*********************************************

                DISCLAIMER: THIS CART FILE WAS PRODUCED FOR COMMUNICATION

    ACCESS AS AN ADA ACCOMMODATION AND MAY NOT BE 100% VERBATIM. THIS IS

    A DRAFT FILE AND HAS NOT BEEN PROOFREAD. IT IS SCAN-EDITED ONLY, AS

    PER CART INDUSTRY STANDARDS, AND MAY CONTAIN SOME PHONETICALLY

    REPRESENTED WORDS, INCORRECT SPELLINGS, TRANSMISSION ERRORS, AND

    STENOTYPE SYMBOLS OR NONSENSICAL WORDS. THIS IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT

    AND MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED, PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

             THIS FILE SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED IN ANY FORM (WRITTEN OR

    ELECTRONIC) AS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OR POSTED TO ANY WEBSITE OR

    PUBLIC FORUM OR SHARED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE

    HIRING PARTY AND/OR THE CART PROVIDER. THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL

    TRANSCRIPT AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR PURPOSES OF VERBATIM

    CITATION.

                     *********************************************





         February 20, 2023, Governing Board Study Session...



         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  Madam Chair, I'd like to call up Dr. Dave

    Bea to deliver the budget discussion this evening.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Chairperson Riel, members of the board,

    Chancellor Lambert, colleagues and guests.  My pleasure today to talk

    a little bit to continue our conversation on budget development that

    we started last month talking about in the lead-in to some pretty

    important decisions that are going to be coming in the very near

    future.

         So what the goal is today is to sort of walk through general

    parameters related to the budget, where we're at, what the

    projections are with sort of the budget as is right now, and then the

    lead-in to, okay, what variables does the board have to play with to

    talk about upcoming decisions.

         So to give some context, the first decision or the first two

    decisions, there are two time-related decisions.  First will be in

    March at the next upcoming board meeting.  There will be a proposal

    on tuition and fees increases, should we get feedback to propose

    that.  And then the second will be related to the employee benefits

    plan and premium structures.  That will happen in March.

         In April, usually April, sometimes May, we have a conversation

    about capital projects, specific list of capital projects.  The

    preliminary budget then is put all together for the May board meeting

    that then sets what we go out to the public in terms of providing





    information for the public to come and give public comment in June.

         So after tuition and part of this conversation today, we're going

    to touch on the key variables, which will be tuition, property tax

    levy, compensation, and then balancing the budget.  So I'm going to

    walk you through all those different points.  Let me just get this

    thing going.

         I want to go through the slides relatively quickly.  At the end,

    what you can't tell on the slides is I actually have a model we can

    play with.  So we can sort of say, well, what would happen if we did

    a $2 tuition increase and a 2% tax levy.  It will do some

    calculations for us so we can play around and see what that leaves

    and what kind of position that puts us in.  It's set up in a

    three-year time frame so that we can sort of do a projection for the

    next couple of years also.

         So it's sort of building the budget from where we are at right

    now and then adjusting it for revenue changes and expenditure changes

    that we know about.  Again, I will get into more detail in a second

    in terms of some of those things.

         We talked a little bit about expenditure priorities, revenue

    projections last month.  We talked a little bit about right-sizing.

    I will get into a little bit more detail about that today, where that

    detail, where those numbers came from, why we use those as rough

    feedback mechanisms, metrics for the college, to make sure that we

    are running a sound operation, that we are in line with peer

    institutions, that sort of thing.





         Again, I want to go through, get to the model as quickly as

    possible, and then really stimulate conversation with the board so

    that you can talk amongst yourselves, ask questions, that sort of

    thing, get some feedback so that we know how to fold in some of the

    decisions upcoming.

         These should be familiar at this point.  Key priority for this

    year is we implemented a large change to our classification and

    compensation structure this last year.  We implemented it almost

    completely.  That is, we hired a firm, nationally known expert in

    class and comp, to come in and review all of our positions, make

    recommendations for salary schedules, and then place everybody on the

    salary scales to try and tag the college's positions to market rates.

         That's a really important factor, and there are ongoing

    components to that.  So the idea was with job descriptions, get them

    tied to salary, national salary survey information, and then try to

    match to get to the midpoint by an eight-year point at being at the

    college.  So if you were hired at the minimum of that grade scale,

    that over the course of the next eight years you would move along

    that target to get to the midpoint by eight years.

         So that's tying to the market average so that someone who is at

    the college in the position with eight years is getting measured

    against the market average for that position.  So that's how we are

    making sure that we are paying appropriately for the positions.

    Again, that's important for us to attract and retain employees.  That

    was a significant investment for the college.





         Last year the increases averaged well over 8% in total.  To move

    people up into that point, so what you said, the way we did it is if

    someone was at the minimum before that study was done, and then it

    said, okay, your market midpoint, you're here, you're at $40,000, the

    market midpoint is $50,000, so that would be after eight years you

    would expect to be at $50,000, so because a lot of people at the

    college were hired at the minimum and were at the minimum for years,

    because of a number of budget-related reasons, that then to get them

    to that eight-year point would be going from 40,000 to $50,000.

         I understand the board is interested in more detail about the

    class comp study, so we will set up some time at a study session to

    get into that.  That will be a good lead-in to the compensation

    conversations as well.

         So when I say that the average increase was about 8% overall,

    that meant that a lot of people were more than 8% or were about 8%

    blow where their market comparison point was.  Then when I said we

    got almost all the way to implementing the recommendations, what we

    did is we were able to get people all the way to the midpoint, if

    that was where their years of experience were, and then we capped it

    at 12 years of experience.

         So there is a cap, and that's one of the ongoing obligations that

    we are going to have to talk about and what we were talking about

    with the AERC groups, the employee representative groups, is what are

    the priorities going forward.  One of them that I think is a minimum

    expectation is that since we put the cap on 12 years of experience is





    that with another year of experience, we want to move that cap up a

    year at least, and then there are other priorities in terms of

    lifting the cap further and so forth.

         When we implemented it, it was such a big lift, we put a cap on

    at a relatively high level but there is a cap.  So trying to uncap it

    and move people up at the high end of the salary scales will be one

    of the priorities that we talk about and we are talking about with

    the employee groups.

         Because we are tying to years of experience and position, that

    now the college has an annual obligation sort of baked in that we

    want to create as an ongoing part of the budget, that for every year

    of experience that we have now, overall that costs the college about

    2.5% in terms of what a personnel, an increase to the personnel

    budget is about 2.5% to move people up one year of experience.

         So again, assuming that we continue to give that recognition for

    a year of experience, we want to have a salary pool of at least about

    a 2.5% increase to be able to do that first.

         I will talk about that when I start showing numbers that I have

    that baked into the budget, like that's a starting point, because

    that's sort of an ongoing obligation.  Then anything above that is

    what we will be talking about, how much more should we try and do

    above that.

         Completing capital construction, that's sort of built in.  If

    it's an already approved capital project, we have money already set

    aside for it.  There is ongoing deferred maintenance-type obligations





    we want to fold into the budget.  Right now the budget is set pretty

    much year over year for the ongoing deferred maintenance to be flat

    year over year.  So it's about the same increase or the same amount

    is allocated in the budget in the upcoming projections that I'm going

    to show you as are in the current-year budget, which is enough to

    keep pace with deferred maintenance but not make good progress.

         So that's going to be something that in the next year or so we

    will have more conversations as we fine-tune and get a new deferred

    maintenance model in place that we will talk to the board about

    ongoing, do we want to ratchet that up and start investing more into

    our deferred maintenance on an ongoing basis, but right now we are

    starting at sort of keeping things where they were.  The current

    year, that's enough for us to keep in a decent place with deferred

    maintenance.

         Then with growth areas, if it's something new that the college

    wants to do, shifting resources is what we really try to prioritize.

    So what can we not do as much of anymore, what can we shift

    resources, people, working on some of the priorities, and doing that

    over time rather than just adding, adding, adding.  We are not in a

    position with our enrollment to add much.  So it's really

    reallocating.

         We do have money in the budget every year.  We talked a little

    bit about reserves for things that pop up during the year.  It's

    called the strategic initiatives fund.  So we can, during the course

    of a year, we do have money available.  It's over a million dollars





    on an annual basis that we can put into key priorities or things that

    pop up during the year.  So we can be responsive.

         It is a budgeted line item, so we are not in a place where we are

    just like desperate if something pops up.  If there is an opportunity

    that we can take advantage of, there are resources we can tap into

    for that.

         Just to recap where we are at from a revenue standpoint.  These

    are the key revenues that hit our operating side of the budget.

    Tuition right now, with where enrollment is at, if we increase

    tuition by a dollar per credit hour, that translates into an increase

    revenue of about $350,000.

         Just to give some context, I have some information related to the

    Arizona community colleges.  We will have more information when we

    take tuition to the board at the March meeting.  But right now, they

    are proposing -- I think that there may be one or two that are

    looking to keep tuition flat, although we are calling it zero if they

    haven't committed at this point.  So a lot of them are also in the

    same point of conversation with their boards.

         So my guess is the ones that even say zero will probably have

    tuition increases.  Two colleges are doing larger tuition increases

    than have happened at any point that I have been at the college and

    probably in history.

         Maricopa is increasing their tuition by, I think it's $12 per

    credit hour.  That's an enormous -- a large increase for Maricopa in

    the past was $5 per credit hour.  This is recognizing -- there are





    two reasons why this is happening.  They are recognizing that for a

    number of years they kept tuition flat, and that creates ongoing

    problems because you don't have that additional revenue built up over

    time.  They have an expenditure limitation problem, and tuition

    revenue is outside of expenditure limitation.  So they are looking to

    deal with some of their budgetary constraints by increasing tuition.

         The other one that is $25 per credit hour is when COVID hit,

    Central Arizona College, which is Pinal County, they dropped their

    tuition.  They used the federal financial relief money to compensate

    for reducing their tuition to try and bolster revenue.

         They are now undoing that decision.  It didn't actually result in

    huge improvements for them.  It had a temporary one-time effect.  It

    didn't have a lasting effect in terms of their enrollment, and now

    they are undoing it by over the course of two years planning to get

    back to where they were.  So they are having a big $25 per credit

    hour increase this year.

         It's a little bit skewed.  Normally over time the Arizona

    colleges increase from zero to $5 per credit hour is like almost

    always what happens.  At Pima we have increased up to $5 per credit

    hour.  We have done that I think three times.  Just to give you a

    little bit of context, in fiscal year '16, we increased it $5.  '17

    was $3.  '18 was $3.  '19 was a dollar.  '20 was $2.  '21 was $2.50.

    Zero increase in '22.  In '23 it was $2.

