********************************************* 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 19, 2024. Study Session. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Calling this study session to order. We're going to move on to action item No. 3, the contract amendment for Kelly Services, Incorporated, for educational staffing services. Do I have a motion? >> DR. WADE McLEAN: I move we accept the item as presented. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: A second? >> MR. GREG TAYLOR: Second. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: So we have folks that are going to present to us, I believe, starting off with Dr. Bea. Thank you. How are the kids? >> DR. DAVID BEA: Healthy. (Laughter.) >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Yay, thank goodness. >> DR. DAVID BEA: Good afternoon, Chairperson Riel, members of the board, Chancellor Duran-Cerda, colleagues and guests. As the board is aware, there was a conversation at the most recent board meeting regarding a proposed increase to the Kelly Services agreement. During that meeting, the board had a number of questions and concerns related to the agreement and concern related to how many out-of-state employees the college employs, et cetera. The board provided some questions. We have provided that information to the board. Just to do sort of a real quick-and-dirty  where this came from, and then I will avail you to hear also from the employee service center, the folks who actually manage payroll. As a result of COVID and the growth of online instruction, the number of colleges and universities are all facing a challenge of having employees who reside in states other than their own. Really got exacerbated with COVID, and as a result, there becomes a compliance challenge for these colleges and universities, of which we are one, to make sure that because we are responsible for managing and maintaining, ensuring that all the withholdings, tax laws, and so forth are followed for our employees, this is incredibly difficult when you are talking about employees who might be temporary, they might be your employees for a little while, and reside in any number of states or localities, because it's not just that you have to follow other state laws, it's also various localities also have laws related to workers' compensation, what the withholding rates are, sick-leave accumulation, some states and localities have retirement expectations, et cetera. There is a whole slew of requirements and regulatory things that we have to ensure that we are complying with. That became something that we identified the compliance concern and then looked for how do we solve this problem, because we were confident -- and I will turn it to Andrew in just a second -- confident that we don't have either the personnel or the system resources to adequately ensure that compliance. That's where the recommendation came. We checked with other  colleges and universities, tried to find best practices, and that's where we identified Kelly Services as a potential vendor that the board approved that contract going back in time. The agreement was set up so that we would have the ability to hire adjunct faculty and temporary instructors as needed when we have classes that need those instructors and we don't have anyone located in-state. There is a procedure that the academic areas follow, and I'll turn it over to the academic side to talk about that, but to really identify who these individuals may be and then to provide justification that, yes, indeed we need, in order to offer those classes, we need to hire these out-of-state employees. Again, in order to hire them and make sure that the college is maintaining compliance, strong recommendation is to use a firm that actually can turn on and off any state, they already have all of the system resources available, so that they then become the employer of record for those employees, and then we have the flexibility that if in a given term or even in the eight weeks into the term, that if there is a need to add a class and a faculty member is out-of-state, that we then can address the student need. With that, that's the big, general overview of the issue. Again, the original estimate that we put together was based on the individuals we knew of at the time. As we developed and got into the policy, the procedure, in terms of implementing Kelly Services, we were more sophisticated at identifying more accurately people who were residing out-of-state, so the numbers grew significantly from  what our initial estimate was. That's what we're coming to the board is for approval to increase the contract amount to finish up this current year for the demand that we have seen based on current terms. So with that, I will turn it over. Andrew Plucker is the executive director of the employee service center. Employee service center is the unit that oversees payroll and benefits for the college. It's an interesting unit. It reports up through the finance side, so Andrew reports directly to me. Even though there are crossover areas and the communication with HR is really heavy, it is actually more on the finance side of the house than HR. But again, they communicate really actively. With that, I will ask Andrew if he wants to come up. >> ANDREW PLUCKER: Greetings, Chairperson Riel, board members, chancellor, colleagues and guests. I'm Andrew Plucker, the executive director of the employee service center. I'm here today with some members of the Pima Community College payroll staff. The unit consists of five payroll professionals who collectively possess over 70 years of experience in public sector payroll operations. We are here to encourage you to approve our request for an amendment to the contract agreement with Kelly Services. It is, in our opinion, the most efficient and cost-effective solution to providing compliant payroll services to the college's out-of-state temporary and adjunct faculty employees. When I came onboard the ESC in July of 2022, the single largest  compliance risk that the unit faced was posed by the college's employment of out-of-state personnel. This challenge is not unique to Pima. As Dave mentioned, many of our peer institutions currently face a similar challenge that was brought on by the proliferation and reliance upon a remote workforce during the COVID pandemic. In the fall of 2022, I worked with the payroll staff to explore potential solutions to this issue. This included consulting with our peers who run payroll in colleges and universities across the Western United States. What we learned is that many of our colleagues were turning to third-party providers as a solution to the formidable issues and risks posed by multi-state payroll operations. As we developed the Kelly Services contract proposal, those approved by the board last spring, we estimated expenses based on funding for approximately 30 out-of-state employees. The estimate, as Dave mentioned, was arrived by taking into consideration the employees we knew were working out-of-state, plus some knowledge we had of prospective new hires and including some room for possible growth. As part of the implementation of the Kelly Services agreement, we launched several efforts to positively identify all of the out-of-state persons employed by the college. These efforts led to the subsequent identification of the 50-plus temporary and adjunct faculty employees who have been onboarded with Kelly Services. While we consider those efforts to be a success in bringing the college in compliance with our obligations in relation to  out-of-state employment, this number was considerably larger than expected. It requires a larger spending authority than what we requested and was approved last year by the board. That is the purpose behind our request to amend the current year Kelly Services agreement so we can continue to provide the payroll services to the college's out-of-state adjunct faculty for the remainder of the spring semester and into the beginning of the summer term. Thank you. >> DR. DAVID BEA: With that, I'll ask if the board has any additional questions or clarification that they'd like related to the item. Happy to answer anything we can. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Dr. Bea, one of the things that I notice is that in the summer there's a lot of out-of-state instructors for the summer program, and they are basic classes. So what I'm asking is why is that? I mean, I don't want to get into trying to manage you guys or whatever, but it's just, you know, I would assume that we would be offering our instructors first dibs on giving classes. And I know for a fact that we're not having classes in the summertime on some of the campuses, or I don't even know if maybe the (indiscernible) and the instructor are being offered to teach a class. So that's one of my concerns. And 50 seems like an awful lot. I understand that PimaOnline has increased considerably because of the pandemic, and I also realize that it takes a lot more time. Then of course the next question is do we hold the people  out-of-state to the same standards as we do our own employees? So if you could answer that, please? >> DR. DAVID BEA: I can answer it, the ones I'm most versed with. So the setup with the agreement with Kelly Services is that while the employees are technically Kelly Services employees, they follow our policies, procedures, and expectations in terms of teaching. So that's a key component to how the structure works. In terms of the selection of who teaches and whether we need to have the out-of-state faculty members, that's an academic decision, so it's based on deans and department chairs, I will have to defer to the academic side, other than what we did is we worked up a procedure for them to do basically a justification. So they have to go through a set of questions to say, you know, we weren't able to find someone to teach this class. But with that, I will defer over to the academic side. I don't know if Jeff Thies... >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Jeff is coming down. >> JEFF THIES: Yeah, so with respect to the hiring of the summer, the summer has been significantly more online since the pandemic, and we have not gone back to having as many in-person on the West Campus, which is where the primary sets of courses are offered. In that process, I would say that the online staffing in the summer is relatively proportional to what you see in the fall, so I don't think that the Kelly Service that's used in the summer is  disproportionately towards Kelly Services faculty. One of the challenges is that we have had faculty that were Pima employees as full-time people, some in staff positions, some in faculty, we have had some adjunct faculty that have lived here in Pima County and have since moved, and so they may have already been on the schedule because we schedule so far in advance. So I don't see that there is a disproportionate use of Kelly Services for summer other than to say there is a disproportionate use of online in the summer, and because Kelly Services is used for that modality, that same proportionality exists. I'll just reiterate what Dave Bea said about the hiring process. They have to meet the same standards to be hired. As a matter of fact, they have to also have the Teach 125 certification to teach online, which is above what an in-person person would have to have if they were teaching for us. And then they're evaluated and their courses are reviewed as they were any online instructor, whether they are Kelly Services or not. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Thank you. