might be better to defer it until the financial situation improves.

Senator Coffin asked why the Rand Corporation report has been so long in coming. Dr. Nichols responded the final version has not been delivered, but it is expected very shortly. She offered to deliver copies as soon as it comes out. She noted the Rand Corporation report is only the first step in planning, and it will identify key issues to be considered by the board and UCCSN. She said a preliminary report was made in January, and it is being rewritten. Senator Coffin asked whether the preliminary report was presented to the Board of Regents. Dr. Nichols replied the board has reviewed the preliminary report and responded with suggestions for changes in amplification, which will be included in the final report.

Senator Coffin asked for a copy of the preliminary report. Senator Raggio asked Dr. Nichols whether that is possible, to which she responded affirmatively. Senator Raggio requested the responses made by the board also be provided, if possible. Dr. Nichols replied there was no formal compilation of the responses since they were made during a conversation. She offered to provide the minutes of the conversation.

Dr. Nichols drew attention to the schedule on page 134 of Exhibit D in response to question 12 of the LCB memo relating to salaries paid to part-time faculty. She explained the schedule is for a 3-credit course, and it depicts the typical salary that a part-time or adjunct faculty member would be paid. She pointed out there has been some progress over the last 4 years at some campuses. However, she admitted, the system still has far to go.

Dr.Nichols noted the back-up material included from each campus shows they intend to increase the amounts in the next biennium by at least the state-funded COLA. She reported a study is under way to review the pay, benefits, and work expectations of the part-time faculty, which will probably have an impact on the budget request for the 2003-2005 biennium.

Mr. Miles distributed a summary of decision units included in the Governor’s recommended budget (Exhibit E). He explained he would not address the decision units that are common throughout The Executive Budget, but he commented the first maintenance decision unit, M-100, for inflationary factors is a standard adjustment the Governor included in the budget for everyone.

Mr. Miles said M-100 includes inflationary factors for utility expenses, and the system is in the process of compiling facts on the impacts at the UCCSN institutions for both the current year and the 2 coming years compared to the budgeted figures. He said the figures will be reported back to the Legislature and the Governor’s office as soon as the figures are ready.

Mr. Miles said the primary increases in the higher education budgets are set forth under decision unit M-200. He said the formula funding amounts are approximately $26 million in the first year and $39 million in the second year. He pointed out the formula funding uses a 3-year weighted average instead of projected enrollments.

According to Mr. Miles, decision unit M-201 makes adjustments for new space, which the formula does not take into consideration. Senator Raggio asked what new space is omitted from the Governor’s budget. Mr. Miles replied there is a lot of new square footage coming on line within the various budgets, for UNR, UNLV, CCSN, Great Basin College (GBC), TMCC, Western Nevada Community College (WNCC), and Desert Research Institute (DRI).

Mr. Miles said decision unit M-202 covers three budgets with rental space, including added space in the UCCSN System Administration building in Las Vegas for office space and the Board of Regents, leases at GBC for instructional programs that will not fit on the campus, and a lease expansion at Reno Old Town Mall for TMCC. He said decision units M-203, M-204, and M-206 relate to system computing services. He noted as enrollments and faculty increase, the demands on the computer systems increase, and the three units address increases in growth being experienced by the respective campuses.

Mr. Miles explained decision unit M-203 has administrative applications, primarily for registration and keeping track of student information. M-204, he said, is to be used for upgrades in the Internet and expansion of video capacity for conferences and classes, and M-206 covers increases in existing contracts for maintenance and software. He pointed out unit M-206 includes a minor adjustment for Business Center North by reallocating funds from operating to salaries.

Mr. Miles said decision unit M-205 allows for growth at the law school by funding nine new faculty positions because of the increased number of FTE students. He said a portion of M-205 also is found in the system administration budget to be used for producing copy materials such as the spine publication containing responses to the January LCB memorandum (Exhibit D).

Mr. Miles indicated decision unit M-207 relates to the demographics/caseload for the dental school, which is an adjustment in the budget originally submitted to reflect what is actually anticipated in the coming biennium. Unit M-300, he said, is the standard fringe-benefit changes as included in all other budgets, which deals with health insurance, personnel assessment, and retirements. He said unit M‑301 is also a standard unit for classified employees, with COLAs, going to step 9. Unit M‑303 is occupational studies, standard throughout the budgets, which apply to certain clerical positions and health-related positions for UCCSN.