         And that's very typical with going back in time when the fiscal

    crisis happened and the state reduced the budget to the college, that





    was the other time when we did $5 increases.  So this college has a

    long history, long commitment to keeping tuition increases as low as

    possible.

         So that's tuition.  Property taxes range from an increase from

    $1.8 million, and we have the capacity to go up as high as an

    additional $7 million.  That's because the college did not increase

    its tax levy a couple of years.  So we maintained the ability to go

    all the way to the tax levy amount.

         Last year we increased it by 4%.  That was the board, the

    previous board talked about we were at the point where we could do

    two years in a row of 4% to catch back up to where we had been for

    not doing it two years.  So the conversation was, the lead-in was the

    current year would be a 4% increase, and then the idea was this next

    year, this year, would be a 4% increase.

         Obviously that decision is not a commitment.  That was budget

    discussion in terms of long-range or medium-range planning.  That's

    what the board will be talking about a little bit later.

         So the range there is an increase of $1.8 million, that's for

    growth in new property, to 7 million.  That goes all the way to our

    levy max.

         Then other revenues, I talked about this at the last meeting,

    between Prop 207 and investment income, we are expecting an increase

    of about $1.6 million, which is going to help, for sure, with the

    budget.

         Talking about a couple of like scenario, from a scenario





    perspective, I mean, outline it in the context of first scenario

    would be we don't increase those discretionary, don't increase

    tuition, we don't increase the tax levy.

         So we get levy neutral.  You assume the growth in new property,

    but that's it.  That means you don't have to go out to the taxpayers,

    don't have to publish anything.  You just assume that additional $1.8

    million, but there is not an additional tax increase.  Anything above

    that $1.8 million we have to go through what's called a

    truth-in-taxation process.

         The next scenario is something in the middle.  That is we would

    increase the property tax by 2%.  That would be again historically

    the norm.  We used to do that almost every year, other than a couple

    years ago, like I said, there were two years where we didn't increase

    the tax levy.  There was one other year where we went 1% rather than

    2%.  Going back in time, that 1% was in 2017.  The next year we did

    3%.  So we caught back up the next year.  And then in 2021 and '22 we

    did the zeros, and then that's again why we have our levy max at a

    bit higher level.

         Scenario C is sort of maxing out your revenue scenario, right?

    That would be increasing all the way to the levy max.  You can only

    do that one time.  After that the board then could only increase it

    by 2% a year, but the board can still increase it by 2% a year.  It's

    growth plus 2% a year all the way up to your levy max.  Once we are

    at the max it's just an additional 2% per year.

         We talked a little bit about right-sizing and moving resources.





    I talked with the board about metrics, both back in I think early

    December, and then we talked a little bit about it a month ago.  The

    idea we have a number of metrics that ensure that we have good

    stewardship of public funds in terms of making sure the institution

    is appropriate for the size of the enrollment we have.

         The metrics that we have in place to do that are expenditures per

    enrollment.  We also look at staffing per enrollment.  So looking at

    those, because enrollment has dropped so significantly over the last

    number of years, our ratios that we, those tracking metrics are out

    of whack.

         I will talk a bit more in a second about that.  Ongoing

    challenges, just to outline that, again, I will get back to the

    struggling, impacts of the struggling enrollment outlook, the

    potential revenue growth, I just told you property tax is our biggest

    revenue source.

         Prop 207 had been fantastic, but we can't expect the growth to be

    like that in the future.  It will be a stable revenue source for the

    college.  It will not continue to grow exponentially.  We can

    probably expect that maybe there will be an additional couple hundred

    thousand dollars a year, but it won't be an additional 5 to $700,000

    a year or something like that going into the future.

         Challenges at the college.  We are not efficiently structured.

    We have a lot of locations for the size of our enrollment.  We will

    have that as a continued conversation with the board as we sort of

    work out the second, third year of this three-year plan as we go in





    the coming months.

         Not all of that is critical to decide for that year one.  We

    don't have to solve all of the world's problems in year one.  We have

    to start thinking about the next couple of years, though.

         We can't keep our eyes blind to the future, but we also don't

    have to be completely reliant on solving the world's problems in one

    year.  So we are trying to plan it out over time.  How do we get

    ourselves to be a really efficiently properly sized institution for

    our enrollment both in terms of the revenues coming in and in terms

    of our expenditures in the enrollment over time.

         Some of the ratios that we look at is the full-time student

    equivalent to staff ratio.  We started talking about this in the last

    year.  Overall, the college is a little bit under 12 to 1 in terms of

    the staff to the number of full-time student equivalents to staff.

         Historically that is a very low number, like as in it's bad.

    From 2012 to 2014, when enrollments were far larger than they are

    now, the average was around 20 to 1.  So over time, it has degraded.

    Again, that's mostly because there are two things that were

    happening.  One is enrollment went down significantly over that

    period of time, most dramatically in the last couple of years.  The

    other thing is that while we did reduce a number of positions in the

    '15 to '19 range, in that time period, we did have a budget reduction

    plan that was related to expenditure limitation, and it was a

    three-year plan to reduce positions.

         We reduced a number of positions at that point.  But when COVID





    happened, we held, we wanted to make sure that we had a lot of

    stability and we did not lay off people and we did not reduce

    positions as a result of that.  As a result of that now, our ratios

    are heavy on the staffing side.

         Another one that we have had in place for a number of years in

    terms of a target metric, again, these aren't metrics that are

    absolute.  These don't turn into, oh, you will be 14.000 and that

    means you are going to cut 102 positions exactly.  It is, okay, we

    are high.  How do we come up with a plan to start reducing positions.

    Historically we have done it almost exclusively through attrition.

    That is when people retire or they leave to other jobs figure out how

    to fold those responsibilities into the college and not hire for all

    those positions and eliminate the position and save the money from

    the budget going forward.  We reduced about 200 positions doing that

    when we had the expenditure limitation challenges.

         Again, we haven't done that in some time.  Right now it's been

    more reallocating positions.  When someone retires, a lot of times

    you need that position so it's been filled.  But then there is always

    a constant conversation with folks to try and go, okay, where do we

    need positions, okay, online has been growing.  Dual enrollment has

    been growing.  How do we move positions that are vacant into those

    areas rather than adding positions.

         In terms of the staffing, there is an instructional faculty ratio

    that has been used as a target metric since around 2015, if I

    remember, I'm guessing, I don't remember exactly if that's the year,





    but it was around that time frame.  The way that that came to be is

    we wanted to come up with a way to track the number of full-time

    faculty positions we had for our enrollment.

         So we went in and took a look at national data, at the IPEDS

    data, and looked at our peer institutions, and basically came up with

    a number that our peer institutions for their full-time equivalents,

    and this is controlled for only general fund operations, so it does

    not include adult education, does not include contract education.  So

    it's just the traditional-type education.

         We looked at the other, our peer institutions, and the average

    for our peer institutions was 50 to 1.  So we looked at that.  We

    didn't like magically make that the number, though.

         We looked at what does that number mean at the college

    historically, and looking at the college historically, that number

    was a number that we hit, for all intents and purposes, in 2014.

    Now, remember, our enrollment has been declining since our peak in

    2011, and so at a certain point in time, it crossed over where the

    number of full-time instructional faculty positions we had was 50 to

    1, was 2014.  That's when we hit that number.

         There is another reason why that ratio is helpful to the college,

    because that ensures that depending on our enrollment, if our

    enrollment grows, it tells us, okay, we need to add full-time

    instructional positions.  It also does another thing, which is

    ensures that if we hold steady with our ratio full-time faculty to

    adjunct faculty, because if we are holding one of those constant,





    right, full-time instructional faculty to full-time student

    equivalents is held constant, that means that when you're growing

    you're also adding adjunct faculty at the same relative ratio.

         So it does a couple of things at the same time.  Again, it isn't

    a number when we came up with that number that was like shocking

    historically.  Like I said, it was like -- and we came up with this

    number, actually, I said it was like in 2015, it was a little bit

    later than that, like 2017.  It was, yeah, actually that makes sense.

    This was actually a pretty good period in time with the college.

         When we were in 2011, and our enrollment was at 23,000 FTSE, we

    did not have enough full-time instructional faculty at the time.

    From this ratio, it would have said we would have had to add about 50

    positions, something like that.  I'm going off memory, but it was

    adding quite a few more positions.

         Now, there is a reason for that, but that's history and we will

    talk about that another time sometime, but anyway...

         So hopefully that gets at where those ratios came from, and so

    they are tied to national data for peer institutions, but we also

    -- we never take that as sort of an exclusive answer.  We also look

    internally and go, does that actually make sense at the college?

         The staffing ratio information for national comparisons, we are

    extremely high from a staffing standpoint to enrollment compared to

    peer institutions nationally.

         There is a big reason, there are a number of reasons for that,

    though.  It doesn't become an absolute.  It becomes, well, we're





    high, and here it kind of proves it.

         One of the reasons is because there are some states where things

    like HR are done on a statewide level.  HR, meaning class comp

    decisions or information technology infrastructure, things we have to

    manage in-house, employee benefits, for example, we have to manage

    that in-house.  That makes us inefficient.

         But the truth of the matter is the fact that we have so many

    different locations and the fact that we have shrunk so much since

    our peak, we are very inefficient at the college, no question about

    it.

         So it's sort of like, okay, what's a good measure, let's try and

    head towards that, but it's never intended and it has never been an

    absolute that told you definitively, we are cutting 545.  It's never

    been used that way.  Again, it's more like how can we try and head in

    that direction, have a plan through attrition to shrink the size of

    our staff, that sort of thing.

         Okay, this is a recap, and I'm about to get into the more fun

    stuff.  Again, to the levy information is if we go all the way to the

    levy max, it adds 7.2 million.  Then 2%.  This is looking at the

    three-year outlook.  So if we went 4% that first year, again, I told

    you that then keeps us we are at the max, we can only do 2% after

    that.  That gives you an idea that it's a one-time additional $3

    million essentially.

         What year that happens is something that's not yet to be

    determined but that's so that could move, depending on how you





    decided to do it, but it's basically 7.2 million for 4 would be how

    it would play out if you did the levy max in the first year.

         Then the moderate increase, again, a $3 tuition increase is

    historically normal for the college to do.  We never like to increase

    tuition, but that's a fairly moderate increase, particularly given

    all the additional costs the college has had to absorb in the last

    year.  That would be about $1.1 million of additional revenue.

         It is also important to note that one of the things when our

    credit rating agencies take a look at the college related to our

    revenue bonds, the revenue bonds are a commitment on tuition, on

    nonproperty tax-based revenues.  So that's why it's called a revenue

    bond.  It's other revenues with our primary other revenue being

    tuition.

         So as enrollment declines, that puts pressure on that revenue

    source that is that commitment that we are using to pay those

    obligations going out into time.  As enrollment has declined, our

    credit ratings have held steady because of strong management

    perspective and good financials and good financial performance and

    management approaches.