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: I have a couple questions. I just want my fellow board members to realize that these aren't necessarily Pima College employees anymore. They are Kelly Services employees. So there will be, I would assume, it will take longer to get things done considering it's going to have to go through more than just the normal Pima College routes of anything, right, whether it be discipline, whether it be telling them that we need them to increase  their credentialing, or whatever it is, right? So I think that that is significant. I am hoping that the college is actually reaching out to the department chairs in all the departments before we just straightaway hire somebody online to teach something, because I know it's anecdotal, it might not mean anything, but I have a lot of adjunct math friends because I taught there for so long, and I hear them saying, oh, I only got one class this semester, or oh, I only got two classes this semester, when normally they teach three or whatever it is, right? I'm just wondering, are we really doing the best for our college and the best for our students, since now they're going to have teachers that aren't actually Pima College employees? They're going to be employees of Kelly Services. One other question, I received an e-mail from a department head last, maybe in the spring last year, and she was wondering why she was having a hard time getting an online instructor, and then she was mentioning something like a 30% payback. And so there is all of those things that I don't understand. I did have somebody come up to me after the last board meeting to try to explain it, that it was a 20% payback, I think he said it was, for overhead, so each employee, besides their salary and then their benefits I guess for adjunct faculty, it's like 14%, 15%, because they are not full-time, we're not doing all of the full-time expenses, and I get that, but then he said there was also a 20%, I  think he called it a payback for overhead. That just, to me -- I see Dr. Bea's eyes, like, what the heck is she talking about? That's exactly what I was feeling when I was hearing him explain it to me. So that's my next question. I guess that's it. Thank you. >> DR. DAVID BEA: Yeah, so generally understand what the question is. So if we're employing the faculty ourselves, you're paying the adjunct load rate for the faculty times the number of units that the load that they're teaching. In addition to that, the college budgets and has expenses for the different benefits-related costs for that adjunct faculty, so for us, we budget for about a 19% fringe rate for adjunct faculty. So that covers Social Security, covers workers' compensation, because there is the various things that you need to do. So with Kelly Services, when they say that the contract, if you look at the contract, the contract is the load-hour charges for the adjunct faculty plus 35%. Within that 35%, about roughly 20% of that is what we would be paying for that adjunct faculty for their benefits costs. The rest of it would be Kelly Services administrative overhead for them to manage and to make money. I mean, let's be honest, they are a for-profit company, it's in their interests, they are doing this to make money. If you look at the estimate that's in your board pack, the costs that we are estimating would be their overhead, how much they make to  cover their own expenses in-house because they have staffing expenses to manage this, they have system expenses to manage this, et cetera. The college would be paying about $130,000 roughly more than we would if they were our own employees. So we are paying more money for these employees. I will add that the way that we are structuring Kelly Services is that that gets charged back to the unit, so there is a disincentive to the unit, because they are budgeted to fund at a certain number of adjunct faculty, that this would be a more costly version of adjunct faculty, so they have to absorb that increased cost. So it creates a disincentive for this that over time you will find I think the units will go, oh, this is making it harder for us to offer classes at, instead of 23 students per class, I now have to get down to 21 students per class -- sorry 25, I need to go the other way, 25 students per class, because I need to cover these out-of-state costs that we are incurring. So there is a built-in disincentive to doing this. It's going to take a little bit of time before that works out. I think it's been made clear by the board that the board would like to have this as little as possible, and I think that the academic side, I won't speak for Jeff, but I think the academic side will pass that down and I think work to make this the absolute minimum amount of employees, of adjunct faculty as possible, while still ensuring that we are going to be able to provide students with the education that they want. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Thank you. And then just the last thing I  wanted to mention is when I seemed a little frustrated at the board meeting last week, it was because in February and March I asked three different times for a list of these people, and each time I was given a completely different list, which of course, you know me, I went online and I searched in the directory, were they employees of the college, the first time a lot of them weren't even teaching. The second list I got was something different. The third list, it wasn't via e-mail, but Lee Lambert passed it to me, so each time I saw huge discrepancies in the list I was given, meaning I think it was bologna. I do appreciate whoever wrote me this list this time, because once again, I did check all of them, and thank you. This list seemed like it was actually, there is only a few little question marks I have about two employees. Everybody else was on there. You know, I went to the schedule of classes, and I did that those last three times, too, so the first three lists. And imagine how much time that took, right? I know it's taking time for you guys to answer our questions, but that is the main reason I don't feel comfortable with this, because I think I was given information last time that used a lot of my time and had me running around in circles. So thank you for this very detailed and appropriate list. Now, having said that, I would like to vote for this, but I won't be able to ever vote for this again unless I'm assured that we are reaching out to all the department chairs to make sure that people in Tucson can cover these jobs if at all appropriate.  And I recognize for math you have to have a certain level of math ability to teach a Calc I class, right? And maybe we don't have enough adjunct faculty to do that. But I want to be assured that we are using local people to teach our classes in the future instead of just doing this, it sort of seems willy-nilly, and I know that it might not be, but considering there are math folks out there that aren't teaching the full amount they can, and we are hiring a bunch of math people online, I'm just concerned about that. Okay, thank you. Any other comments? >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Madam Chair, this whole topic has morphed into something that didn't start this way. We started this way working on a payroll dilemma and outsourcing the payroll because we didn't have people in-house that could manage the functions that needed to be done. Now we are talking about how we should hire people. I think, you know, if the board really wants to get into this, then we ought to sit down and talk to some department heads about why they are doing these kinds of things, not the finance people. Let's move on with this topic, and if you want to put something on the agenda or a study session in the future about what the hiring process is for faculty at Pima College, then I think that's what we ought to talk about. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: If I could make a comment, this is specifically for adjunct faculty, not for full-time faculty, correct? Yeah.  >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Although there are quite a few people on this list that are teaching way more than the 10.5 hours. I can just pass this to you if you want to look at it. There are quite a few people. So that wouldn't be our normal way of doing adjunct faculty. So I do know that there are four people or five people that on our directory are listed as instructional faculty, full-time faculty. So there are at least four people on this list that are instructional faculty, not adjunct. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Madam Chair, one last comment or question. In my experience in the field that when you are outsourcing for educational services, usually the only way that you're going to break even on the cost is if you reduce the salary of the employee. And the employee pays the difference in what expenses we incur to hire an outside service to do this. I think that needs to be part of this conversation too. If you want it to be a break-even point, you have to pay them less. >> DR. DAVID BEA: I think there will be a time when we do the budget portion today where we can actually resurface that comment. When we talk about the adjunct faculty funding and the classroom funding structures, then I will explain how this fits in with that, and you can then resurface that point. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: I call for the question. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Okay. All in favor of paying Kelly Services this additional amount to finish out the 2024 year, I believe that's what it is, say aye.  (Ayes.) >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Any opposed? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: I oppose. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: So motion passes 4 to 1. Moving on to item No. 2 on the agenda -- thank you very much, everybody. We appreciate you being here today. >> DR. DAVID BEA: Folks who often aren't properly recognized for making sure that everybody gets paid every two weeks, thank you, all. You guys rock. (Applause.) >> DR. DAVID BEA: We have often said it's the most important thing anyone does in an organization is pay their people. Good evening or afternoon. I'm not sure if we're to evening yet. I think we are not quite there. It's my pleasure to have a conversation with the board today, again following up on the conversations we have had at the previous study session and some other conversations we have had, talking more in detail about the budget, giving more updated information, talking a little bit more specifically about some of the direction and feedback the board has given us and what that means so that we can lead into the March meeting during which we plan to propose a tuition -- well, if we hear that you're favorably inclined towards a tuition increase, that's when we would propose a tuition increase. I will get back to -- I'm not jumping the gun. Just saying, March, it's important that if we increase tuition, it's important that that  happens at the March board meeting. The reason for that is because the fall schedule opens up in early April, and that means that you can then set up the new tuition and fees in time for students to enroll, and that prevents or avoids the problem of if you change tuition rates after that, you have to then go back and rebill, right? It's not something you can't do. It's just not good practice. So we have always tried to get tuition decisions to happen for March in order for the schedule to open up in April. As we have talked about, the board has sort of the general parameters are looking at what our expenditure priorities are, balancing them with revenue projections. Mostly we talk about it in the case of, like, okay, start with the current-year budget, then make the changes to revenues, make the changes that you know about to expenditures. So it's an incremental budgeting model. It's not exclusively incremental, but mostly that's the way we talk about it, because you're assuming that we're starting from a decent place and then saying, okay, well, we know we are getting these additional revenues, are those going to offset the additional costs that we know we're incurring. So we are always trying to balance. We have had the issue of enrollment, which is misaligned with the size of our staff. We have talked at length with the board about that for a number of years. So working through a plan to try and right-size the institution. And then, as I mentioned, we have gotten some board feedback  principally related to I think a strong hesitance to increase either tuition or property taxes, particularly in light of the size of our infrastructure staff, from a staffing standpoint. So we'll be talking about how does that look and how we can right-size the institution that way. Factoring in the basic things that we are starting with, we have talked about sustaining the class in compensation structure, so because that factors in, because we are tying our positions to market, and that the midpoint is tied to having eight years of experience, that the way the structure is if you're hired at something, hired at the minimum, and if, at eight years, you want to be at the midpoint, you need to move up each year a certain amount. So factoring in that, a year of experience to the budget, that's one of the base things that we want to start things with. Contractual obligations, principally those are things like utility costs and IT system licenses, things like that. Factoring in what increased costs you might have in a given year for that. We do not budget for inflation. So office supplies, things like that, we don't build in a natural, oh, inflation last year went up by 5%. All of that stuff is absorbed. That has always been the case so that over time it can become a problem, but I want to make sure that the board is clear on that, that we don't build extra inflation into operating expenses in any way. So everything is held flat other than known priority changes or known increases for known contractual costs. Mostly that's done by  reallocating resources or absorbing those cost increases trying to find more efficient ways to do things or less-expensive ways to do things. One of the things that the staff is doing this year is looking back at historical spending and pulling money, if units have historically not spent to their budgets, pulling that money back so we will reduce budgets to a more accurate level. I want to caution the board that doesn't mean that they save money. So let me do my simple analogy here. If you have a budget for $100 for office supplies, and historically the unit always spends $90 on office supplies, so you have $10 of savings versus the budget, if you then say, okay, well, let's change the budget to $90, what can happen is they spend $90, and they spent exactly to their budget. They don't save versus the budget. So you don't have any operational savings. So the expenditures might not change at all. Just the budget goes down. That's something we also always have to factor in. Not a huge issue for the board to be aware of, but it's something that more from an operational standpoint I get concerned that if we get more efficient with how we budget and we reduce budgets for actual spend but people are spending 100% of their budget, you might be right back to where you started. So you can save a little bit by reducing budgets because mostly people will come in a little bit under, but you can run into that problem.  >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Do we do the same thing with FTEs? >> DR. DAVID BEA: So FTEs are budgeted, the college budgets them, we budget for salary savings that's built into how the overall budget is, but the units do not realize salary savings. In other words, if, in my area, I have a vacancy, the college saves that money from not filling that position. I don't have that money in my budget to spend. So that's how we control that problem where you can suddenly have an issue with, oh, well, we don't have an ABC in finance, as an example right now, that's a fair amount of money. That doesn't mean that all of a sudden we are going to do massive travel. It doesn't turn into that in my budget. So we do some control over that. The downside is, though, if they do need to cover expenses by temporary wages, generally they will absorb that. And if there are special needs that might come out of that, we would then be in conversations with the units, but mostly salary savings, we budget for a pretty significant amount of salary savings in a given year. The amount that we spend on our personnel budget is about 95%, 96% of what's budgeted. So that 5% becomes important to saving money. Then, again, resizing the staffing structure for the enrollment realities, we've talked about that. Different metrics that we use to identify how staffed we are versus the size of our enrollment. This is a quick review. A dollar of tuition roughly represents an increase of $350,000. Property taxes, levy neutral, that's just  for growth of new property. That doesn't change the tax rate for people as an average. We will generate just a little bit under $2 million for that, so the college doesn't do anything different. That's essentially holding things flat. We also have the capacity to go all the way up to $6.2 million, because we are a little bit under our max, and the max is based on you can increase by 2%, if the board goes through the truth-in-taxation process, can increase by 2% every year. So we have about 3% between our starting point and our maximum right now. Other revenues, we are expecting to get an additional, just a little bit under $2 million of additional revenue principally coming from investment income and also from some increased revenue generated from Prop 207. That's the Smart & Safe Arizona legalized marijuana bill. This is just for context, where we are at in terms of tuition versus our peer institutions. So there is two bars there for Pima and Mohave. That's because we both have per-credit charges. For us, we have an IT charge and a student services charge, those total $5.50 per credit, and our base tuition is $92. That's where you see the blue chart. The blue line there is $92. So our base tuition is one of the lower in the state, and we are right in the middle basically with what our combined per-credit-hour rate is. Along with our peers, I will say that the peers, the median increase proposed for our peer institutions is $3 per credit hour this year, so most of them will be going up from where this point is.  Then this is the comparison of where our property tax rates versus our peer institutions, and we are on the very low end of the spectrum in terms of our property tax rate. Let's talk about ongoing challenges that we have talked about. Again, I'm not going to get too much into this. The struggling enrollment outlook, the fact that our enrollment has decreased significantly from COVID to now, but our staffing has not decreased proportionately with that. We have limited potential growth in other areas. We have talked about the two that we have control over really are tuition and property taxes, but we want to keep tuition as low as possible, and property taxes, being good stewards of public funds, being judicious with our property tax revenues. That puts in place what we are trying to do, which is identify structural inefficiencies, recognizing that it's challenging at this institution to make changes. There is a tendency to want to have all services at all locations. There is a tendency to want to continue to offer the same service that we have always offered, because there might be a small number of people who continue to do that. For example, cash payments, things like that, that become with how many people actually make cash payments at the college is very small at this point versus historically we used to have cashiers and the majority of payments used to come in through cash or through onsite cashiering. Making that kind of change isn't as easy as it sounds, because  there is always pressure. If someone comes in and they want to pay, and you don't have the hours of the cashier open, that kind of thing leads to pushback and dissatisfaction for the individual who is trying to make a payment. In addition, classroom inefficiencies, things like how full classes are, making sure that classes are available. We have, and I'm going to get into the adjunct faculty model, the classroom funding model so you can see how that works, because we have had some good conversations with that. Those kinds of things, scheduling can be really inefficient. Having courses available at all locations at decent times might lead to a class having 10 students early in the morning versus that same class later in the afternoon or online might have 30 students. Those are inefficiencies that if you're offering the class, and you're meeting the need of the 10 students or the 8 students at that time, that's great for the students, but overall it's an inefficient model versus what we are trying to do. And then reallocating resources. When we have growth areas, we have new priorities that we have to push resources to, shifting from the way we were structured to a new way. The most obvious example of that is how much has had to shift from traditional education to having resources for the sophisticated online and educational tools that we now have for state-of-the-art educational training. What we did is we put together three scenarios for you, but I have a model that we can play with. So then you guys -- I want to  make this interactive. The three scenarios are basically, A, what the board originally, the guidance we have gotten, which is what does it look like if we don't increase the tax levy, if we don't have a tuition increase, and then what we have built into it is a year of additional experience. In this particular case, it also adds 3% additional to the adjunct faculty model, to the adjunct faculty load rate. Then the college is absorbing the additional costs of benefits, and that it would not provide a pool for compensation increases beyond the one year of experience. So what we have done in the last few years when we have done the class comp is done a year of experience or it's the minimum of, and I think it's both years, it was the minimum of $2,000 or how much your year of experience gets you. That means that everybody gets an increase. The way that the Scenario A is structured is not everybody would get an increase. Just the people who are below their sort of target point. Scenario B, similar to that one, only what it does, and then the position reduction, so that's based on an average position. It's not a specific -- no position has been identified. It's just on average, how many positions would that take to reduce again through what we have talked about through attrition. In order to have a balanced model in that Scenario A would be a reduction of 22 positions. Second scenario is to increase the student services fee or tuition. It really is somewhat synonymous. There is a slight  difference between them, but it's a per-credit charge of $3. Essentially what that's doing is offsetting, and when I show the model and the page that you guys are probably one ahead of me already, is that helps offset the structural budget problem that we have between athletics and performing arts. So we have talked with the board about how that used to be funded by the student services fee. That student services fee, because enrollment has declined over time is now insufficient to help cover the costs for athletics and for the performing arts as stands. So what it's saying is that we would increase the student services fee to help cover some of those costs and offset those costs. If we did that, again, the model is basically the same as the other one. It reduces the number of positions that we -- or it decreases the number of positions that we would reduce from 22 to 10. And then the last model is more of a making-progress model, and it's also analogous so what the college historically has done. So increase the property tax levy by 2%. Again, it's keeping that student services fee at $3. It would give the one year of additional experience, 3% increase for adjunct faculty, and then it would give a little bit of money so that we could do a minimum increase for all of the employees. That also has built into it, again, I'm going to say this is a making-progress model that has a reduction of 25 positions. It would still be getting at what the board's concern is, is that we too many staff. This would be making the staffing size more efficient. In  addition to that, and I'm going to shoot ahead to the model, in addition to that, that model, Scenario C, also helps the college structurally. So that helps put aside, set aside money for strategic priorities, for shifting resources, for handling deferred maintenance better than we currently do. So that's how that Scenario C, so it's a little bit, a combination. Again, it's sort of a cafeteria model. I'm throwing out a few different examples of how you do it, but you can kind of pick whichever entree you want. This is talking about, this shows different things related to the adjunct faculty model. Then I'm going to stop, because then we can sort of play around with the models a little bit and talk about the board's priorities and what their interests are and how they would all balance together. What this model shows is what happens when you add an additional course. So tuition, currently $92. Adjunct faculty load rate is currently, just looking at the base model, left-hand column there, so the expectation, the way the college budget is set up, is that onsite classes are funded at a 20 students in the classroom average and online is funded at 25 students on average. How that plays out, then, if you look at the base model, is the amount of tuition generated, instate tuition generated by that particular class, if 20 students pay their tuition, that generates $5,500 of tuition. The comp and benefits for that adjunct faculty right there would  be about $3,200, little more than $3,200. Getting back to Dr. McLean's question or comment earlier, that if you factor in the additional costs of Kelly Services, that's where that cost would go up. For a class that's an adjunct faculty cost that has Kelly Services as an out-of-state employee, the cost for that would be worse and the bottom line would be worse. So for the average class, the net marginal income is a little over $2,200. That class generates two FTSE, so this is three-credit class, three-load class, so most typical kind of class. Then that versus budget base net, that's compared to what the budget expectation