Continuing, Mr. Miles said decision unit M-305 provides the professional COLA, which is the Governor’s 2-percent portion and the matching portion, which the Chancellor addressed earlier. Unit M-511, he said, was not recommended by the Governor, but it has to do with disposal of hazardous waste at the state health lab that must be done by contract. Unit M-594 relates to the gender-equity funds in athletics at UNR and UNLV, also already addressed by the chancellor.

As Mr. Miles commenced speaking on the enhancements, Senator Raggio interjected it would not be necessary to go through the list since many had already been reviewed. Mr. Miles noted only two had been recommended, one to maximize Internet technology, and one for performance funding, both already discussed.

Mr. Miles drew attention to pages 8 and 9 of the briefing document (Exhibit C) listing estate tax recommendations, including requests. He stated the major difference between the Governor’s recommendation and the requests is that the Governor placed the equity funding dollars approved at the last session of the Legislature back under estate tax, which had been included in the formula calculations of the budget.

Senator Raggio asked whether Mr. Miles wished to bring any of the recommendations to the attention of the committee, and what objections UCCSN might have to the return of items to the estate tax funding. Mr. Miles responded the board took the position that the estate tax endowment fund is an opportunity to grow the endowment to provide a revenue stream for the future. He noted the probability that the estate tax may be phased out and has a terminal life, and said the board proposes increasing the endowment in the current periods to allow for the future.

Senator Raggio said the goal is desirable and makes sense, but for the next biennium many of the needs may have to be addressed with limited revenues. He asked what changes or deletions the system would make on the list of recommendations under the estate tax funding. Mr. Miles responded that a number of projects were deleted before the budget was submitted, and no new deletions should be made.

Mr. Miles acknowledged the limitations from General Fund appropriations, but declared the formula-driven budget for education instructional purposes in the long term should be a state-funded responsibility. Senator Raggio pointed out the formula is being funded at 85 percent, which he felt was a fair commitment during a period of financial constraint.

Senator Raggio asked to continue discussion of the responses to questions in the memo from the LCB (Exhibit D). Regarding question 1 and whether there were any adjustments to new space requirements, Mr. Miles indicated each institution responded, and there are adjustments for both square footage and timing. He said the net result of the adjustments is a savings to the General Fund of approximately $874,000 over the biennium.

Senator Raggio noted decision unit M-201 in The Executive Budget included $5.5 million and $8.1 million for new space to be added. Noting that there was a delay for the date of occupation, he asked whether that would result in a reduction of just over $2 million. Mr. Miles said the UCCSN analysis puts the reduction at about $874,000. Senator Raggio responded $2.08 million appears to be the amount of over-allocation for those purposes based upon delays in occupying the premises and square-foot estimates. He surmised UCCSN is indicating there were some errors and omissions regarding new space that would result in some increases. He noted there were schedule changes made after the budget was transmitted that were brought to the attention of the committee by staff. He said those would have reduced the overall allocations in the Governor’s budget by $2.08 million. Then, he said, the system reported there were items that had been omitted. He asked what new space was excluded from the system’s initial request.

Mr. Miles responded the UNLV parking garage is one item that had been excluded. Senator Raggio noted others are the UNLV campus services building, UNLV parking garage, and the observatory at WNCC. Mr. Miles reiterated all the details of the information are included in the written response to question 1.

Mr. Miles indicated the information regarding projects at UNLV could be found on page 26 of the responses (Exhibit D). Senator Raggio inquired what is contemplated, and whether it translates into positions.

Larry J. Eardley, Budget Director, Finance and Administration, University and Community College System of Nevada, said the parking garage encompasses approximately 450,000 gross square feet. He explained a determination was made as to the operation and maintenance costs, which he said, under the formula, would generate too many people and too high operating costs. He said a determination has been made that there will be approximately 95,000 maintained square feet for formula purposes. He said a portion of the garage was funded during the last legislative session, and at that time two positions were provided to maintain 14,000 or 15,000 square feet. The next request asked for 30,000 square feet, and approximately 80,000 square feet is still unfunded for maintenance on the parking facility. He said that is the adjustment that differs from the Governor’s recommendation.