         One of the things they have hinted at is as enrollment has

    declined, if we don't increase tuition, that might be a sign that we

    are not interested in keeping a healthy balance in terms of the

    revenue proportion that is, again, because we are committing some

    amount -- it's only $4 million, so it's not a major commitment on an

    annual basis, but there is a commitment on an annual basis for





    tuition revenue to go there.

         So credit-rating agencies, if there isn't a moderate increase in

    tuition and enrollment stays flat or goes down, they might find that

    a little bit concerning and might drop their credit rating a little

    bit.  I'm not trying to panic you.  It isn't something to panic over,

    but it is something be aware of that if that does factor in to how we

    are looked at as a college.

         Okay.  This one, if you got a chance to take a look at it, this

    is what the model looks like if you bake in all of our ongoing

    obligations.  That is the thing that I talked about.  Everybody gets

    another year of experience.  We move people up.  We move that cap up

    one year.  That is built into this from a salary standpoint.

         It does not include any increases for adjunct faculty.  A

    percentage increase for adjunct faculty is around $120,000, give or

    take, something like that, so it's not huge, but that's something

    that the college has also made a lot of effort in recent years to

    make sure our adjunct faculty rate is competitive.  So that's

    something we would prioritize as an increase going forward, so think

    about a little over $100,000 for every percentage increase there.

         So it doesn't include that.  And it doesn't include any increase

    to people other than a year of experience, right?  So there are a lot

    of people at the cap, above their target point.  So that would be

    holding everybody flat, just giving people a year of experience is

    what this model looks like.  It includes a little additional money

    for contractual obligations, utility increases, particularly system





    licenses, costs, things like that, that go up each year.

         So there is a little bit of additional money on the operating

    side for that, but it's a fairly moderate increase in terms of how we

    are looking at it.  This is sort of the minimalist budget where we

    are at now.  If we don't reduce anything but keep doing what we are

    doing now, that's what this thing shows.

         Looking at this, it also, as I mentioned, the first built-in

    assumption is this does not have a tax levy increase.  This is just

    getting the new growth and it does not have a tuition increase in it.

    So again, if we don't do anything, this is kind of what it looks

    like.

         So we have revenue, we have revenue potential on the upside.  It

    also doesn't have reductions in it, so that's another thing that we

    will have that we can talk about.

         So you notice, though, sort of the baked-in starting point

    without increasing revenues is it shows that the next year's budget

    is about $1.6 million worse than where we are at right now.  Position

    equivalency, that's just kind of put, to humanize it a little bit,

    that $1.6 million is if you said reduce by that much, we want to have

    a budget cut of $1.6 million.  We don't want to increase revenues at

    all.  We want to make it up in a reduction, or board says find $1.6

    million in reductions, that would be about 20 positions, give or

    take.

         And think about it.  The college cannot just reduce on just the

    operating side and not personnel.  Our operating is far more





    committed and structured.  There is not a lot of discretionary money

    in our operating budget.

         So think about it.  If you did say that we should do a reduced

    by, say, a million dollars, figure about 900,000 of that is probably

    going to have to come out of personnel.  So some can come out of

    operating, but it's mostly going to be coming out of personnel.

         So this is kind of what it looks like going forward.  I will

    start with the frightening proposition, but again, I told you that's

    before we do anything on the revenue side.  Then this model is the

    one I have built to play with.  This is a static one, just so we

    could have it in this presentation.

         What this one does, so that model I just showed you, that version

    I just showed you was like that scenario A, right.  That's without

    increasing tuition, without increasing the tax levy, that's what that

    looks like.

         This is now structured to be much more what the college typically

    does, so this is increasing the tax levy by 2% and increasing tuition

    by $3.  As you can tell, that makes a significant difference in terms

    of the bottom line.  In addition to that, it also gives us about 2%

    of salary pool money to distribute, to handle the things above the

    year of experience.

         So that is the employee groups are going to have certain

    priorities.  That would give us money for addressing some of the

    priorities, moving up, moving the cap up, giving a minimum increase

    to people who are already above their target point, so they are not





    going to get a year of experience.  And adjunct faculty pay.

         So it would give a pool increase of about $2.6 million for us to

    do, to distribute in various ways that we will have conversations

    with employee groups and then we'll have conversations with the

    board, just a high-level number of what that would shake out to look

    like.  Overall that would be a personnel increase of about 4%.  As

    you see at the bottom, that's still a net negative, about $500,000 is

    not too big of an issue in terms of how big our budget is.

         So it's a decent starting point at least to think about.  That's

    scenario B.  Obviously anything we go above that in terms of tapping

    into either tuition increases above the $3 increase or the tax levy

    increase above 2%, that then would give us more money to do into

    bigger pool increases, because as you can imagine, a 2% salary pool

    above a year of experience is not actually very much when you're

    factoring in inflation and where we are at right now.

         Again, I talked a little bit about the next steps in terms of

    budget, and then I will pull up our model and you guys can ask

    questions and we can play around a little bit.  We are going to take

    a proposal to the board in March for tuition.  Again, that's why we

    are looking for feedback tonight, sort of what it looks like, how the

    board feels about a potential tuition increase -- obviously if we

    don't increase tuition, we don't need to take that to the board --

    any increase that we have to take in March so that we can get it in

    in time for the schedule of courses that goes out in April for fall

    semester.





         So we want to get any tuition increase decided before people

    start enrolling in fall classes.  That's the timeline.  That's why

    March becomes important.

         Then I mentioned employee benefits contracts.  There is an

    increase in employee benefits costs.  We will know a little bit more,

    waiting for information tomorrow, we will give more information to

    the board.  We are not looking to push that on to employees.  We are

    looking to have the college absorb that increased cost within this

    structure.  That's built into what I have already showed you.

         It might be as high as about $500,000, something like that.  In

    the context of health benefits, that's pretty normal.  Thinking

    anything under a million dollars in a given year is good for the

    college or is acceptable.

         We have done a good job over time with our wellness program, with

    self-insuring our health insurance, keeping those increases as low as

    possible, and we actually have not pushed those increased costs to

    employees, which is what many other employers have done over the last

    number of years.  So we want to sort of keep that commitment going.

         I find it to be objectionable if you give a 1% increase to

    employees and then turn around and hit them on the employee benefits

    costs, where it's a bigger increase than that, that's really not a

    great way to approach things.

         April there will be a study session.  We will talk more about

    compensation at that point, more about the budget at that point.

    Then I mentioned May and June, what happens in those time frames.





         So I have provided some additional information.  I'm not going to

    go through all of that stuff.  Again, this is sort of just to show

    where the calculations come from, unless the board has questions on

    those.

         I will pull up the little model, we will play, and then I'm happy

    to entertain any questions you all may have.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  It would be helpful for me that when you do

    a comparison of what the other college districts are going to do with

    the tuition increase you would show what the tuition is.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  That is typically how we do it.  Sorry we

    didn't show that in here.  We are third-highest right now, but we are

    very close to the next four or five.  But we will have that

    information.  We will have the chart that will show that to you in

    March.  Absolutely.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  And then what a dollar, $2, $3 increase in

    tuition would be percentage-wise compared to what they are paying.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  We are close to 100, we are about 90ish

    dollars, so $1 increase is a little over a percent.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Did you mention what the estimated valuation

    increase would be?  Is it taxing?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Yeah.  I'm looking to see if it's got it in

    there.  So the taxable valuation of Pima County property, so this

    slide shows it, if you can see that.

         Yeah, I can't control that.  Someone else is controlling that

    screen.  Marcos, can you put the chart up on the smaller TV?  There





    you go.

         So this is current year net assessed value.  This is the upcoming

    year net assessed value.  So there is an increase in the assessed

    valuation of Pima County property.  It's about half a billion

    dollars, give or take.  That's in thousands.  So it's $10 billion

    worth of assessed value for the property.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  So that's 5%?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  It's a 5% increase in the valuation.

         The growth in new property is like 1. --  let's see if it has it

    in here.  It's 1.7%, I think.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  So do we know what percentage of that is new

    property as opposed to --

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  1.7% growth is the growth figure.  That's what

    really matters to us.  That's what translates into the $1.8 million

    that you see at the bottom here.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  I'm not making myself clear.

         So part of that valuation increase is going to be new property?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Yeah.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  So the old property, what percentage

    increase -- are you getting where I'm going?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Yes.  I will be happy to get that.  I don't

    know it off the top of my head.  It's gone up some obviously, I mean,

    if you just do the math in your head.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  It would be helpful for me to know the

    current taxing people how much percentage increase they will have





    just because they were in their homes another year.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Great.  We always show that before the tax

    decision.  When I say that tax levy can go up by 2%, when I keep

    saying that 2% number, that all things being equal, because there are

    some things that happen that aren't equal, but all things being

    equal, that would mean that there would be a 2% increase to their tax

    rate for the same property year over year.  That's what a 2% increase

    means.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  I understand that, but it won't be a 2% tax

    increase when they look at the bottom line on their tax bill?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Actually, it will.  The way that it works, the

    assessment values go up.  I'm going to try and do this.

         Last year you have a property that's worth $100,000.  It gets

    assessed at $110,000 this year.  That's a 10% growth, right?  The tax

    rate that we charge would actually go down so that your increase in

    your bill would go up by 2%.  It wouldn't go up by 10% plus 2%, if

    that makes sense.

         I will map that out for you.  I will show you how that works.  We

    adjust our tax rate downward, because we are looking to get a dollar,

    a specific dollar amount from all of our property.  I'll say it a

    different way.

         If there was no growth in new property and assessment values

    stayed the same, and the board adopted this 2% increase, everybody's

    taxes would go up 2%, okay?

         Different scenario.  Everybody's tax valuations, again, no new





    property, no new properties happen, the property values went up by

    10% and the board approved that 2% increase, the tax rate would

    actually go down a lot, because what would happen is year over year,

    we are just trying to get that same 2% additional from each property,

    from the same value, the same controlled value property, if that

    makes sense.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  If we put 2% on it, it increased 10%, what

    would the net be?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  So all other things being equal, it would be a

    net increase of 2%.  If they were paying $100, they would be paying

    $102.  That's how it would play out.  Even though the value of their

    house went up a lot, the tax rate would go down and we would just get

    another 2% on that property.

         The only time that that doesn't play out is if there is a

    distribution change in the valuation where your property and my

    property, my property goes up a lot more than your property in a

    given year, my taxes will be a little bit higher because of that.

    But we don't control that.  That's Pima County assessor or that's the

    way it works.

         We just set what the tax rate is to get a dollar certain.  And

    the assessment value of the property, if it goes up a lot, just means

    the tax rate is going to go down.