is. That's why that's a zero, right? That's the base model. If you estimate that we have about 5,000, because this place is big, it's always like these numbers always shock me, because that is like a large number of sections that we teach, so 5,000 sections of adjunct faculty courses, that if you take that net marginal income that you generate a little bit of additional money for that class, and you multiply it out by how many sections we teach, that that actually generates support for the other parts of the college to the tune of about a little more than, about $11 million, give or take. I mean, these numbers are rough, by the way. You don't need to totally fix it on are they perfect. The model is just to say overall does it work or get you in trouble? The idea, close enough. Again, then there is a comparison for what online looks like and the expectations for online, because these are conversations that the  board has had, questions they have had. Okay. Now, this column here, tier 1 and tier 2, shows what happened if you add a class that has low enrollments? So these are set up to be they break even so that in other words, you add a class, it doesn't have that many enrollments, but the tuition covers the direct expenses of that class. So for this particular case, for the tier 1, that's the less-experienced adjunct faculty, they would, to break even, that is, so that we don't lose money on the class, it would be about 12 students. So you can see generates $3,300 of tuition, the comp and benefits is a little bit under $3,300, so the net marginal income is $52 for that class. So we are not losing money. We are making $52. Except the problem of that, that works if it's just adding a class, one class at the end of the line. The problem is that we can't sustain that overall. If we did that for all of our classes, we would have a huge problem, because you'd be essentially not generating that $11 million that helps support the rest of the college. Tier 2 becomes a little bit harder, because the costs for the adjunct faculty are greater. It's 5% greater for tier 2 faculty. So in order for that class to essentially break even, it's 13 students. That's the question that's come up about, like, can you just add a class. On the margin, you cannot lose money by adding a class with 12 or 13 students, depending on who is teaching it if they are adjunct faculty.  If they are regular faculty, whole 'nother can of worms. That number for regular faculty, if they are teaching, just to say the comparison to the base, so a regular faculty teaching 20 students at a typical regular faculty salary, that generates a net marginal income of negative $4,000 per class. And then versus the base, that's negative $6,000. So, Greg, you asked the question, can't you just add a faculty, a regular faculty, the problem is that, no, that's going to have to be covered by property taxes. I mean, these all assume that they are being covered by tuition only. What I'm saying is, no, property taxes cover a large share of our operations and we have to always be aware of that. However, we do have some expectation that tuition helps cover the costs of education, and that's what this is intended to show. Last part of this is if you increase the adjunct pay by 3%, sort of what we put in the scenarios, that results to the budget a negative $98 per section. If you multiply that out, that's around $500,000, which is what we would tell you in the normal model. It's just a different way to show it than we have ever shown it before. If that was entirely borne by tuition, so you said, okay, what we want to do is let's increase the adjunct faculty load by 3%, but we want that to be totally be borne by increasing tuition to offset that, that would be an increase of just a little bit more than $1.60. So different ways to look at it. There are ways that we haven't talked about it before, but it gives you context in a different way  to see marginal class adds and what the impact is to the college, and then the challenge is the scaleability of it all. Because it's fine if you do one class and you add one class at the end. The problem is that if the whole thing works that way or you start, if all of a sudden you started offering all of your classes and we were just having 12 students in every class, it doesn't work. We start having problems. Okay. I have already talked about this stuff, and I promised you I would make this interactive and fun. Let me pull up the model, and then the board can have their comments, questions, and give ideas. >> MR. GREG TAYLOR: Dave, while you're pulling that up, we, at one point in our discussions, talked about differential tuition for certain programs with higher costs. Is there anything new in these models in that regard, or... >> DR. DAVID BEA: (Off microphone)...anything new in the models as we are talking about it. What we have looked at, and it's more of a net change in terms of the slight increase in one area, slight decrease in another area, and it sort of nets out to zero as the college historically has done differential. What I think we should talk about, though, is in the span of the next year -- actually, let me clarify, because you probably don't know how the college has done differential. So what it did is we looked at the cost of direct instruction for each program, and then the costs of direct instruction and then the number of students taught by those disciplines, and then the programs that have greater  than two times the median costs per FTSE, and then those that are above, they are sort of two tiers, those get differentials put on them. They are really high-cost programs. Again, that is not the total cost of the program. That is just the direct instruction. So really what you find is that that reflects the programs where they have to have student-to-teacher ratios of like 10 to 1, like nursing, for example, where there are a lot of restrictions in terms of how many students can be in the class, that sort of thing. Aviation is another one. Then what we did is we had the differential is tied to the proportional share that's covered by tuition. So it's really the differential is only increased to cover the direct expenses to a proportion of what the total costs of that direct cost are. So it's a small -- it does not cover the total costs of the program. It covers a share of the costs. It's a very moderate cost increase. It's like $20 to $30 per unit for only those differential programs. Now, that's how we have done it historically. If you actually started looking at the true costs of some of these programs, and you say, okay, well, aviation has this whole facility, and it has special support services, what if you factor in the utilities and the custodial costs and the special support costs for that program, you would find that those differential costs go up, I mean, dramatically. Then that's what I'm saying, if it the board is interested in  that kind of a conversation, I think we're at a point where we have the data for a handful of programs to start looking at that and start identifying do we want to look at that, and then the other thing that you'd factor in is, okay, earnings potential for those programs is always important. And then looking at market comparisons, right? So it wouldn't be just, oh, our differential is going to be now it's $40,000 a year for aviation, and it turns out that some other school, obviously we don't have any other competitor in town, but a competitor in the state or something like that, maybe their tuition is 25. So you wouldn't want to get uncompetitive with it. But I think that we are now, particularly with a handful of the programs that have specific clear facilities tied to them, we're in a position where we could actually really look at those kinds of differentials that would be significant and then talk about, well, how much do we want to look at that. We are not in a position to be able to do that. The data is just starting to be good enough for that, partly because aviation up till now was the only clear stand-alone program. Now we have automotive, and then we are seeing some of these other programs. We can start allocating out other costs to these programs, but it's going to take some time and some thought to do so. At this point, what we have looked at is just looking at -- it's been a while since we looked at the differential -- so looking at it the way we used to do it. What happens is a couple of the programs go from the higher cost to the lower cost. A couple, I think there  is a little bit of change between them, and then looking at how the proportion, it kind of nets to not much. It kind of balances. Some things are a little bit more, some things a little bit less, but it doesn't generate a lot of additional income for the college at this point. So I'm not including it. Sorry, long-winded answer on "it's not in here." But I think it's a conversation that we are getting prepared and we are getting in a position to be able to have a real conversation about that. Okay. So I have a model where we can plug and play, if you will. What it does is it looks at the primary variables that the board talks about. Property tax, tuition and fees. Think about this, this is either tuition and fees or it's on a per-credit basis is how it's calculated. It could be student services fees. What happens if state aid, so one thing I didn't mention is the state has a budgetary challenge, and there is about $1.7 million of STEM funding that I think is somewhat at risk, hopefully it isn't. That's not factored in here. That's another reason why that third model that has a plus to it, it would help compensate. If we lost revenue from something that comes later in the game, that would help us be able to keep flat regardless of that. The regular salaries is set up so you could add a pool amount, so in other words, if I put a 1% in there, that's saying that other than in addition to the year of experience, we're adding in a 1% pool across the board to provide minimum increases.  That 1% translates roughly to a thousand dollars minimum, just to keep in the back of your mind. And then adjunct faculty, we can change that from the 3% that we currently have. Adjustments and reductions, right now it's built so that there is not a cost increase for the contractual obligations, utilities, any of that stuff. This model is assuming that we will have cost reductions, because we have a number of cost reduction strategies that we are looking at, and we know of a few things where we are going to realize some savings. So right now I have this put in at a flat level. I think that I'm confident that we are going to be able to do that. This is there for the board to say we want more, we want an across-the-board type of a reduction, and then I can sort of show you what that would look like. Similarly so this folds in though that $2 million of structural problem that is the athletics and performing arts. So again, that sets it up where we're continuing to do the athletics programs and the performing arts programs that we currently do, right? So if there was a reduction there, the reality would be, okay, we have to probably look at what we are offering in those areas and cut back. Then the offsetting position reductions is just set up to do a balance to try and make it all work. All right. I have explained the model. Any questions, comments, things that you want to look at or feedback that you'd like to give? Again, the goal today is to get something clear so that we can put together a proposal in March that would include both what the  tuition -- if there is no tuition increase, obviously we would just say we're not increasing tuition this year. But it would also, what we are looking to do, is to tie also to make a board statement related to property tax. Typically we don't make that commitment until May. That's when the final budget comes together and the board makes a decision. That gives flexibility, if the state decides to do something weird, we still have the one tool left other than reductions. But I know the board is interested in making commitments and getting that set. Quite honestly, from our standpoint, if we know what the board is interested in from a property tax standpoint, it makes the whole process quite a bit easier bureaucratically, like we know exactly what to do and it's not a last-minute thing, we are not making changes last minute. So it sort of sets in place what the overall budget would look like, and, well, the rest of it sort of would flow. That's our goal for March. >> MR. GREG TAYLOR: So in the part where you talked about the -- I understand the adjunct faculty benefit and the additional year. You said that would leave out a certain group of individuals that wouldn't receive a salary increase. Can you help me understand what is