Senator Raggio requested that Mr. Eardley present the justification for the additional funding to the staff. Senator Raggio asked how Mr. Eardley could justify including the baseball complex for the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN) in the formula. The senator pointed out the Legislature has never authorized any athletic program at any of the community colleges, and at this point in time no such facility will be authorized as an addition to the formula. Mr. Eardley replied the baseball complex was added based on the response from the campus.

Senator Raggio requested an explanation of the “recharged” revenues that create a potential shortfall in the budget for operations and maintenance. Mr. Miles indicated the response to question 15 addresses the problem. He explained UNR pays for operation and maintenance on the outside campuses that are supposed to reimburse UNR for their share of the costs. He said some of the revenue from the campuses was included in UNR as a recharge. Senator Raggio clarified that the funds were included in the UNR budget as coming from specific agencies such as the University Press, School of Medicine, and so forth. He asked whether the revenues were excluded from the other budget. Mr. Miles said that was correct and that only half of the transaction was included.

Senator Raggio asked whether the total is $1.71 million that will have to be added back in, which Mr. Miles confirmed. The senator asked whether there is any other solution to that particular situation. Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration, acknowledged the omission was an oversight on the part of the Budget Division when The Executive Budget was formulated. However, he said, most of the maintenance and enhancement items have been balanced against formula dollars. He said that is the basic position, but the matter will be discussed with the Governor and a recommendation will be forthcoming.

Senator Raggio noted the new space rental section referred to a lease on the Reno Old Town Mall. Mr. Miles voiced the understanding a bill draft request (BDR) is being prepared. Senator Raggio suggested deferring the matter until introduction of the BDR.

Turning to question 2, Mr. Miles said the response provides projections of the amount of revenue that will be collected from the $1 per credit capital improvement fee at the universities and the 50 cent general improvement fund fee at the community colleges. Senator Raggio noted the responses from the particular institutions could be found in the book (Exhibit D). He asked whether anyone had questions regarding the projections and utilization of funds. Mr. Miles noted the projections and usage have been authorized by the Board of Regents.

Senator Raggio asked whether the system can give assurance that the additional funds will be used as designated and not used in any way that would distort the formula. Mr. Miles responded the funds are set aside at each campus, and the usage must be approved by the board on a project-by-project basis.

Senator Raggio noted one usage described in the book is debt reduction for the library at UNR. He pointed out the funds would be wholly inadequate to meet that need. Dr. Dhingra responded the plan is to make a request to the Board of Regents and the Legislature that after the next biennium the system be allowed to dedicate an additional $1 per credit to capital improvement fees. He said if $1 is added each year for 4 years, at the end of the fourth year there will be $4 dollars per credit to add to the capital improvement funds.

Senator Raggio asked whether the Board of Regents had authorized another $1 per credit fee and what use it will have. Dr. Nichols replied it is an additional $4 fee outside of the regular fee for technology. She explained the students worked with the campus administrations after the last biennium to decide to add the fee. She reminded the committee there was no equipment funding in the last biennium, and the system was facing drastic cuts in computer-lab hours and failure to update equipment. She said the students agreed to take on the additional $4 per credit fee, which will be used for technology for student purposes. She said it has enabled UCCSN to keep the facilities up to date.

Senator Raggio commented the fee schedule distorts the picture somewhat. He asked whether there are other added fees that are not included about which the Legislature has no information. Dr. Nichols said she could not think of many others, but there are additional fees such as the student health fee. In reply to a question from Senator Raggio, Dr. Nichols said both universities have the health fee, and it is not included in the budget. She said the fees are set aside specifically for certain purposes.

Senator Raggio cited the student charges included in the budget. He noted the approved per-credit fee is $74 per hour. He asked how much is actually being collected per credit when other fees are included and whether another $4 is being added to the $74 fee for health purposes. Mr. Eardley responded there is a fee structure for all graduates and undergraduates that includes a portion for General Fund and a portion is a student registration fee. He said those are the fees that support the budget. Other fees, he said, such as the capital and general improvement fees, and student activity fees, are included in the student registration. He said the two universities include the same fees.

Senator Raggio asked how much a student registering at UNR today will pay per credit hour. Mr. Eardley answered an undergraduate would pay $78, but of the $78 it could be that more than $50 will go into the General Fund to support the budget, and the remainder will be allocated to capital and general improvement, and the other self-supporting areas. He reiterated the two universities have the same fees in total, but their allocations differ.