         I will show that to you come in March -- sorry, either in April,

    I'd be happy to show it to you in April, and I will show you how it's

    gone over years so you can see how the tax rates go down when





    assessment values go up.  I just don't have that on hand where I can

    show it to you.  I can just tell you.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  That would be helpful.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Hey, Maria, Wade has like four more

    questions, and then we will take your questions.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Go ahead.  Let him finish.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  How does the credit rating affect us?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  What it would do, it would have a marginal or

    negligible impact.  I mean, it would be not great if it went down.

    We don't have any -- we are not planning to borrow any more money.

    If we went out to borrow more money, a lower credit rating means we

    would have to pay more in interest.  We would be less desirable so we

    would have to pay more --

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  I understand that, but I guess my question

    is do we have debt that we are paying off?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Yes, we have revenue bonds where the annual

    payment is about $4 million a year, but they are fixed.  So it

    doesn't have an immediate effect on our currently existing debt.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  And what are they for?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  The revenue bonds are for the centers of

    excellence projects, so the automotive building, Advanced

    Manufacturing building, some renovations related to science buildings

    at West Campus.

         So all of the showcase buildings save aviation, because the state

    funded that.  All the major improvements in our facilities in the





    last number of years came from revenue bonds proceeds.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  So we can issue revenue bonds without

    passing a bond?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Correct.  There is a cap on how much we can

    do, but we do have a fair amount of capacity to issue more revenue

    bonds.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  When you showed the model that had -- I'm

    calling it a step.  What do you call it?  Longevity?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Year of experience.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Year of experience.  What is the average

    increase in salary for that?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  It's about 2.5% on average.  It does vary.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  So in the first scenario, did that include

    decreasing the number of positions because our student/teacher ratio

    is high, low?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  It doesn't include any decrease in regular

    positions.  The one thing that we do do that's sort of on the side,

    but we have a model for how much money we put for adjunct faculty.

    So that's our variable labor force, if you will, so if enrollment

    goes down, we reduce the number of classes we teach, and that's

    taught by adjunct faculty.

         The difference between those two is fairly small in terms of the

    variability.  The amount of tuition revenue that we get for adding an

    additional class covers roughly what the cost of an adjunct faculty

    position is.  It's a little bit of savings if -- if enrollment goes





    down, we pull money back from the campuses or from the departments.

    We save money if we don't teach as many classes.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  We are talking about those 200 positions --

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  When I said the 200 positions, those are

    regular positions we reduced in the past.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  But we're not going to reduce any of those

    even through attrition?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  We are not planning to, but we are going to

    have conversations with the board as part of this three-year planning

    perspective, because I think you are going to see that we probably

    need to do that.

         That's what you see going forward when you start seeing these

    negatives out in the future, you start going, the budget, if our

    enrollment doesn't grow, we probably need to reduce the size of our

    staff, and we will continue that conversation.

         But this budget for the upcoming year does not include any

    reductions at this point.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  So we are assuming that we are going to have

    an increase that would reduce that ratio?  Increase the ratio?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Increase in --

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Student/faculty ratio.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  So right now our enrollment is up a little bit

    year over year, so our ratios are getting slightly better.  They are

    still bad.  But it would be holding steady at the low.  It's not

    making a lot of progress.  It's not making progress towards a 15 to





    1.  It would be basically holding steady at the 12 to 1 number.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  I guess my question is on that first

    scenario with no property tax increase and no tuition tax increase,

    that budget does not have any attrition for the number of faculty,

    and if we don't have an increase in student numbers, then that

    student/faculty ratio would stay the same?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Yes, correct.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  So we would not be increasing it, even

    though we are low?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  When I said increasing, I meant like at the

    margins, because enrollment is slightly higher than the current year,

    or this year's enrollment is slightly higher than -- that's

    technicality.  Yes, for all intents and purposes, yes, I agree with

    you completely.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  So these budget projections are based on

    what enrollment increases?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  These are flat.  These assume flat enrollment.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  So what happens if we get more students?  Do

    we have a formula that --

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Yeah.  I referenced the adjunct faculty that

    we have a model -- the way the budget, and you won't see it in here

    anywhere in these numbers, but what we do is we have a growth

    reserve, so we have money set aside.

         We put tuition a little high, and we have expenses a little high.

    That's on the occasion that if enrollment goes up, we will be able to





    add classes for those students.  So we build capacity for it, but

    it's not in anything that I'm sort of talking about here.  But we do

    have capacity to grow if enrollment goes up.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  It would be helpful for me to see, I'm

    confused again what we call the one-year longevity, the percentage

    that the average employee gets and the percentage that we have to put

    into getting everybody to the midpoint, and the percentage of the

    fringe benefit increase if we assume all the additional costs.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Okay.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  I'd like percentages.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Sure.  No problem.  Definitely in the April

    study session we will get into that compensation conversation, but

    the benefits conversation will have that for March.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Great.  That's all for now.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Okay, Maria.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  It's my turn now?

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Yes, it is.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Wade, thanks for all those questions you

    asked.  I really appreciate that.  So my questions are probably more

    simplistic.

         Dr. Bea, what I'd like to ask is when you built the ratio for the

    student and faculty ratio, do you guys take into consideration that

    it takes more time for a faculty member to teach online classes and

    that the faculty has to supervise the adjunct faculty?

         You know, it seems like, anyway, from what I have heard, learned,





    anyway, is that they are way overloaded.  So then my other question

    is when you're talking about staff per student ratio, are you also

    including the administrators, not just faculty?  Because as you know,

    we are heavy on administrators.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Okay.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  How is that going to be adjusted?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Okay.  Any other questions?

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  No, that's it.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Okay.  First question related to there is

    conversation going on related to faculty work, expectations and so

    forth.  That's going to be a multi-year conversation, but there are

    conversations particularly related to department chairs.

         Anything that I'm talking about is year over year, same thing in

    terms of expectations of what the workload is.  There is not an

    additional workload related to it.  But it's not a reduction of

    workload either.

         In terms of the staffing numbers, the ratio that I talked about

    does include administrators so that when I'm saying that going back

    we are at a 12 to 1 ratio, that includes all staff.  If you go down

    to a 15 to 1, administrators would be in that.

         I will point out a couple of things that are also important to

    understand.  The college in 2011 had -- actually, it was a little bit

    before.  The peak administrator number for the college was 64.  We

    now have 45 administrator positions.  There have been big

    administrator reductions over the years, consolidating operations,





    the most notable of which is there used to be presidents at each

    campus.  There is no longer.  There is one person overseeing that

    operation.

         There is a lot of other consolidation that has happened.  There

    used to be a vice chancellor of HR, used to be a vice chancellor of

    facilities, for example.  Those are now lower-level positions.  So

    that's also a reduction in costs.

         Looking at IPEDS numbers for management positions, slightly

    different definition of what a Pima administrator is and a management

    position, so there are more management positions at Pima, because

    that includes directors and a couple of other positions.

         Looking at IPEDS information, the college is slightly high versus

    our peer institutions.  Not much.  So, for example, our management as

    a percentage of total salaries and wages, percentage of total

    personnel costs essentially, is 12%.  Average for two-year

    institutions is -- we are at 11.8%.  Average two-year institutions,

    11.7%.  Other peer institutions, around 11%.  So it's in the

    ballpark.

         In terms of management as total expense, also it's in the

    ballpark.  We are not particularly heavy in terms of management or

    administrators, largely because we have reduced a lot of it over

    time.

         In terms of savings over time, administration is often a target

    for reductions.  It's kind of a false -- it's a false target, because

    the percentage of salaries that go to administrators is about 6% of





    what we are talking about.  It's a very small slice of the pie.  And

    it is, again, we have reduced significantly from the peak at the

    college.  We are a lot leaner in terms of administrators.

         But as Board Member Garcia points out, they are in the ratio.  So

    if we shrink as a college significantly, you probably also shrink a

    little bit in management, because you have fewer people that you are

    supervising, there are fewer responsibilities so can you streamline

    management as well.

         I'm not saying no to that.  I'm saying historically we have and

    it's included in the ratio, but that ratio is actually not that far

    out of whack versus our peers.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  I have one more.  You don't have to answer

    it now.  When you present the other data that Chairperson Wade asked

    for -- I'm sorry.  You're the vice-chair.

         But anyway, if you could include on the bond money, revenue bond

    money, we had a master plan, it was very specific as to how it was

    going to be spent, okay.  You didn't mention the fact that that

    revenue money also included the hotels.  So if you could just give us

    a complete list in the future of how that money is being spent.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Sure.  And we provide that information to the

    board on a pretty routine basis.  The Finance Audit Committee saw

    that information last week, and I think we will share exactly the

    same information with the board -- actually, I think we probably have

    time to put it in the agenda, put it in as an information item for

    the board.





         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Dr. Bea, sorry, but it's not real specific

    as to the total amount of the revenue bond and then all the expenses

    that have occurred with it where it's been spent.  I haven't -- I

    mean, I guess I don't understand it.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Okay.  I'm happy to provide that information,

    and if you want additional information, I'd be happy to clear that

    up, as well.

         Revenue bonds, projects, were about $65 million.  We have spent

    all but around 10 to 11 of that now.  We are finishing up the

    projects and spending on the revenue bonds.  On an annual debt

    service, it's around 4 million, a little more than $4 million of debt

    that we have, and they were based on 20-year paydowns.  So we are in

    about year 4 of 20 years.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  What is our bond rating?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  AA- and Aa3 for the revenue bonds.  We are a

    little bit higher as an institution.  So revenue bonds are typically

    a little bit lower rated than the institution as a whole, which is,

    by the way, a very healthy rating.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  So I have a question about, jumping on to

    what Board Member Garcia asked about the administrators.  I don't

    ever remember hearing managers when I was an employee 2019 and prior.

    I was wondering if there was any way -- partly so we know who our

    people are, too.

         Is there any way we can get a list -- I have tried to get it on

    our directory, but one at a time takes a long time.  And I'm sure you





    all have it in a database, you can just do an SQL thing and get it

    for us, just so we know names, positions, and where they mainly work,

    just so we know if we run into them?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  You want all positions, all people?  Remember,

    this is over a thousand folks.  Just to say -- I'm just trying to

    narrow it down.  If you want something less than that, if you want

    people above a certain band level.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Like administrators and managers, just so

    we know --

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  The category I referred to, the management

    category?

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Yeah.  That would be great.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Sure.  Absolutely.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Another thing I should know, because I was

    faculty for ever, but 50 FTSE to 1 faculty member, it seems -- I

    would like you to explain it, because I'm sure if I'm having a hard

    time understanding it, people who weren't faculty might not

    understand exactly -- I mean, what does that equate to?  How many

    classes, how many students in a class?  I know that -- thank you.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  A little bit apples and oranges.  It is a

    ratio that itself doesn't mean much other than the number of regular

    faculty you have that is connected 50 to 1.  It's actually a lot

    lower than that, because we are not even near the target number.