that group, and why aren't they covered by one of those other two? >> DR. DAVID BEA: Well, depends on what someone's pay was prior to the college, if they were hired above the minimum. So, for example, someone comes in and they are really experienced -- this  doesn't happen a ton, but it happens -- so they are hired, they have a lot of experience to do that exact job, and we hire them essentially at the level of four years of experience. So until they get to that four-years-of-experience point, they would be above their target threshold and they wouldn't get an increase. So I think it's probably about a third of the staff and faculty are in that category. I'm, like, totally guessing. I'm pretty sure that's about right. It also could depend on what their job was prior to what their current job is. Like people make transfers, do different things. So it's for a number of different reasons that you might be above your target point. >> MR. GREG TAYLOR: So just tell me if what I say is correct, the way I understood it. So everybody gets the year of experience, but for some people, that year of experience doesn't translate into additional dollars based on where they are in the range? >> DR. DAVID BEA: Correct. >> MR. GREG TAYLOR: Okay. I gotcha. >> DR. DAVID BEA: Yes. So what we are doing is we are comparing what their current pay rate is, everybody gets -- yeah, sorry, that's clunky language, I suppose, since I said a year of experience just for -- everybody gets a year of experience, but then it's compared to where their target point is. And if their current pay is above the target pay after getting another year of experience, then they would be set to not get an increase, like, their pay would be flat. So the  minimum increase gives people the ability to have some increase for the year to offset inflationary costs, that sort of thing. We have been doing that since we implemented the class comp structure, and if we don't have something like that, there will be dissatisfied people, right, because they will not have a pay increase and that doesn't go over particularly well. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: So here we hire these people because they have skills and talents and we really need them, but then we're not going to give them a pay increase for a couple years. >> DR. DAVID BEA: In that case, yes. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: What about the people at the top of the pay scale? >> DR. DAVID BEA: Same thing. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: How many people are up there at the top, just ballpark? >> DR. DAVID BEA: I don't remember. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Are we talking, like, a third of our employees won't get a pay raise if we do this? >> DR. DAVID BEA: I think it's about a third. I'm totally going on memory. It's in that ballpark. I can certainly have that information for March. At the next board meeting I can definitely explain what that would be. I'm just going off of memory and seeing lots of numbers on spreadsheets, and I think that's about right. Go ahead. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: My other question is, to me, it seems like  if we -- I have been advocating, and I'm going to ask again that we have a survey given out to all of our students currently in classes, what do they want to take next semester, where would they prefer to take these classes and what times. Let's figure out what our clients -- I don't like to use that, because I don't think we're a business, but in some ways, we are, right -- let's figure out what they need, and then let's offer as many of those as we can, because if we can increase enrollment, a lot of these tricky spots will be eradicated, right, if we can just start increasing significantly enrollment, and I think how we do that is we offer classes where and when they're asking. Chancellor and I were together in a meeting, I can't even remember right now who it was, but the daughter of this person has to take her classes at three different campuses. Sometimes she has all of those classes -- and she's not, like, taking rocket science and basketball weaving. She's taking normal college classes. So anyway, I think we need to do that survey to make sure we're serving the needs of our students and hopefully helping us in the same aspect. >> DR. DAVID BEA: Yeah, I mean, the key, you have heard this through the Strategic Enrollment Management Plan, the key thing is to not lose enrollment, right? Students who might be interested in coming here, students who are here and leave, right, and Chair Riel, you have mentioned that one in particular, right, the idea of ensuring student success, trying to keep the students we have, trying to make them be successful absolutely helps.  >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: So STAR and academics are working on that survey to send out this semester. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Tell me again, I missed this whole conversation, what's the fee? Where does the fee go? >> DR. DAVID BEA: The student services fee? >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Yeah. >> DR. DAVID BEA: It supports primarily athletics but also supports student activities. So there is base tuition, and then there's $3.50, I believe, that goes to support athletics and these student services, student activities, and then there is an IT fee that's $2, and that helps support the IT resources around the college, but the total is $5.50. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: So if you go back to slide 10, so by increasing the fee, it would not have any effect on any of these compensation models? >> DR. DAVID BEA: What it does is it cuts down the number of positions we are reducing. If you do the comparison of those two side-by-sides, and let me show you where the actual dollars are. So what that does is it generates -- this is slide, this was three ahead, like 13, 12. Slide 12. So there you can see how it plays out in terms of increasing, it adds about a million dollars of revenue. Everything else stays the same, and we just offset it to keep a balance at the bottom by reducing the number of positions that we are reducing. Again, these are just ideas.  >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Yeah, I'm still having trouble with the concept. If we charge $3 more and it goes in the pot for athletics, that doesn't have anything to do with compensation. We could give the coaches a raise, or we could add a team, or we could buy uniforms, but how does that affect compensation? >> DR. DAVID BEA: So why that's put in there is currently the general operations are supporting athletics and performing arts to the tune of $2 million. So what it does is if we add that $3, it helps cover that amount that we're already covering. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Okay. I didn't hear that. >> DR. DAVID BEA: That's all it's all intertwined. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: So basically we're subsidizing athletics. This would decrease our -- >> DR. DAVID BEA: Yes, it's not self-supporting. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: It isn't anywhere. Even at the University of Arizona football it's not, right? >> DR. DAVID BEA: It used to be more self-supporting. It has, over time, become unsupporting, like, we are heavily subsidizing it. It's trying to address that structural deficit in tying the student services fee directly to that. But not the whole thing, right? Not covering the whole thing. It would cover half of it. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: I'd prefer to have a conversation that says we are going to charge the students more money for athletics, but we're not going to increase athletics. We are just going to decrease the amount of money the college is giving to athletics.  >> DR. DAVID BEA: I'm not disagreeing that -- that would be an accurate statement. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: But if we said we were going to give the money to student activities and athletics if we increased fees, we wouldn't have an improvement in the budget scenario, but we would have an improvement in student activities and athletics, which would, because if we increase the fees, decrease our subsidy, we are actually changing a philosophy? >> DR. DAVID BEA: Right. The counterpoint would be if we don't subsidize it, and we don't have a source of revenue to help offset it, at some point you're talking about reducing to make it balance. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Or giving them more money. >> DR. DAVID BEA: Right. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: But I think we ought to have -- I think we ought to call it that, because the person on the street sees an increase in student fees, they're going to ask me, well, what other services are you going to give the students? And I'm going to say none. >> DR. DAVID BEA: Right. None that they would see, right. But you're not reducing anything, either. The counterpoint is, okay, well -- different mindset, right? You're saying, okay, we have a structural deficit and we need to cut to address that structural deficit. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: You could do the same thing by saying we're going to increase tuition.  >> DR. DAVID BEA: Uh-huh. Totally agree. It is a little bit of semantics, and it's semantics around the fact that we have a structural deficit problem of some sort, and we have limited revenue possibilities that we can play around with. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: I think it's more of an optics problem and not being totally open with where that funding is going. Just one thought. The assessed valuation, I know you gave it to us, what's the increase in assessed valuation across the board without us doing anything? >> DR. DAVID BEA: The number that matters is that the growth of new properties generates an additional $2 million, it's $1.9 million, of additional revenue. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: What percent would that be? >> DR. DAVID BEA: Let's see, we're at 140-something, so 2 over 140 -- it's 1.6%, something like that. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: So do you get the information on average homeowner on assessed valuation increase? >> DR. DAVID BEA: We get total for the county. So what the net taxable current value is, and this is the slide that has this information. It was later, in the back. So primary -- whoever did that, that was cool. Someone's doing some controlling that isn't me. So I said it was about 140 million, so currently, $136 million, that's where we're at currently. Next year this is from new property, so that generates 1.9 million.  The net taxable value, this is essentially 1.06 billion. That's the total Pima County taxable valuation number and how much it's grown. So the overall change, which is 5.7%, that's not -- the money, that's why I keep saying, the thing that matters is more like 1.6%. That's the new property. How much assessment values go up because the property is assessed at a higher value, that doesn't change the situation for the college. The only thing that changes it for the college is new properties. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: But it changes for the homeowner? >> DR. DAVID BEA: It does, yeah. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: So do we know, figure on what the average homeowner's property increase will be next year? >> DR. DAVID BEA: So let's just go with 5.7, because that's the best I've got right now, so that's the overall change for properties. What that means, though, is if you did a levy neutral, you're saying, okay, we're just going to get new property, what it means is our tax rate is going to go down by 5.7%, so it offsets it, right? Does that make sense? So the only way that the -- so for the average property, the typical property, would be their assessment valuation goes up by 5.7%, but Pima College's tax rate is going to go down, and the net would be zero for that, for that perfect property. It doesn't work perfectly, because neighbor A and neighbor B's assessment valuations go up slightly differently. So they don't see exactly the same  thing. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: What's your estimated benefit increase cost this next year? >> DR. DAVID BEA: So we have a benefits increase for health is a little over 2%, really good news. Yeah, really good news. Yeah, it was good news. And we have some other benefits-related costs that are going to go down, so we're planning on benefits costs will go down overall for the college, and that's partly going to help with, and I'll explain that in a second, but that's going to help do the overall cost flat increase because a fair amount of that is coming on the benefits side. Public Safety Retirement System, we have been supplementing the amount that goes into Public Safety Retirement System. We talked with finance audit about this, and you'll see this item on the next board agenda. We have been supplementing it very heavily, and we are making really good progress in terms of funding up the liability. So the recommendation is to decrease the additional amount, not -- we're still going to be paying above and beyond what the contribution rates are, but to decrease how much extra we are paying will free up enough money, and that will make the overall cost for benefits go down, exclusive of taxes. So over the contract-related benefits stuff. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: So this may not be a question for you, might be one for you, so I'm sure we have had conversations and studies on what are traditionally underenrolled courses, overenrolled courses.  Who has that conversation and where are we with that? Do we say, okay, here's a traditionally, last five years, this department has decreased in enrollment, and what we need to do is start dropping the offerings in that department or the department totally? Do we have that conversation? Where are we? >> DR. DAVID BEA: Yes. I think we're getting closer to having better conversations, but there is a model, right, this classroom funding model that is basically set up to have -- and again, on average, it's 20 students in an onsite classroom, 25 in an online. That is averaged out, though, so nursing doesn't get penalized and that they can't possibly hit their goals. So what happens is the units, departments, disciplines are funded to have the adjunct faculty to hit the enrollment target that they have. And that enrollment target is also based on the number of students in a course. So a nursing would be expected, you want to hit at least 10 students in the course for -- and what that means is for social science-type courses, the expectation probably ends up being closer to 27 to 30, something like that. So then when you're looking at how is enrollment going and you start breaking it down by discipline, you can start seeing where the fill rates aren't hitting what the expectations are. And the deans and department chairs, sort of an art and science of deciding the go, no-go decision to hit those targeted averages. Historically we are not hitting the averages, I will tell you  that, like, by quite a bit. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Well, that's not exactly the question. The question is traditionally departments that have courses or subjects that are decreasing over time on the number of sections that they are offering, at what point in time and who makes the decision that that doesn't exist anymore? >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: So I think you're referring to gen ed courses? That's our bread and butter, right, and those are the ones that transfer to the university. So those are steady, but I think you may be referring to niche or boutique classes where they do diminish in enrollment, so that's the conversation between the provost and the deans and department heads as to how many sections are open or not opened. So there is an assessment taking place currently and discussions with each of the units that Nic Richmond has been having with ELT members but also with being academics. We also see where there are opportunities of growth, such as cybersecurity, as we have heard there is a request for more faculty, and other areas that are more workforce-related. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: It might be nice to hear part of that conversation at some point in time. I'm just interested in how the conversation occurs. If we come back in another board meeting in March, and we set tuition, we set tax rates, we set all this, we then determine our revenue, do we also determine how we're going to spend the additional  revenue? And what is the role of shared governance and Meet and Confer when we're actually declaring the revenue that's available before they're finished with their conversations -- I'm actually going somewhere with this -- and I think what I, for one, would like to do is have an executive session item to discuss Meet and Confer, the status, what's being said, and also how that implicates our budget decisions, in private, and then we can come out and do whatever we want to do in public. But this is getting pretty awkward for me, because are we going to determine how much is available for raises at a step, at an increase, at fringe benefits, and then Meet and Confer goes and talks about it and then comes back with us with a recommendation? I'm getting a little confused. >> DR. DAVID BEA: Yeah. Let me walk you through where we're at. So the board's given some guidance, and we have had conversations with the Meet and Confer groups. The conversation is, like, okay, we have a reality where the board is clearly expecting that we've got to be more efficient with our staffing size, the expectation, what we have talked about, resistant to increasing tuition, resistance to increasing property tax, particularly without seeing some reductions in staffing size. In addition to that, so they know that the idea is the base that we'd be starting with is a year of experience, that anything above that would be set in a pool, kind of like what I'm talking about, that that would be the conversation of what's the priority in terms  of using that pool. So while I'm saying a year of 1% would be roughly a minimum increase of a thousand dollars, that would be one judgment as to how that conversation could happen. I'm saying with some confidence that that would be received, it would be understood. There might be other priorities, though, that the groups and how they're talking about what the priorities are that would be slightly different from that, and so it could be that they make a recommendation, well, we want the minimum increase to be slightly lower than that, because we want to address, one of the conversations with faculty is the hourly -- I don't remember. Chairperson Riel, you might remember what this is, the supplemental rate. The supplemental rate, which is for faculty who are off contract, if they do an hour of work, there is a rate that they get compensated for. It hasn't changed in a while. That's something that they're interested in looking at. So it would be some balance potentially of those things. So what the board would do then is essentially give some guidance of we would have a pool available, and then the conversations with the group would be, okay, this is what looks like it's available, what priorities would you see? And like I said, with some confidence, the minimum increase is probably up there, because that is a pretty generally accepted way to deal with it when you have minimal increases. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: If I could add also, we also have a  program review process where divisions or departments supply data and inform, other faculty are part of a group, committee, that look at their own data, as to what programs are growing, what aren't. They talk to their advisory committees, as well, who give them advice or say, you know, this is the class that we need, and we need to add it, or decrease it. So there is a model or process in place already in addition to what we have been talking about. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Do we still have the college curriculum council, too? And don't they focus on some of those things too? We have deactivated I think two courses or two programs in the last year here, if I remember right. It might have been an information item, because it's not really, really popping out, but I think things like that do happen. So obviously I just want to point out that math used to be the forerunner in courses taught. I'm not sure if that's still not the case? Do we know which one is, like, the leading enrollment? >> JEFF THIES: (Off microphone.) >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Got it. Communications division, writing, foreign languages, all of that. Maybe I think increasing enrollment would I think help all of that, right? Okay, thank you. Any other questions? >> DR. WADE McLEAN: So where do we go from here? >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Did you want us to play the game?  >> DR. DAVID BEA: If the board is interested in seeing different things and how it plays out to get to a different comfort level, that is what is -- it's structured to do that. It also could be something that you take home and play with it, and then we have a conversation at the upcoming board meeting. What the challenge with that, though, timingwise would be when we set the recommendation for a tuition increase, we're going to have to be somewhat generic about how we set it because we won't know what to recommend, right, because we don't have guidance to -- Dolores and I can make a recommendation and then know that you guys can go in a different direction, and we would write the board report up such that that kind of flexibility would exist. That can be done. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Well, in regards to the process, again, I'm not so sure I'm ready to look at the budget to come up with a pool of money. I'd rather have a conversation about what we want to be able to do and then go after the money. >> DR. DAVID BEA: Same. I mean, to me, it's six of one and half a dozen -- just start at the bottom and work your way up. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Well, to me it's not, because I think in my first scenario, we want to be able to do this, this, this, this and this. And those are decisions based on steps and whatever, fringe benefits, things like that, staffing, class size, athletics, whatever it is, as opposed to what can we manipulate in the budget so we come up with a pot of money and then figure out how to spend the pot of money?  >> DR. DAVID BEA: I'm going to say it slightly differently what I said when I said six of one, half a dozen of the other. So if the idea is, okay, we want to address the structural deficit in athletics, we want to have a pool of money for strategic initiatives that's $500,000, we want to have a reduction of positions of, you know, a reasonable amount so we're starting to make progress, but we want to do it through attrition. So you can plug those things in, and then looking at the bottom line, go, okay, where does that put us in terms of additional revenue that we might need, and then going what would be the best revenue sources to get that from? That would be starting from the expense side. Now, what I'm saying is that we have kind of started that for you, because we are saying, okay, the current year, we are going to do some cost-reduction strategies. We are going to basically do the other things mostly the way we do them right now. That's the starting point. And we're going to address the structural problem that we have with athletic and performing arts. So it really is starting with the expense side and then going, okay, how do we balance that? Do we balance that by going -- the last two things, I would say, is by reducing more positions, you know, changing the number of positions you're planning to reduce, or by generating revenue through the two means that we really have to generate revenue to make it balance or super-balance. Again, like I said, the last version, last scenario, was  structurally getting the college to a better place so that we have surplus revenues that would enable us to do more strategic things. >> MR. GREG TAYLOR: And this is maybe what Wade was talking about, and, you know, when we had this conversation last year, I think I was talking about not letting the budget drive our strategic direction, letting our strategic direction drive the budget. That's why I get -- Wade, maybe this is what you were saying, forgive me if it is not, but when we start talking about pools of money to do things, the way I understand that when you say that is based on the pool of money that we decide sort of arbitrarily that might exist, then you all do what you can with that money, I would rather have you say we need $500,000 to do these strategic initiatives, we are going to do A, B, C, this is what we recommend, and then we approve the $500,000 to do that, as opposed to we approve some money and then somebody else divvies it up. So in that way, it's different for me when we're doing that, or if, like, we approve this pool for additional minimum increases but through Meet and Confer they might decide, well, we're not going to do this amount of increases, we are going to do this other thing, and this other thing, my preference would be finish that process, let them