Senator Raggio opined the Legislature is not given a true picture of fees at Nevada schools compared to other schools in the West if all fees are not reported. Dr. Nichols agreed the assumption is correct at one level. However, she said, all institutions have comparable add-ons that are not calculated in the basic fees. She stated it is not unusual to have set-asides for specific purposes, and it enable students to participate by approving certain items that benefit them. She said in order to get a true picture all the add-ons would have to be obtained from each state and then compared to all those from UCCSN.

Senator Raggio said it would be helpful to have that complete information. He requested the Legislature be furnished with the information. He stated there is always concern about any action that will increase tuition fees. He requested that a list of the actual fees at each institution that are currently being charged and a list of what is contemplated for the biennium be included in the report.

Mrs. Cegavske disclosed that she has two sons in the college system, one at UNR and another who is a millennium scholarship recipient. She voiced concern she may have a conflict when it is time to vote.

Mr. Miles referred to the third question regarding start-up costs for Nevada State College (NSC) in Henderson. He said a request was made for $3 million, but the Governor recommended $1 million.

Dr. Richard Moore, Founding President, Nevada State College, Henderson, University and Community College System of Nevada, reported the Board of Regents recommended a $3 million budget for the first year when there are no students and formal plans are made, but the Governor recommended $1 million. He said the Governor’s plan will include two full-time administrators for the year and three others for about half a year to do the planning. He said there is a minimum amount of funding to have faculty members join, for consultation, and to print schedules, catalogues, and financial statements for students. He said the board recommended a full complement of faculty members to join in the planning, and additional technical people in the financial aid and registration fields. He admitted the college can live with the Governor’s plan, although the Board of Regents’ plan would be better.

In response to a query from Senator Rawson, Dr. Moore offered to provide detail on the differences between the two plans. He stated the substance of the proposal by the regents is to hire a core of 8 to 10 faculty members to help with the planning, especially for articulation agreements and transfer agreements from the various institutions and for specific education requirements. He added the Governor’s plan would not provide technical people to plan for the first students, and instead that would occur on the same day that classes commence. He said there are adequate funds for the second year to enroll 1,000 students, and the budget is appropriate as planned by the legislative committee recommending funding for higher education. He said the differences are only in the first year.

Dr. Nichols reiterated the actual difference is between $1 million and $3 million.

Mr. Arberry asked where the initial staff will be housed. Dr. Moore said he has been depending on gifts to sustain operations for the past year, and that will have to continue. He said private companies have donated office space, furniture, and utilities. He said he plans to continue to obtain private funding for housing for the coming year. However, he said, the plan approved by the Board of Regents would allow him to rent space. He said at present he has been furnished with a minimum of equipment from the system, but has had generous donations from the private sector.

Mr. Arberry asked when the building will be constructed. Dr. Moore replied the Governor and Board of Regents have recommended the first building, which is priority number 8, at a cost of $16 million. If the Legislature approves the building, he said he anticipates moving into the building by the second year. He stated the plan is to rent space for the first year for an estimated 1,000 students.

Mr. Arberry asked when the building will be designed, and whether the State Public Works Board will be involved. Dr. Moore answered that public works will participate.

Senator Raggio interjected the Governor has recommended $26 million, with $16 million to be state general obligation bonds and the remainder from private sources. Dr. Moore responded the funds will be allocated to a building for classrooms and student services. Reiterating his former remarks, he said the college will rent temporary facilities in the first year. By the end of that period, 2 years from now, he said, the first building should be complete.

Senator Raggio asked how close the new college will be to the community college in Henderson, and what type of interaction is planned between the two campuses. Dr. Moore said the college will be situated about 4 miles from CCSN. He added there will be a number of cooperative ventures between the two as included in the NSC mission statement, and he expressed hope registration for NSC can take place at CCSN in Henderson for the first year.

Dr. Moore also stated his intention to seek space for classes at CCSN if there are vacant classrooms available, or at the high school across the street from the community college. He reported the board policy directs that the first priority for NSC is to work with the community colleges. He said he plans to ask CCSN for help with financial aid services and registration.