    We're quite a bit lower than that.

         It means the number of regular faculty you have in proportion to





    the full-time equivalent students you have.  It means that.

         It does not mean how many students are in each class.  That is

    much closer -- we have two other metrics for that that we use in our

    funding model for classroom -- it's called a classroom funding model.

         For in-person classes we target an average of 20 to 1 in terms of

    the budget target.  For online we target 25 to 1.

         It varies, when I say it averages 20 to 1 in in-person, it does

    factor in if a person is called a very high, I can't remember what

    the phrase is, it's very high something.  Nursing, for example.

    On-site has a ratio that like they can't go over 10 to 1, it's

    something, I think it's 10 to 1 according to accreditation standards.

         When I say it averages 20 to 1, that factors in that nursing is

    at 10 to 1, and nursing is funded up to have the appropriate level of

    classes for their faculty to student ratio.

         So there is sort of -- they are analogous, and mathematically

    they would be connected to each other, because like I said, if you

    have the ratio full-time students and full-time faculty, I said that

    also then controls the number of adjunct faculty you have, and we

    have a funding model to make sure that we have appropriate numbers in

    terms of the total numbers of students to faculty in a classroom.

         That was a lot say, and we'd probably have to get into some real

    weeds to get any more than that.  They are all interconnected and are

    all pretty good ratios in terms of measuring versus our peer

    institutions, are appropriate measures to make sure you have solid

    education in a community college model.





         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  I think I will need some more, because that

    doesn't really answer for me.

         Just one question, we don't need to talk about this now, but

    maybe if you could help me understand this at a later point, I know

    when I taught and I know most of the full-time faculty I know teach

    overloads.  So instead of just teaching five classes, we were

    teaching -- I usually taught eight or nine.  Whatever the max was I

    taught most of the time.

         So how, if we are under that benchmark, whatever you want to call

    it, but so many full-time faculty are teaching so many overloads, it

    seems like there is something weird going on with the mathematics,

    and I just want to get my head wrapped around that.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  I will find a way to try and map that out.

    It's complicated, because there is a lot, as you can tell, there is a

    lot of different pieces to that.

         Just off the top of my head, how you just described that, what

    that means is while I said that the 50 to 1 number, again, if we

    actually were hitting that target and we're heavy, so I think it's

    like 43 to 1 or something like that, if we were hitting that 50 to 1,

    it would also then mean that I think the percentage of adjunct and

    full-time classes that are taught is roughly 50/50.  I'd have to go

    back.  It's roughly that.

         Now, in the way that you were saying it, if you have full-time

    faculty teaching a bunch of overloads, to me, those overloads get

    loaded as an adjunct faculty cost.  So to me, not to other people, to





    me those look like they are taught by adjuncts.  What that would mean

    is instead if it was 50/50, if 50% are being taught by full-time

    faculty and 50% are being taught by adjunct faculty, it would mean

    actually that maybe 51 or 52% were being taught by full-time faculty

    and 48 were being taught by adjunct faculty, which would be a

    healthier ratio in terms of full-time faculty, right.  You want your

    full-time faculty teaching classes.

         If that's the case, I know there are examples of it, I definitely

    know that, what it would mean is it's probably a little bit heavier

    than I would even say in terms of what the ratio of adjuncts to

    full-time is.  We will figure out some ways to show you guys that.

         >> MR. GREG TAYLOR:  I don't know if there is a question in here,

    so forgive me if this is a little stream of consciousness here.  I

    want to lay my cards out on the table for you as I'm looking at this

    and taking away whatever it is.  I will start by saying I'm not

    opposed to tax increases or tuition increases.

         I'm very mindful of the fact that we are in a community now where

    affordable housing is becoming increasingly an issue.  Again, I'm not

    opposed to increasing the property taxes, but my first-blush reaction

    is hesitancy to do that.  Not only for the cost of property owners

    but also for the cost of rent and everything else that rolls down

    makes things less and less affordable, unless we have a really good

    reason to do that, and there may very well be.

         By the same token, the students that we serve and the students we

    want to create opportunities for are not generally of means.  My





    first-blush reaction again to increasing tuition, I'm not opposed to

    it, but just to be very hesitant of that.

         Coming from that framework, if we get up here and we honestly say

    we are not running terribly efficiently, but we should increase all

    these things, that strikes me as really problematic.

         So what I'm hopeful we can get to is something that potentially

    combines needed increases to keep up with some costs, make sure we

    are meeting our obligations to faculty and staff, with some strategic

    decisions around right-sizing the organization so we are dealing with

    both the revenue and expense side simultaneously.

         As I said, there is not really a question in there, there is not,

    other than to say when I'm talking about these models, I'd love to

    see a comprehensive model at some point that can deal with both of

    those simultaneously to figure out if we are going to need to raise

    taxes or raise tuition, how do we do that in a way that is reasonable

    given the environment we are in where the college is also saying,

    okay, we are also making strides, maybe even aggressive strides, to

    right-size the organization so that we are efficiently using tuition

    dollars and taxpayer dollars.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  I will answer the two questions I clearly

    heard you say (smiling).  The first one is I want to put a little bit

    of context around the tax increase.

         When I say a 2% increase, the average taxpayer in Pima County,

    the average house, so not commercial, so the average residential, the

    average bill to Pima Community College would be around $200, give or





    take.  I'm being really round, but it's about that.

         So a 2% increase to that tax bill year over year means they are

    paying $4 a year more.  When we increase, because we have such a

    large tax base, we don't have to increase very much that impacts

    individuals, but the cumulative effect for the college is

    significant.  That's really a luxury.  I'm not saying I take tax

    increases lightly by any stretch.  But I want to make it clear when

    we say 2%, we are not jacking tuition rates up that are going to

    really hit people hard.  The impact for most people is almost not

    noticeable, particularly in their tax bill, with other taxes going up

    significantly more than ours would be, we would be the nonnoticeable

    one.

         We typically don't get many comments when we do increase taxes.

    Average would be one a year, one comment a year when we increase,

    that's when we increase taxes.  So I think people recognize the value

    that Pima College provides.

         Now, to get to the second answer to the question you clearly

    asked, the same pressures that our taxpayers are experiencing, our

    people are experiencing, there were a number of years, because of

    expenditure limitation and because of budget cuts, there is a reason

    why our salaries needed to be recalibrated with this class comp

    study, and our employees took that a little bit themselves because

    the college didn't have resources to give increases.

         So the answer I think to the question of like how could you

    justify a moderate type of an increase, whether it's on tuition or on





    the property tax side, would be it's helping to support our employees

    at the college.  There were a number of years where they didn't get

    significant increases.

         We are in a position where we can, I think, do a moderate job.

    But they are also experiencing the effects of inflation, so...

         >> MR. GREG TAYLOR:  Thank you.  I appreciate that.  The thought

    that pops into my head in that is I don't know whether those two

    things are mutually exclusive.  Like we can support the needed growth

    in salaries to help all of our employees and to make up their costs,

    but also make sure if we are heavy in staff we don't really need to

    fulfill the mission of the college -- it's not a choice between those

    two?  That you do both?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  If we have a minute, and I know we have run

    over, but this has been a great conversation.  Lee, it's up to you.

    I have the model that I can show that actually gets at what you are

    talking about, which is looking at the revenue increase, what does

    that kind of revenue increase, and then potentially offsetting some

    of that with reductions over time.

         Then we can build in some expectations, particularly as we talk

    in the future about a three-year plan.  Again, we don't have to solve

    all the world's problems in fiscal year '24, but we can set the plan

    in place for a three-year plan where, okay, let's try to reduce

    through attrition over time a million dollars a year.

         So this little guy here can actually show you that.  So this

    right now, so this one matches the one you had in your packet with a





    2% increase and a $3 increase, and it shows that 2% increase for the

    pool.

         Then down here I can put in a line where we reduce, so we say,

    okay, let's target a reduction.  So going forward in time, say, for

    example, you wanted to say, well, let's do the salary wage pool

    increase, give us a little bit more ability to handle employee

    priorities, get a little bit further along with the new class comp

    structure, give minimum increases, do increase to adjunct wage, let's

    make that 3%.  And say we do a 3% tax levy increase.  We go halfway.

         That keeps us about where I was at, and let's just, for the point

    of trying to make a balanced budget here -- sorry, I didn't quite get

    there.  Now we have a slightly more than balanced budget, give or

    take.  This is a 3% tax levy increase, tuition increase of $5, gives

    us enough salary pool ability to do a 3%.

         Now let's go into '25 and say, okay, I don't know about that,

    going all the way to the max.  Let's not kind of commit to that.

    Let's see if we can do a really small tuition increase, but we still

    want to keep making progress with our employees.  Sorry, I just hit

    the wrong one.

         So now you're looking at next year, the projection.  This is a

    projection, right, we are guessing at some increases that are going

    to happen in the next year, but now we are looking at the balance is

    out of whack, right?  Then it would be like, okay, let's look to

    reduce positions to make up that difference.

         Find through attrition let's come up with a plan for making some





    reductions.  That's where you could then put in -- and I did a lot.

    There we go.  I do not think we can reduce by $20 million.  But $2

    million, and let's come up with a plan, what does a plan look like

    that would balance this through some reduction, combination of

    increase in revenues but also reducing expenses, that's how it would

    look.

         >> MR. GREG TAYLOR:  I appreciate that.  Again, just for your

    information, for either of you, I'm not saying like we should make

    cuts, not necessarily.  What I'm trying to say is if you're looking

    for, at least for me, I can't speak for all of us, at least for me

    the backing to say, okay, we need to make strategic choices for the

    college about what we want to invest in and what we don't, including

    personnel, I'm okay with that.  Like I will back you in that as long

    as there is some strategy behind it and it's about furthering the

    mission.

         Because just continuing to support this infrastructure, if you

    don't really need it for the future of the college -- I don't know

    what that means, you'll have to tell me that, but like I'm interested

    in hearing what you think about that.

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  So to that point, there is a lot of moving

    pieces to what you're saying.  So I will just touch on just a few of

    them.

         So, for example, what we know today is less of our students are

    actually going to an Associate's degree and then transferring.  More

    of our students are either exiting at the AGEC level or more of our





    students are certificate students.

         So we are not designated as a degree-granting institution by the

    Department of Ed based on what I'm sharing with you.

         So if you take it that way, one might argue if you have to reduce

    the budget, you don't need to offer as many degrees, because most

    students aren't going and seeking a degree.

         So I will just use for a round number, let's say we have 10

    degree pathways.  Maybe you only need two.  That would be the

    strategic choice.  Do we go from 10 to 2 and then reallocate some of

    the research to the front end to drive more enrollment to what is

    what we can offer.