recommend what they want to recommend, bring it to us and say, this is what we are recommending, this is how much it would cost, and then we start doing this worksheet as opposed to us allocating pools of dollars that then get allocated by somebody else. Because that seems like we don't have a frame of reference for that pool of  dollars. We are just trying to make numbers add up. But I don't know if -- when I talked before about I was uncomfortable raising tuition or taxes, which I am still, the caveat I kept adding was unless you give me a really good reason. So I'm waiting for the really good reason. We need a pool of money to divvy up in my brain is not a really good reason, but we need X amount for Y thing is a good reason. >> DR. DAVID BEA: One of the changes I think is that there is an unlimited number of good things we can do with money, ranging from better managing deferred maintenance, which is unromantic to the Nth degree, to $30 million for a public safety building or the debt service related to that, something like that. It is literally unlimited what things we could do so that the idea is starting with the base assumption that, okay, keep doing what we're doing, and then on the edge address some of the things that seem to be strategic priorities and then having conversations. It's not like the college can't do that. That's how we did the revenue bonds, right? It was, okay, we have a strategic plan that says we want to build some new buildings, how are we going to go do that, and then that gets folded into the budget more in a decision that's more up front than how you're perceiving this is all playing out. This is a sort of keep doing what you're doing, and then on the edge do some things that you'd like to do model. I mean, it will always be that way until there is a big set of priorities like the revenue bond priorities, the building the buildings which are bigger,  or some other key initiatives, right? Like I said, it ranges from you could do all kinds of things, you could say we want to have one-for-one instruction in 150 classes, and then go, how do you fold that in and what's that going to cost? There could be all sorts of things like that. But mostly the challenges that we're a public entity that has fairly restricted revenues and we've got a timing that is, like, each year there are certain things that have to happen. It isn't that the college doesn't think strategically, it isn't that these things aren't coming up. It's that right now one of the things we are doing is catching up for the strategic decisions through the centers of excellence and making sure those things happen, and then operationally move through, knowing that we have enrollment is down significantly, we are inefficiently structured, we need to reallocate resources. That's all a challenge. That's all sort of built into it stays the same. Well, staying the same doesn't mean we're not doing a lot of things. It just means you're not doing big and interesting priorities. Those sort of come in different ways and then get folded in, go, okay, it's time, let's go build a new building, let's do this, let's do that, how are we going to do that? And that takes a little bit of time and a little forethought. This is more like the nuts-and-bolts, less-sexy stuff, I guess. But it doesn't mean that we are not making good, important, smarter decisions. That's why the stuff on the increments, we are  reducing positions, we are more effectively setting up our operating structure. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: I think Greg and I are awfully close to being on the same page. You know, you all live this every day, and it would be nice to hear you tell us what your initiatives should be, your top priorities in spending. You know, I would like to hear things like we're having significant problems recruiting faculty so we need to bump their salaries, or, you know, this debt service we are paying is not a good thing, we need to take part of that, or, and go on and on and on. Day-to-day business, I don't understand what the priorities should be, but I'm more than willing to vote on changing allocations and budgets or whatever statutory responsibility I have in order to make the institution function consistent with what the leadership says. >> DR. DAVID BEA: Okay. So I want to clarify. There are a couple of things you said there, okay, yeah, we're doing that. So if we need to pay certain positions more and the class comp structure identifies, yes, that's merited, we're having a problem hiring, we don't need to go back to the board to do that. Operationally, we can figure out mechanisms and we have mechanisms in place to do that. What happens though is that then gets folded into this boring budget, right, and so the increased costs that we might have for having additional costs for hard-to-fill faculty or something like that, that's not a strategic decision to me. That is, okay, you've  got to do what you've got to do. I mean, I'm not saying I make it on my own. I'm saying the mechanisms in place identify that we need to invest more in aviation faculty, or right now the department chair structure is in the works. That may have additional costs in it. It's not going to be something that on the side we need to come back to the board on. It's something that it's like, yeah, I'm not saying it wouldn't go to the board, I'm saying the budget would be structured to either have to absorb that or we would fold it in the next year and then I would say to you, as you guys all talked about last year, we're adding additional money to fund up that particular type of faculty. So that's on the smaller dollar end of the spectrum. Again, something big like a building would be more obvious. >> MR. GREG TAYLOR: So in those scenarios that you outlined, then, would I you understand it correctly that the third one is essentially Interim Chancellor and then your recommendation in terms of a budget that would address your current priorities, which include the structural deficit that we have and then wanting to make sure we have enough dollars to move forward with the types of increases and things that can pay competitively, all that? >> DR. DAVID BEA: And I might say, some of the things I'd say, there is an unlimited number of things, some of those are things that are good, right? Deferred maintenance, yeah, it's hard to sell it, because, oh, no one wants to do that, but you've got to do it. If we set the budget structure up better, it gives us more  resources to be able to make and adapt to those kinds of things as they come up. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: If I may, a comment, perhaps we could strategize on five to seven priorities as possible initiatives, David, I don't know what you think about that, and then go from there? >> DR. DAVID BEA: Yes, but I think what I could do is probably just go through even off the cuff right now and say things that you guys just were talking about. So addressing the structural deficit in athletics, like, that is a strategic decision. I have sort of said how to do it, and yeah, semantics on how you say it, but that's, like, clearly from my standpoint, that is my recommendation to the board. We need to address the structural deficit we have. It's creating problems, and it's only going to get worse. So it has a series of recommendations related to it. Happy to sort of put those forward as priorities, like, including it is a priority to give people another year of experience. It's not a requirement. We don't have to do that. That's our recommendation of something I think is a base-smart thing to do. Dolores I think would agree with that. We have talked about that one, right, so that's not news. The other different things like the, when it comes down to it at the end, it's also how many positions are you reducing? And the deeper you go, the harder it's going to be for the institution. So creating a healthy balance to that is somewhat of a strategic  decision, and how we play that out, whether you do it through attrition and you have it through a period of time, that's also kind of strategic. It again is not sexy. It's not anything lovely. But none of this would say that we can't do normal, small-dollar things that are important and strategic in addressing current needs. This budget doesn't have the ability to do something like build a giant building. >> MR. GREG TAYLOR: So I guess just in my thinking and, you know, when you talk about there being an infinite number of possibilities, I agree. So my question back would be, as senior leadership of the college, my hope is that you're filtering those infinite number of possibilities, and what you're bringing to us as a recommendation is, yeah, we could do an infinite number of things but these are the ten things we need to do, whatever number it is, these are the ten things we need to do next year, and this is the budget that's going to allow us to do it, which is why we're recommending it. But if I'm understanding that correctly, that's the third one that you presented, right? >> DR. DAVID BEA: I think that's the best model, yes, but I know the board is hesitant on the tuition and the tax increases, and I do think that creating a slightly healthier budget would be good. The reason why is when we implemented class comp, the estimates for how much that was going to cost to implement were a little low. So we have absorbed a pretty big increase in class and  compensation the last couple of years. It's all for good things. It's all for good reasons. But structurally we're on the edge, and the big challenge is that with all the building that we're doing, all the big capital projects we're doing, that operational change that we absorbed is not as obvious. If we were not doing any buildings at the time, you'd be, like, oh, wait, things got worse. And things got worse. So structurally this would set us up to be in a healthier place long term. It's not anything I'd say you need to worry about, but I just think it would be a good reset to get ourselves structurally a little bit healthier. Scenario C, or the third scenario, is a better version. The other thing is that, like, the recommendations on compensation, you know, if the employees' expectation -- I'm just going to throw numbers, whatever. If there was so much pressure that people were, like, we need a 10% increase, for us to turn around and say, yeah, you get a year of experience and maybe a minimum increase would be misaligned. If that kind of pressure was out there, and again, for anyone hearing me, that doesn't mean I'm not hearing you want more, I get it, but I'm saying if there was pressure like that, the recommendation would be to have higher compensation increases up front. It would be, okay, we need -- it's just we did big compensation increases, and right now the issue is we have too many staff for the size of our enrollment. So the idea is, okay, let's take it, take the size of the  enrollment, or the size of the staffing down in a healthy, nonpainful way, and then be able to address the other issues as in a normal course of business. >> MR. GREG TAYLOR: The last question, just in the vein of strategy driving the budget, not budget driving the strategy, I understand why there is that line in the spreadsheet around staffing reductions, because that's what you need to do to make the math work, right? But I worry in doing it that way, because let's say with -- 22 is on the screen, so let's just say it's 22, because we would need 22 to level out that budget, are we overstaffed by 22 people? Or are we overstaffed by 30 or by 10? So how does the actual reality of it factor into the -- >> DR. DAVID BEA: We are overstaffed by way more than 20. So the thought behind this -- first of all, you're looking at it and you're saying, yeah, it's a plug number, and I sort of said that. It isn't really a plug number, because if we weren't talking about, if we hadn't made all the lead-in based on the metrics of how many staff versus benchmarks versus our historical norms, if we hadn't all those conversations before now, that wouldn't be a normal line. That's not a normal line. If you go back four years, there is not a line -- well, because there was a time when we were reducing. I may have gone too far. But three years ago you wouldn't have seen that number as a plug line. It's not a standard plug line. That's a plug line that's acknowledging the fact that by all the  metrics and the benchmarking and the conversations we have had, we are overstaffed for the size of our enrollment. So let's ratchet that down. And when you guys, if you get time to play with it, one of the things that I did, so I put in some little color codings in there where, if you put in numbers that are too big, it starts flagging out that that's probably too big. 75, to reduce by 75 in a year, not likely. We have shown you some of the retention numbers, but attrition numbers over time, and the attrition numbers that were expected due to normal retirements. So normal attrition is about 150 positions a year. So if you said that we're going to reduce by more than 75, say, just, I mean, I just picked that number, but that's half, right, of what our normal attrition is. That's saying that we are expecting in the budget that half of the positions that go vacant this year, we are going to close, that's going to put a fair amount of pressure on the college, because we're not picking the positions. We are going, retirements happen, we are only filling half of them. Well, a lot of retirements that happen, you have to fill the position. So if you just are ballparking half, that's a fair amount of pressure. So going above that would be uncomfortable. 