Senator Mathews asked whether the regents or responsible parties have considered following the plan used successfully at Great Basin College with its 2-plus-2 program, rather than constructing a new building. Dr. Nichols responded the possibility was studied closely. She pointed out GBC is a small school in a remote area that can grant baccalaureate degrees at a reasonable cost. She noted to elevate the school from a community college to a 4-year institution it must meet new accreditation requirements. She added such a school incurs tremendous new costs to meet library standards, student services standards, and support service standards. She said, given the size of CCSN, and even if just the Henderson campus is considered, the cost would be so great that it was determined it would be best to approve the new state college.

Senator Mathews noted the accreditation cost will be the same whether a new college is constructed or the 2-plus-2 plan is utilized at CCSN in Henderson. She declared she was not advocating one or the other, but she had just read an article that sparked her interest because Great Basin College is so successful.

Senator Coffin concurred that the 2-plus-2 plan had merit, especially, he said, because NSC appears to have a limited goal to create an education college that does not have the same accreditation requirements as others. He said he did not remember a meeting in which the Board of Regents discussed that plan. Dr. Nichols responded the board considered the possibility of 4-year degrees at CCSN long before the discussion of the state college arose.

Dr. Nichols declared CCSN is much larger than is anticipated for the state college, and the costs of conversion would be greater. She said it has been agreed that in the long term a community college is necessary for southern Nevada. She noted it will serve many needs other than bachelors degrees, and there is a need to preserve the nature of the community college. She said there is also a need to create a new institution with a different type of focus. She pointed out the new college will provide much more than teacher education. She said the two primary thrusts will be teacher education and allied health fields, particularly nursing, to build upon the community college’s curriculum. She repeated the long-term benefits will be better for students and more cost-effective with the new college.

Senator Coffin voiced concern the community college will not be able to provide help for NSC and suggested Dr. Moore should be prepared to stand on his own for operating. He noted UNLV was housed in a high school for its first 7 years.

Dr. Moore responded that two different panels have considered the suggestions posed. He said the Legislature set up a panel of people during the last session, including state Senator John Porter, Assemblyman Richard Perkins, the mayor of Las Vegas, and two members of the Board of Regents, to study the question. He said their counsel and advice was passed along to the Board of Regents, who then studied the matter again. He pointed out many members of both panels started on one side but after due consideration moved to the other opinion, both ways.

Dr. Moore said:

The Board of Regents have consistently, now, eight of eleven regents, looked at the issue, in about eleven different votes, and decided that this is a wise way to proceed. I only mention this because, say, there actually has been a due process with about a year and a half of discussion and dialogue of the various elements, and both panels have reached the same conclusion.

Dr. Moore said in reference to working with the community college, he is trying to find cost-efficient ways to proceed. He suggested one way will be to work with other institutions. He related that he has worked with the high school in the past, and he believes there will be cost savings in the future if multiple institutions work together for registration and financial aid.

Mrs. Cegavske reported she received a call from the Education Commission of the States and commented a conference will be held this spring that will focus on the best colleges for teacher preparation. She said that after a 6-month study the commission feels Great Basin College has the best preparation nationally for teacher recruitment. She noted Nevada will have a representative at the panel in July to discuss the issue.

Mrs. Cegavske said at the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) last year there were committees and hearings on state colleges across the country. She indicated she received information from the report that appeared rather bleak regarding state colleges. She asked whether that was included in the material to ensure the same mistakes will not be made if NSC comes to fruition.

Noting that a floor session was scheduled for 10:30 a.m., Senator Raggio asked that further remarks be kept brief. He noted the $4 fee should bring in approximately $5.7 million in FY 2002 and $6.1 million in FY 2003. He pointed out that is a substantial sum that is not reflected in the state-supported operating budget for UCCSN.

Senator Raggio directed the committee to question 8, which asked for the salary survey and resulting recommendations. He turned to the recommendations on page 111, which address the pay program proposed by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Dr. Nichols noted the study was completed in 1999. She stated the university administration felt the system did not match some of goals it had set. She said since then UCCSN has proceeded to implement changes in the salary ranges, which she said means the ranges shift. Based upon approval by the board, she said, UCCSN increased the range of the salary schedule for university faculty, administrative positions, and achieved uniformity in administrative positions in all institutions. She added the salary schedule for community colleges was moved up one level and the bottom level was taken out. She acknowledged the study on community college salaries has not been completed, and, she noted, the Board of Regents has not adopted the salary schedules pending further study.