         Let me go to the enrollment side.  What we do know is projected

    15 to 17% decline in the high school age population over the next 10

    years in Pima County.  We know that.

         So we are not going to grow enrollment from the K12 population

    side.  The only way we have an opportunity to grow enrollment is on

    the working learner side.  They're not seeking that degree piece.  We

    are hearing this all the time.  That's not what they are interested

    in.  They are interested more in this micropathways, more on the

    online pieces, but a shorter term.

         So if we can reallocate to that piece focused on the adult

    learner, do more work-base learning, then that's where we are going

    to be more competitive.  But it means backing away from what Pima was

    historically, a transfer institution.  We are not that anymore.

         It's like I need the board to support that in order for us to do





    that, and then we get to these cuts.  Otherwise we are either going

    to have to increase revenue just to maintain what we have when you

    know that that's not sustainable.  We either skate to where that puck

    is going now, or it's just going to happen to us.  Then it's going to

    be harder to maintain what we have.

         I'd rather do it with intentionality, be very strategic about it.

    It will be painful.  It will hurt.  But it's also facing the reality

    that's unfolding.

         So then let me go to the issue of adjunct faculty.  If we keep

    reducing and we want to maintain full timelines, the full-time have

    to do adjunct teaching.  So that's one facet.

         Let's say that we don't want the full-timers to teach that much

    overload.  Then we're going to have to make a commitment to adjunct

    faculty and give them priority, the nonfull-time faculty priority for

    those courses.

         If we don't do that, we're going to lose more adjunct faculty

    because they will realize I can't get work at Pima Community College

    any longer.  So I have to go somewhere else to seek that work.

         We are in competition for adjunct faculty.  Not just with the

    University of Arizona.  They have options to teach online from

    anywhere in the world.  I think we are seeing some of that.  That's

    why the pressure you're starting to see around needing to go

    out-of-state to attract adjunct faculty especially for PimaOnline.  I

    think those pressures aren't going to subside.  They are going to get

    more exacerbated as we go over time.





         Those are just some examples of where I think things are

    unfolding.

         >> MR. GREG TAYLOR:  I appreciate that.  I guess from my

    perspective then, I mean, that impacts the budget, right?  I'd love

    to understand better what that vision and strategy is.  If you came

    back to me and said that means we need more staff and we -- then

    fine.  It doesn't have to be fewer.

         I want to make sure when we are making decisions about what we do

    for the budget that the budget is driving the college's strategy or

    that the strategy is driving the budget and not the budget is driving

    the strategy.

         That's the part I guess I'm wanting more of.

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  And you're going to see us become even more

    intentional about that strategy.  Then we step back and say, okay,

    based on the strategy, what goals do we set.  Based on the strategy,

    what resources do we need in order to fulfill that direction that we

    are moving in.  That will drive all of what you're seeing up here.

         So the three-year scenario that Dave is talking about is the

    board telling us we want you to look at resetting, say, by $5

    million.  That will tell me how much of the strategy I can actually

    deploy.

         Now, if you're willing to be more open-ended than that, we will

    come back to you and say we think this is the winning strategy.  That

    may mean reducing by 20 million, or it could mean we need to invest

    more.  We don't know which one that is yet.





         But if you're open to a more open approach to that, that's what

    we would do.  Or if you want to have a more managed approach by

    saying, like we did prior, where we came up with three scenarios,

    they were at different cut levels, the board chose, I think it was a

    $15 million reduction level, and we reduced to that number.  We can

    do that too.

         >> MR. GREG TAYLOR:  I guess for my purposes, I would rather have

    that strategy discussion and then figure out how the budget aligns to

    the strategy than trying to align your strategy to the budget.  I

    think when you go through these scenarios, which are useful, I think

    the temptation is always like pick the one in the middle.

         It's like the easiest one, you feel like you're compromising, but

    it doesn't mean that's the best one or what's going to drive what you

    need.  I'm looking for that larger strategic picture and then figure

    out how the budget fits underneath rather than picking among whatever

    these options are.

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  I think this is a perfect retreat discussion

    for May, that we come to you with this strategy and show you why this

    is the approach that we need to go in.  Here's the data supports

    that, as well as -- remember, data only allows you to answer what is.

    It doesn't allow you to answer what could be.

         So I think sometimes we get lost in the data trying to project

    the future.  The data is not going to help you project the future.

    It's just going to help tell you what you're working with right now.

    We can do some of that too.  Some of this is an art, not just a





    science.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  So related to the upcoming decision related to

    tuition, what we have done, we have done it a few different ways, we

    have put forward a recommendation for a singular number.  We have

    also put in what, you know, okay, we recommend a $3 increase to do X,

    and then show also what a $1, what a $5, whatever, much like what we

    did here, asking for some feedback from the board on what the board

    would like to see come March in terms of that.

         Because unfortunately the timing isn't ideal with super strategy.

    Happy to do that.  I think that's going to be a great set of

    conversations, but we do have this decision related to tuition coming

    up.  It probably is a good time -- well, I would appreciate any

    feedback the board might have for that.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Like we discussed the other day for me, it's

    difficult for me to have a tuition conversation without a tax

    conversation.  So when I vote to make a decision on tuition, I also

    already got in my mind what I want to vote on as far as the tax

    situation is.

         Maybe in the future it would be helpful if we can make those

    decisions closer together.  You know, I don't know what that does to

    the timeline, but I don't suspect with having -- it wouldn't be

    detrimental to make the tax decision quicker.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  No.  It actually would clarify things.

    February is when we get the tax assessment information so we know

    what the growth is at that point.  That gives you a really good idea.





         So any time after that is -- any time after that to March.  See,

    that's the problem is it starts, one thing, things have different

    timelines associated with them.

         But that's essentially once we get that February information, and

    we can usually estimate it pretty decently, we could have that

    conversation kind of like what we are having now only more formally,

    right?

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Thank you.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Again, if we build the three-year plan, then

    there will be a foundation from which we are actually building it

    from.  It's sort of starting anew a little bit right now with the

    conversation.

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  Madam Chair, I don't think we have time to

    do all of the next set of presentations, so I'd like to know what

    your desire is.

         Do we do the four-year one or do we do the board priorities one?

    Then we have to do your assessment.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  I think we should do the four-year

    baccalaureate, and maybe if we can go a little quicker through the

    slides, if that's a possibility?

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  He'll try.  Come on up, Ian.

         Thanks, Dave.

         >> DR. IAN ROARK:  All right.  Board Chair, members of the board,

    Chancellor, colleagues and guests.  Very excited, and thank you for

    keeping it on the agenda, to talk about our exploration of possible





    implementation of baccalaureate degrees at Pima Community College.

         Part of my raspy voice, I have also been suffering from allergies

    with all the wind and weather changes.

         Again, right now, because ultimately with all new programs, the

    final decision for what we could offer with respect to baccalaureate

    degree regimen at Pima rests with the board, as further stated in

    Senate Bill 1453, which we will go over in a little bit of detail as

    a part of this presentation.

         We don't want to have any foregone conclusions as to what our

    baccalaureate degree regimen is or that we will in fact move forward,

    although many individuals are hopeful that we will, including a group

    of students we met with, the Student Senate, just recently.

         So we have formed what is called the baccalaureate degree

    exploratory committee, or baccalaureate degree committee for short.

    This is just the initial committee for this phase.  There are other

    people who will be added in other subgroups that will come out of

    this initial work.

         You will see that it is predominantly composed of deans and also

    faculty, and we have members of the committee here, and because they

    have taken time from their day I'd just like to recognize those that

    are in the room.

         We have in the back, Wendy Weeks, AVC CQI.  Wendy's role on the

    committee is extraordinarily important because she is our go-to for

    the accreditation pieces related to this new sort of offering, as

    well as our curriculum and new program timelines.





         We have Amanda Abens, dean of workforce development, lifelong

    learning.  We have Faculty Senate President, Rita Lennon, one of our

    lead faculty members.

         Is there anybody else?

         No.  Oh, Vanessa.  Dr. Vanessa Arellano, who is also serving in a

    project management capacity.  She is on acting assignment in the

    provost's office currently as director of provosts initiatives.

         We have Cecily Westfall representing finance for a reason I will

    talk about in this presentation.  We felt finance needed to be in the

    room from the onset.  There are limiting factors in the legislation

    with respect to how much we can charge for these programs.

         So briefly we will talk about the context, what we are calling

    the application and the rubric, that was sent to you ahead of this

    meeting, as well as the timeline as it stands.

         What's really interesting about Senate Bill 1453 is the way it

    really aligns to the vision and the direction that we are currently

    headed with respect to centers of excellence at the institution and

    really framing our exploration and possible implementation of

    baccalaureate degrees in a workforce development context and in an

    equity context.  The equity context is pretty clear that we have the

    ability to offer the same level of award as universities at a much

    lower cost for the community that we serve, while at the same time

    ensuring that we are not sacrificing quality or the workforce

    outcomes that are specified and that are aligned to our mission and

    value proposition.





         So it really is about meeting the needs of these new majority

    learners.  While we will continue to serve more and more working

    adults through micropathways, through work-based learning, there are

    components of that work that can actually be integrated into

    baccalaureate degree offerings so that we have a clear value

    proposition and a mark of differentiation from our university

    partners.  So in essence, we are not competing.  We have something

    different to offer.

         So the presentation is hyper-linked and highly recommend just

    going to those whenever you have the ability, and recommend to all of

    my colleagues and friends to really read the Arizona Senate Bill

    1453.  I have only captured three primary bullet points there.  But

    really specifies and puts the guardrails on all 10 community college

    districts in Arizona with respect to what can we do?  What can we

    offer, and how many can we offer from that context?

         Really clearly outlines this has to meet a workforce development

    need in the community that is otherwise not being met.  It really

    puts a lot of guardrails on ensuring there is not unnecessary

    duplication, and that's a quote from the legislation with our partner

    universities in the region.

         It did not specify Pima County and Maricopa County by name, but

    they did a typical any county with a population of over 750,000

    people in it, here are your additional requirements.

         So we have those additional requirements.  Equally Coconino

    College, Maricopa, and Pima Community College have another facet





    which is we have to keep our university partners informed.

    Interestingly in the legislation, one particular piece of detail is

    60 days before we bring to you, our elected board, very specific

    pieces related to baccalaureate degree regimen for your approval, we

    have to send that same information to the University of Arizona.

         The University of Arizona does not have a veto over what we

    offer, but the University of Arizona can directly protest in a letter

    to the board if they are not satisfied with the direction that we are

    going.  That's very specifically written into the legislation.

         That's why ensuring there is no unnecessary duplication is

    crucial.  Yes, sir?

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Can you give us further clarification what

    you think that third bullet means.

         >> DR. IAN ROARK:  Unnecessary -- ensure that there is not

    unnecessary duplication.

         So in other words, if I mention a program, it doesn't mean this

    is like in the balance right now, but common considerations come up

    such as we have a nursing shortage in our community.  We offer LPNs,

    licensed professional nurse, we offer associate degree nursing, so we

    should just automatically offer bachelor's degree in nursing as well

    because we will help solve that workforce problem.

         There are other components into that that the University of

    Arizona may look at that and say that's unnecessarily duplicating our

    nursing program because you can't find the clinical spots now for the

    nursing program that you have.





         So it is not specified in the law what unnecessary duplication

    is, but if right now we proposed to offer a bachelor's degree for

    which there is no labor market data to support it and that bachelor's

    degree is offered by the University of Arizona already, that would be

    considered unnecessary duplication.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Thank you.

         >> DR. IAN ROARK:  Yes, sir.

         One more thing about the guardrails, I forgot to mention, it's

    not on the bullet point.  How do I go back on that.

         Is the number of programs that we are allowed to offer as a

    college district is also specified and limited within Arizona Senate

    Bill 1453.  After we launch our first proposed baccalaureate degrees,

    of which will be two, we will get to the reason why there, we are

    allowed only for four years afterwards to offer 5% of our total

    offerings at that level.  And then after that we are capped at 10% of

    our total offerings at the baccalaureate degree level in perpetuity

    or unless the law changes, so there is a limit on that.  Equally the

    upper-division courses, junior and senior-year courses, can only be

    offered at 150% of current tuition and fees at the institution.

         The other guardrail that is imposed of course is through our

    accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission.  There is a lot of text

    on this slide.  But like any new program, Higher Learning Commission

    approval is required prior to launching the baccalaureate degree as a

    new program.

         The second and third bullet point are really crucial, because we





    get asked a lot, Maricopa is making announcements about offering

    seven, maybe eight baccalaureate degrees coming this fall, and we are

    one year behind on that timeline from where they are, how come we

    can't offer just as many as they can.

         The reason is in the structural difference between the colleges

    and the district in Maricopa as compared to Pima Community College.

         So as you can see on the slide, Higher Learning Commission rules,

    we can only offer two baccalaureate degrees initially, and the exact

    quote on why is on the slide.  Don't do that often, but I wanted to

    read that for everybody's edification.

         If an institution plans to request approval for a third program

    at a new degree or credential level, it must also submit a request to

    change its mission and student body.  The institution may submit this

    request before or in conjunction with its request to offer or to add

    a third program.

         So per the Higher Learning Commission, we are an associate-degree

    granting institution.  We can punch above our weight two times, two

    baccalaureate degrees, before we have to go through a significant

    process through CQI that would involve lots of individuals at the

    college.  It's not like full accreditation, but just a couple clicks

    below that.  Once receiving that approval, then we can continue to

    add to the regimen.  So there's a limiting factor on the initial

    number from our accreditor.

         So the committee was formed in late spring, really started the

    work over the summer of '22.  Did a lot of homework and a lot of





    reading.  There's a lot of research and publications.  About half of

    the states in the union have now authorized community colleges to

    offer baccalaureate degrees, some as long ago as 20 years ago.  So

    it's great to see Arizona has moved in and joined our peer states in

    that respect.

         There has also been a lot of interest from faculty, from deans,

    from community members in terms of what they want to offer, what they

    believe we should be offering.

         So we really wanted to take a meticulous and phased approach to

    considering how are we going to bring that recommendation to the

    Executive Leadership Team, the provost, the chancellor, like we do

    all other new programs and to the board to ensure that we have done

    our due diligence to meet all of the guardrails and all of the

    parameters that I've spoken of and more that haven't been able to

    address today.

         So we also have received a lot of guidance on the timeline with

    respect to HLC, and that not only includes HLC, but just like every

    other new program award, this has to be submitted to the Department

    of Ed, Veterans Affairs, so on and so forth.  There is a lot of

    distinct, mini timelines within the macro timeline that have to be

    met.

         Right now deans and faculty are currently working on phase I of

    the application.  We wanted to do this in two phases, because there

    are a lot of considerations that have to be made before we make a

    final decision.





         And so we didn't want individuals to have to do too much work if

    their candidate wasn't really following within the guidelines or

    parameters or if it wasn't aligned to the strategic direction of the

    institution from the onset.

         The first phase is due on March 1st.  I have been notified of

    four different divisions, and maybe as many as 10 different ideas so

    far coming forward through this process.

         The first phase will be a description of the program overall,

    labor market analysis in conjunction with STAR here at Pima and

    workforce development.

         A competitor and collaborator analysis, and that's really, Board

    Member McLean, I meant to address that, are we unnecessarily

    duplicating intentionally or unintentionally with our idea.

         And then an initial focus on closing barriers to learner success

    and advancing equity.  Is there real upward mobility, if I earn this

    bachelor's degree, is there real upward mobility in our community

    with that credential.

         Second phase, same process but many, many more data points.  I

    will spare the time on reading all of them, but really looking at is

    this something we can build upon with relatively low cost and high

    return on investment in the end, or is this something that's going to

    require new labs that we don't have?

         There are certain areas where even though it may, per the Higher

    Learning Commission, require a master's degree faculty, for example,

    many health professions, their external creditor or agency may





    require Ph.D. faculty.  So there is an element of cost that comes in

    with respect to those, or it's a small faculty pool and it's really

    hard to recruit faculty, particularly at Ph.D. level, including

    especially in technical areas as they oftentimes may be more rare.

         Then also what are the work-based learning opportunities that we

    could incorporate into our baccalaureate degree regimen.  What are

    the distinctive features that we could add into our program overall.

    One of the challenges that the chancellor brought to the group was

    that whatever the program area is, whatever it is, we need to work in

    our climate action and sustainability plan as well as Diversity,

    Equity, and Inclusion Plan.  Not necessarily as discrete courses or

    distinct courses, but somehow thematically competency in those

    domains needs to be addressed in our awards.

         There is a lot of flags on this timeline.  And so I highly

    recommend looking at, in your slide deck and the text is really small

    even on that screen there.  So we are in the January/February

    timeline there.

         The phase II application will be begin in March, and so then we

    propose that by October of '23 we will be submitting, if the board so

    decides, we will be submitting our first one or two to the Higher

    Learning Commission in October of '23.

         So a lot of compressed activity right now.  Then not a lot of

    compressed activity, because the wait time at Higher Learning

    Commission and other entities is sometimes lengthy.

         Then finally, we would be putting it in the catalog, in the





    '25/'26 catalog, April of '25 marketing campaign, and then August of

    '25 would be the potential launch of our first two baccalaureate

    degrees at Pima Community College.

         Currently we are communicating with lots of groups.  Favorite one

    so far other than you has been our Student Senate.  They really were

    excited about this opportunity coming to the institution.  That

    really kind of charged up the group even more about the work that's

    currently underway.

         We will be working with Provost Dolores Duran-Cerda on our

    university partner forums to ensure we are not getting too far ahead

    or out of scope in any way that would damage our relationship with

    our university partners.

         Community forum, we are going to have, it's going to be a part of

    futures coming up that Dr. Nic Richmond leads, but we will also be

    engaging the business community directly through the chambers of

    commerce and a survey on what are some of the pain points with

    respect on the ground that they are not able to fill at the

    baccalaureate degree regimen.

         And then our final selection is proposed to be in April, although

    we have given ourselves a little bit of a cushion on that.  Then from

    there, of course there will be the necessary subgroups involving

    these areas and potentially more as we develop and implement these

    potential new offerings.  Academic affairs, financial aid, registrar,

    finance, so on and so forth.

         I tried to go as quick as I could, Chair Riel.  I hope that was





    helpful.  Are there any questions or thoughts?

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Go back to the duplication of services.  I'm

    thinking more in terms of competition.  I'm assuming that the

    University of Arizona connection is going to be a strong relationship

    that we have to nurture, but what about the other groups like

    University of Phoenix, Chapman College, those kinds of colleges that

    are here offering baccalaureate degrees that sometimes fly underneath

    the radar.

         >> DR. IAN ROARK:  So the law, specifically Senate Bill 1453,

    only pertains to the state universities.  But the market analysis

    that we are asking programs to go through needs to include all of

    those facets of competition within the community, because it would be

    a great expense for us to develop a baccalaureate degree only to be

    undercut by a competitor that's already offering the same thing and

    we didn't take that into consideration.  We only focused on the

    University of Arizona.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  I'm just assuming we can beat them.

         >> DR. IAN ROARK:  There are a lot of good ideas, and again, I

    think it's going to be a matter of the labor market proposition, you

    know, the unique and distinct experience that learners in our

    community are going to have at Pima, and then also some of the new

    facets we'd like to introduce into the baccalaureate degrees.

         So, for example, just a couple of, no fingers on scales, but

    there is no other entity that we know of in the community that's

    offering BAAS degree or a bachelor of industrial technology.  There





    are other offerings at those levels that are not BA or bachelor of

    science, for example.

         That's what you see in many of the other states that are offering

    these, it's a distinct credential that's not unique but mostly

    concentrated within the community college space.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Isn't NAU offering some of those?

         >> DR. IAN ROARK:  I'm not familiar with NAU offering associate

    or BAAS.  We'll circle back to you on that, sir.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  When we met Angelo in Washington, D.C., he

    was getting ready to transfer to a baccalaureate degree --

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  At NAU.  So we have partnered with NAU,

    especially in the automated industrial technology area where they are

    offering that upper division that allows the students to get a

    bachelor's degree.

         So I think that's probably the area -- it's more generic than to

    AIT specifically.  I think that's what he was referring to.

         But what this is raising, if you put aside for a moment what ASU

    is doing around their polytechnic campus, that's where the real void

    is in the state.  There is not a polytechnic university like you see

    in the California system with the Cal Polys, right?  I think that's a

    great opportunity for a place like Pima to go into that void that

    does not exist and then claim and own that space.

         Because no one is really thinking about that other than ASU as

    far as I know.  So I think that's the unique value proposition that

    we have.  If we go into other areas that others are going, even





    though they are in different parts of the state, then all of a sudden

    you're inviting a lot more competitors in terms of the market.

         So being sensitive to the competition is you're spot on, but I

    don't think anyone can compete with us on price.  But the question

    is, going back to the earlier conversation, will we have the

    resources to sustain that investment, because it will cost us more to

    run these programs, especially when we can only go 150% of our

    tuition level.

         Some of these programs may cost more because of the faculty cost,

    other library investments, whatever it might be.  So we have to be

    sensitive to that reality.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  So do we have to go to HLC when we change

    our name from what it is now to Pima Community and Polytechnic

    College?  (Laughter.)