Senator Raggio asked what utilization of the study was made if the regents have not adopted the recommendations. Dr. Nichols responded the study was used as a foundation for the system to conduct its own study.

Senator Raggio asked whether it would be accurate to say the current average salaries paid by the university to full, associate, and assistant professors were at or above the 75^th percentile according to the study. Dr. Dhingra said that is correct. Senator Raggio noted that 11 to 19 percent of existing faculty salaries exceeded the maximum scale of the previous schedule. He asked how salaries for positions that are below minimum ranges have been addressed, and how those above maximum have been addressed. He also asked why it is necessary to build a merit case for the positions above the maximum.

Dr. Nichols replied when the adjustments were made to salary schedules, those that were below minimum were raised to the minimum. Those above the maximum, she said, are extraordinary situations, particularly in the School of Medicine, in which the people fall above the salary range because of the market. She noted a list of those had been provided to LCB. She explained there is no intention of raising the salary range because of the exceptions.

Senator Raggio asked how many positions were found to be below minimum, and how the increases will be funded. Dr. Nichols answered she was not sure how many there were. Mr. Miles said all the positions already in the base budget will carry forward. Dr. Dhingra said there were 63 positions at UNR below the minimum, and there were 83 at UNLV below the minimum. He pointed out the funding has not been increased yet, and the plan is to adjust them over the next 3 years as the funds become available.

Senator Raggio recalled that several members of the committee had questions regarding articulation as addressed in question 13. Dr. Nichols stated after 2 years of progress in the articulation policy and in practice, the system has instituted a requirement that all majors within the university have an agreement with the community colleges for a 2-plus-2 that clearly describes what courses the students should take at the community colleges if they plan to continue at the university. There will be agreement as to which courses will transfer into the major and count toward the baccalaureate degree. She noted the regents have set a policy that a student can start at the community college and complete the baccalaureate degree at the universities in the same length of time as if they had started at the university. She explained that to implement the policy, the administration is working on “common course numbering” to ensure that courses that are the same look the same. She said the faculty members in each discipline are working together to achieve that system.

Senator Raggio requested representatives from the various institutions to address any matters that had been omitted from the discussion or which required elaboration.

Dr. McFarlane distributed a brochure prepared for the budget hearing (Exhibit F) and drew attention to data regarding the increase in enrollment and resultant economic impact. He said the document includes a page on each enhancement program item for which he is asking consideration. He requested that the Pediatric Diabetes Endocrinology Centers for both Reno and Las Vegas, which are presently funded with grant money, be continued. He said there is no other funding available for the centers at the time.

Dr. McFarlane noted the federal grant for the End of Life Issues program is going to expire. He pointed out the Center for Basque Studies is very well regarded. He explained it is unique to this area and has a worldwide reputation with students from other nations such as Germany enrolled in a distance-learning program. The last three pages of the handout, he said, deal with the Redfield campus and the one-shot funding requests.

Dr. McFarlane stated the EPSCoR funding is important to UNR, UNLV, and the Desert Research Institute. He declared state funds have been very successful in leveraging federal funds for the program. As an example, he cited the success of the earthquake center, which has matured over the years and has attracted National Science Foundation (NSF) research funds. He said investment of state funds for leveraging has brought millions of dollars for research into the system.

Dr. Harter referred to page 7 of the document distributed by Dr. Nichols (Exhibit C) depicting the one-shot requests. She agreed with Dr. McFarlane on the need for research funding, especially those that leverage federal dollars such as the EPSCoR grants.

Dr. Harter said:

I would just turn . . . to the planning for the Summerlin Campus item that we have asked for $1 million in planning funds, and, on this side of the budget, and on the capital side, $1 million, to start planning the first building. As I think you know, there are access issues in southern Nevada that . . . the Nevada State College partially addresses. We hope from UNLV to be able to address them as well by creating a regional campus in the northwest side of the city, as Nevada State is in the southeast side of the city.

Dr. Harter said she has been having “extraordinarily positive” conversations with people from high-technology and biotechnology companies that are headquartered in the Summerlin area who are very interested in partnering with the system to create a high-tech focused campus in Summerlin. She asserted that will result in a wonderful opportunity to bring new business to the community and to expand the economic base. She voiced the expectation those companies will make donations to help the campus get started if the Legislature indicates it will support the project.