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  But I think to that point, if you think we

    need to have more community conversations, we will do that, because I

    know when I was first hired here, this was a sore subject for a

    segment of the community about Pima becoming a four-year institution.

    Effectively what this does is turns us into a four-year institution.

         The times are different now, and the focus is a lot different

    than what I think was conceived of back then.  So we will be glad to

    have more, allow more dialogue in, and maybe one of those community

    things with all those university partners, bring them in.  I will

    tell you this:  They are not asking us to start certain programs.

    They just go and do it.  Just keep that in mind as well.





         >> DR. IAN ROARK:  There is one point that I failed to make in

    the presentation on the HLC slide, and that is why is Maricopa able

    to offer seven and potentially more, and that is because every single

    one of their colleges is individually accredited, not through the

    district.  They essentially have 20 opportunities before they have to

    go through that reaffirmation process with the HLC, whereas we only

    have one college.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  When I was thinking about this, we have a

    huge teacher shortage in Arizona, so I was thinking, how is the

    University of Arizona going to be okay with us teaching teachers?

    But what a great competition model between the University and the

    college, and there may be a lot people that would like to be a

    teacher but they can't afford going to the University of Arizona.

         So I'm just wondering how all that is going to play out when, you

    know, you guys start negotiating with the universities.  I'm really

    interested in hearing what's going to happen.

         Anyway, thanks.  It was a great presentation.  I think that the

    board, we have heard some of this before and it is really exciting

    and for our students especially.  Thank you.

         >> DR. IAN ROARK:  Absolutely.  Thank you.

         >> MR. GREG TAYLOR:  I know this is something Maria has

    mentioned.  I don't know if she's still on or has any other

    questions.  She brought it up in one of the board meetings and I feel

    it was something that was important to her.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Maria, are you still here?





         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  I'm here.  Hi.  I'm still here.  I'm

    listening.  I have been going in and out because I keep coughing so

    much.  Can you hear me?

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Yes, we can, Maria.  Greg Taylor was saying

    that you had a question, one of the prior meetings when we had been

    talking about this, and we were just wondering if you had any

    questions.

         >> MR. GREG TAYLOR:  I just didn't want us to forget about you,

    Maria.

         >> MR. LUIS GONZALES:  I have not a question but a comment, and I

    do agree it was a great presentation.  One of the things that I see

    in reference to as a comment is that we should not lose sight in

    reference to the space capacity in reference to, comparison of the

    student ratio as well, too.  We do have what, what is it, six

    campuses now?

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Five.

         >> MR. LUIS GONZALES:  Yeah, we need to look at that with the

    little campus on 22ND street.

         I feel that the board really need to look at all angles, what I'm

    trying to say.  One of the things that was mentioned earlier in

    reference to cost-effective/cost efficient, I think the board really

    needs to really look at the true and the real picture of what we

    have, and I think it's up to us to come up and generate those

    questions to yourself but also to chancellor to really have a full,

    complete picture of what we are going to be doing in reference to the





    budget that's upcoming very quick, as well, too.

         But that was a comment in reference to space capacity.

    Maintenance and operation for all, for the five campuses, it's not

    cheap, as well, especially when we don't have the students.  But we

    need to relook and revisit and come up with a solution for that, as

    well, too.

         Thank you.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Thank you.

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  Thank you, Ian.

         Let me just make one piece going back to the budget component,

    and then we are just really down to your last almost 10 minutes.

         So just going back on the budget piece for a moment, keep in mind

    that the students are scheduled to get an increase in their Pell.

    Even if we increase the tuition by a few dollars a credit, the Pell

    that they will receive would be more than enough to cover that

    increase and still leave some additional dollars for them.

         So just keep that in mind.  We will be glad to bring that part

    into the discussion so you know exactly what that looks like.

         So we are down to less than 15 minutes.  I think we have time to

    do the item No. 3.  We just want to get a sense from you on this

    instrument that's in here.  I know, Board Chair, you have suggested

    that other form.

         So I'm wondering if we take that form and this form and just look

    at where the gaps are and then create the nice little electronic,

    fill-it-out online versus having to do it by paper?





         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  So my comments, I don't know if I shared

    this with the rest of the board members, but there are quite a few

    statements on the self-evaluation that are posed from the negative

    point of view, like the board does not talk bad about the college.

         I just -- I don't want to be associated with a document like

    that.  I want to say what we do great and just keep lifting the board

    up.  So anything that -- this one, does not direct the chancellor.

    You know, that was No. 1.  I believe the board adopts broad policies

    and uses its power to govern effectively, something like that, and

    not say the things that we are not supposed to do.

         Anyway, so that was my first thought.  This one is also from

    ACCT.  It's shorter, there's 10 options.  The other thing I like

    about this one is it comments, we are evaluating ourselves

    individually and we are also evaluating the board as a unit.

         I think that that's good too, because, you know, if board members

    think that the board didn't do something but I say, well, I was great

    at it, right, then maybe I need to look at those and say, oh, maybe I

    need to listen to the recording of the meeting and make sure that,

    you know, maybe I thought I was doing a good job and I didn't.

         Anyway, I just like how positive all of these statements are.  I

    went through the 21 on our list.  Like this first statement on this

    document, the board operates as a unit and honors board decisions.

    To me, that met the requirements that we had on the original one of

    No. 2, No. 9, and No. 17.

         So it ends up -- and there are many like that.  It ends up that





    No. 6 isn't represented exactly or even.  Nos. 4, 5, 6, and I think

    those are the only three that aren't represented somehow in this one.

    So if there is something that we need to do with 4, 5, or 6, but I

    wrote them in positive words instead of in the negative one.

         >> MR. GREG TAYLOR:  I agree.  I like the idea of using the ACCT

    version that you had there.  For all the reasons you articulated, but

    also because presumably other boards are using that or a similar one,

    I think it allows us to more easily benchmark us against how are we

    doing against some of our peers.  Yeah, I like that idea a lot.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  I agree with the chair.

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  Just so you know, Madam Chair, this

    instrument here was from one of the documents that you all received

    through your board retreat training, so it is also an ACCT document

    that we just modified.  But we'd be glad to take that, maybe take

    where the gaps, as you pointed out, and just reframe them into one

    solid document and show, you know, you individually and then board

    member -- now, I don't know if we can get benchmarking data from the

    other colleges who are using a similar instrument, if they are even

    doing that at all.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Then the only one I don't feel comfortable

    putting on our document no matter how we word it is the 11th item on

    the original.  Oh, wait that's not it.  Yeah, it sort of is.

         I have been grappling with the words on the Arizona Revised

    Statute, and I brought it up before, 15-1444.  I think it's item No.

    4 or 6.  It just says the words, I don't know exactly, but it's





    something like the board shall visit all our community colleges and,

    you know, effectively --

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Hold on.  Oh, sorry.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  You say hold on, Madam Chair, when you want

    me to hold on.  Sorry, I'm just joking.

         But I would like to make sure, you know, I would like to, you

    know, before we put an item such as that on our thing to make sure it

    doesn't go against, you know, legal interpretation of what the state

    statute, because, you know, according to the statute, our fiduciary

    responsibility is to visit, and it says inspect efficiently the

    management, the procedures, and practices, there are three things

    that it asked.

         If we're not able to go and talk to the people on the campuses

    or, you know, watch when they are having their groups and things like

    that, I don't see how we can do that.

         So before we put something like that on our document, because of

    course you all know currently I'm not doing that at all.  I have been

    talking to -- I attended an AERC meeting that was amazing, and I have

    attended a Faculty Senate meeting, too, not to participate but just

    to hear what they are talking about, to inspect efficiently or

    whatever the words were.

         Thanks for that.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  I like the 10 items and one page.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Maria and Luis on Zoom call, do you have

    any comments?





         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Well, one of the things I would have liked

    to have seen, I agree with you that the shorter version is better.

    Yes, it is from ACCT, but then on the other hand, should we have not

    met as a committee to discuss this?  I guess it is what it is, right,

    but I'm still opposed to being given documents that we're supposed to

    read instead of being presented and treated like adults to look at an

    item and say, okay, group, what do you think of this?

         The other thing I'd like to add to this is the fact that I would

    also like to see the chancellor's evaluation or self-evaluation

    something similar to this.

         I'm done.  Thank you.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Just to respond to that.  I agree, Maria,

    but I think what we are doing right now, neither of these are

    for-sure things.  We still get to decide.

         The only reason I took the shorter version is because I wanted to

    make changes, but then when I read the shorter version, this was also

    in our packet from one of our retreats from ACCT.  It was a

    no-brainer.  We could use something that was already written that met

    most of our needs, but we can change whatever we don't like in this

    one too.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Okay.  Thank you.

         >> MR. LUIS GONZALES:  I also concur with the last document.  But

    if we need to do some addendums, I think we should.  But I think make

    it the best as possible as we can.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Positive.





         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Thank you.  Do we need to -- okay.

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  I don't think you need to take -- well, you

    can't take an action here, first of all, right?

         So, I mean, I think I have enough sense of the direction to go

    back and revise the document and then bring it to you for your

    approval.  So I don't know if we can make that happen by this March

    meeting?  Yeah.  I think we can make it happen by this March meeting.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  And if you have any questions, call the

    chair.

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  Yes (laughter).

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  So we will see everybody at our next board

    meeting, which I think is in about two weeks.  Thank you, Pima

    College, for doing all the amazing things you're doing for our

    students and our community.  We see you working hard every day, and

    we are so proud of all that you have done and that you continue to

    do.  So thank you.

         We are going to close the meeting.  Adjourned.  Thank you.

         (Adjournment.)





                         *********************************************

                DISCLAIMER: THIS CART FILE WAS PRODUCED FOR COMMUNICATION

    ACCESS AS AN ADA ACCOMMODATION AND MAY NOT BE 100% VERBATIM. THIS IS

    A DRAFT FILE AND HAS NOT BEEN PROOFREAD. IT IS SCAN-EDITED ONLY, AS

    PER CART INDUSTRY STANDARDS, AND MAY CONTAIN SOME PHONETICALLY

    REPRESENTED WORDS, INCORRECT SPELLINGS, TRANSMISSION ERRORS, AND

    STENOTYPE SYMBOLS OR NONSENSICAL WORDS. THIS IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT

    AND MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED, PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

             THIS FILE SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED IN ANY FORM (WRITTEN OR

    ELECTRONIC) AS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OR POSTED TO ANY WEBSITE OR

    PUBLIC FORUM OR SHARED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE

    HIRING PARTY AND/OR THE CART PROVIDER. THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL

    TRANSCRIPT AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR PURPOSES OF VERBATIM

    CITATION.

                     *********************************************