Dr. Harter turned back to page 6 and reviewed the Law School Clinic Program, which she called the number one priority of the regents for the enhancements. She reiterated the full development of the law school requires clinical experiences for students, which can be provided with internships helping people who have no resources to buy legal assistance. Senator Raggio asked whether there is sufficient interest in Clark County legal circles to fund the clinical program. Dr. Harter replied there is some interest in assisting with funding, but it would not be ongoing funding for the faculty and staff. She stated it will be necessary to add about six faculty members, staff, and a social worker to work with indigent people to get the program off the ground.

Dr. Harter said UCCSN needs as much funding as possible to support the research infrastructure. She explained the funding will allow the system to use indirect cost recovery to obtain more research.

Finally, Dr. Harter stated the university desires to put together a package for tuition and net revenues from clinical experiences to support the dental school. However, she said, some state support is needed. She suggested the state support be tied to the enrollment of students in some way. She indicated the plan is to build the dental school over the next 4 years with a projected enrollment of 300 students. She reiterated state support will be necessary to accomplish that goal. She said UCCSN plans to charge the kind of tuition that the market will bear, which is higher than most other tuitions in the system. Additionally, she said, she anticipates revenue will be produced from clinical activity focused on people who have very high need, primarily Medicaid patients. She said the contract with Medicaid will begin on April 1.

Senator Raggio commented the committee is restrained by lack of funds, even though The Executive Budget already dedicates 19.7 percent of the General Fund to the UCCSN system, the historic level of funding. He pointed out the revenue projections show that the funds coming in may not live up to expectations, and if it becomes necessary to reduce General Fund appropriations all budgets may face additional cutbacks. He suggested the priority list be reviewed again to see whether any other internal solutions are possible.

Mr. Dini asked whether any changes have been made in goals for the dental school. He recalled that during the last session the dental school was described as a way to help solve some of the dental problems throughout the state, including southern Nevada, rural Nevada, and even Washoe County. Dr. Harter agreed that every method to extend services to those areas is being undertaken. She reported there is a rural program beginning at TMCC that will eventually lead to rural residents for the dental school. She pointed out that the state is either 48^th, 49^th, or 50^th in dentists per 100,000 population, depending on which survey is considered.

Mrs. Cegavske asked how the elementary school on campus fits into the budget. Dr. Harter said the school is totally funded by the school district. She said over time the land is committed to the school district.

Dr. Carol Lucey, President, Western Nevada Community College, University and Community College System of Nevada, came forward to address an issue that, she said, concerns all of the community colleges. That is the cost of operating small, rural facilities in which there are 82 to 96 computers. She described a computer as “a doorstop” after 3 years of use. She asserted the computers should be replaced at least every 3 years. She said in a college such as WNCC, with a small FTE but with a large head count, the revenue sources are always stretched to cover the costs.

Dr. Lucey explained the $4 technology fee supplies approximately $240,000 annually on the basis of 2,000 FTEs. She stated 1,000 computers, at a replacement cost of $1,700 per machine, not including technicians, software, and other items, cost $550,000 each year to maintain. She reiterated that is a problem in every community college throughout the state. She noted that is just the computer side of technology, such as that found in engineering labs, or nursing labs, or in the basic sciences. She declared a way must be found to deal with what she described as a critical technology problem.

Senator Raggio responded the technology is supposed to be included in the formula funding at 85 percent. Dr. Lucey confirmed that provides the funding for staff members. She said the facilities are staffed based upon the number of FTEs to ensure every faculty and staff person has a computer. She reiterated they should be replaced every 3 years.

When Senator Raggio warned Dr. Lucey that funding may fall short, she pointed out that very soon that will result in high-tech centers in which the work is done on old technology.

Mr. Goldwater recalled that when the high-tech centers were approved the issue of replacement funding was not addressed. He recollected it was determined that Medicaid funds could be used for the dental school.

A fact sheet on Great Basin College (Exhibit G) was handed out for committee consideration. There being no further matters to come before the committee, Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 10:26 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Judy Jacobs

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

DATE:

_____________________________________________

Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE:_______________________________________