20 positions? We should be doing that every year. >> MR. GREG TAYLOR: So for what it's worth in terms of feedback that we can factor in here, I feel like that still doesn't get to where, because if the amount of positions would be reduced as based  on people who are retiring from those positions, that's still an arbitrary, like, just because someone is retiring from that position doesn't mean that we need or don't need the position. What I'm asking is when or where is the analysis being done of all of the existing positions to decide whether that position is necessary or not, regardless of whether it's vacant or not? >> DR. DAVID BEA: So we have shown you information about sort of the college's metrics. The number is way more than 150. The college's financial structure is not dire to the point where I'm saying let's go deep to what the metrics say. Let's go back to the staffing levels that we're at in 2014, like, proportionately to the size of the enrollment. That would necessitate something like layoffs, and layoffs can be more strategic in the sense that you can identify what positions you think you can do without. What I'm saying is that the recommendation would be through attrition, you then know that you're expected to in a given year reduce by a certain number of positions, everybody, all the executives will have an idea of, okay, what does that mean for your area. It's not going to be proportional. It's going to be sort of split, because it's going to be heavier on the enrollment side on the things that are more student related. For example, the number of positions needed in facilities does not get changed at all by the number of enrollments you have. It's zero, right? It's based on the size of your facilities and the square footage that you have to cover and the deferred maintenance  issues you have going on, all that sort of thing. So the idea with this would be, okay, we're not in a dire situation, we're in a situation we know we're overstaffed, so through natural attrition, let's start planning how to be better about the positions, look at what retirements you might have and go, how would you absorb that workload, how would you reorganize your unit to cover that sort of, and be able to reduce over time, but not be so -- it's certainly not intended to be this person leaves and they are doing something super-critical to the college and therefore the college falls apart because the one position you need is not being filled. That's not the idea. The idea is, okay, that one needs to be filled, so that means maybe you have to do two others over here when they become vacant, because then you figure out how to restructure and reorganize to continue to do the good service, the good work that we do, without falling apart. So it's going to take some doing, but I hate it because it sounds like when you allow it through attrition, that that is not strategic. It is if you're actually thinking ahead and you're saying, well, on average, you're going to have this many people leaving your unit. How are you going to constantly think about reorganizing or changing the work duties so that you cannot only handle that person leaving but then reduce the positions and the burden on the institution? That's the idea, and it's going to need to be done over time. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: When are we going to start talking about  PSESI? It sounds like if we need a new building, is that an option that we can just plug that in, or is that something that we're going to have to do more discussion? I mean, not, we're, I mean... do you understand what I'm saying? >> DR. DAVID BEA: Sort of. In terms of identifying that, yes, we want to do that, the board, the conversation is that -- I think there is some conversations and there is some proposals and ideas that have to be decided by the board. Say the board decides it, then it would be, okay, and how do you fund it? Then I come up, and I say, here are the different ways we can do that. The timing of it, what I would generally say, is that if we do a big building, the next set of big building projects, we have enough that we probably have to do around the college, we should start thinking about a GO bond. Then you're starting to talk about planning for something two to three years out before you're actually going to the voters, because you have to go to the voters for that. The benefit of revenue bonds is the college maintains the ability to do that. We have capacity to do that. I'm not sure that that would be the best thing to do for a singular building at this point. It was a thing that it made a lot of sense when we did the revenue bonds. We have some capacity to do some more that way. But if we were to decide to build PSESI without also thinking about having money available to reorganize other things at the college, to deal with some renovations or deferred maintenance that's happening, what my worry is is that we did one shiny project and neglected a  whole bunch of other stuff, and then you're going to be, like, this is a five-to-ten-years-out problem that you now have a five-to-ten- years-out problem. We really need to start thinking if there is a lot of interest in doing a couple of big capital projects, let's start talking about that, figuring out what big capital projects are particularly interesting, and then talk about how would we do that, whether it's GO bonds, and if it's GO bonds, then okay, let's go around the college and figure out what major other deferred maintenance projects we want to include in that. Because you don't want to go out to the voters for one-and-a-half buildings or something like that. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: So I heard you say three to more years? I think PSESI needs to move soon. You know, that was all of the talk that they are outgrowing that building where they currently are, so I think we'd be proactive to start having this discussion and get going on that whole idea instead of waiting for a couple of years to start the conversation. >> DR. DAVID BEA: So sort of to clarify a little bit, the initial idea with PSESI was that there was money in the revenue bonds project. It was a fairly small amount of money to do some renovations and to create some space from currently existing space. That morphed into a state-of-the-art high-profile facility. I'm not judging one way or the other. I'm just saying the difference is there was a plan to do something relatively short term that turned into something more significant. The much more significant is, from  a resource standpoint, significantly more difficult to do. If we do that, then it's like, okay, now that's significantly -- also, let's throw out there we have the Drachman properties and what to do with that. That's going to cost money one way or the other. Some. It may not be a lot. But some would cost up to -- you know, and then more recently you have heard of another idea related to the cybersecurity facility that would be another high-profile thing. Again, now you're talking about if you did, say, those three things, easy to say -- again, we're talking, I think these are super-fancy. I don't think they need to be 30 million, but 30 million, 30 million, and 10 million, now you're talking $70 million. That's GO bonds. Then you're talking about what else needs to be done around the college? Now you're really talking about GO bonds and it's probably over 100 million. And I wouldn't do a GO bond if you're not talking about 100 million-plus for the size of our institution. It's just too hard to go out and get it all prepped. And then so if that's the leaning and that's how we want to go, do a comprehensive, we have multiple needs we have to do, which is what the major planning efforts are, then you go, okay, let's plan out when and how we're going to do that. Revenue bonds won't be sufficient to get them all done. We could do it. You'd get a fair chunk of money. Interest rates aren't what they used to be. I feel like an old man. Well, back in my day... (laughter). Back a few years ago, interest rates were  really reasonable. They are not so much now. So the costs of borrowing money for revenue bonds, when it's revenue bonds, would be more impactful on the college. Down sides are also revenue bonds are tied to enrollment, tied to tuition and contract. It's not property tax related. So our enrollment is down, we are already leveraged, some of our capacity for revenue bonds, it means that suddenly we're not quite as attractive because we are more heavily leveraging off of one revenue source as opposed to GO bonds where it's super-good credit because it's the taxpayers have voted for it. So at this point, if you're going to do one to two big projects, which I think is where things are heading, then you have to start thinking it's the really big thing. I have taken a bit more than an hour, it appears. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Any other questions? >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: It's not a question. It's a comment. If we initiate in reference to 2 or 3, new initiative in reference to building more, I think the other thing we need to do not only as a board but inform the public, as well, too, because they are the one that needs to be engaged on our projects, as well, too. But one of the things that I was thinking, it's nothing new, is we really need to, as Pima has done, promote it, but also engage the private sectors, I think not only locally but outside, as well, too. Because I think, as I have always said, and everybody here on the board has said that the investment we do now, it's for the investment  of the future, and I like the idea, but one of the big things that we all have to look at, because you mentioned it quite a few times, is the enrollment. I think the enrollment is a big factor. I know that sometimes we can do more if we have more students, but also, I think we need to somehow bring the students as well, too. But I do like the idea that as a board we need to sit down, and yourself, and everybody that needs to hear this around the table, what is more conducive, what is more cost-effective, what can we do within the three years or four years or five years. Because things are going to change in the next six months or so in reference to coming back to the re-election, and we might have three new board members in. See what other ideas they have, as well, too. But I just want to make a comment. I think if we do anything, we put it on the table, but let the community be informed, because I think it's a good idea, a lot of good ideas, but the big thing is the enrollment that we have and we really need to make it a top priority in that. >> DR. DAVID BEA: I totally agree. One of the advantages, challenges but advantages to GO bonds is that you have to engage the community and show the vision of what you're doing and get them to buy into the idea and that they like the vision and they support the vision financially. That's the big advantage of GO bonds. And the downside to  revenue bonds is that you can sort of do it. You know, we did it certainly with the public being aware, but the board has more authority with revenue bonds to do a project that the board is just interested in. Doesn't have to have as much community engagement in it. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Okay. Thank you. >> DR. DAVID BEA: You're welcome. Thank you. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Now we're on to the second, Interim Chancellor's midyear review of her goals. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Yes. Thank you, Board Chair. Good evening, or I guess it's not quite evening yet, almost, so what I'd like to do before we start with review of the Interim Chancellor's goals is I'd like to give you an update on the strategic planning institutional target update. I believe you have received data on that. So these slides take highlights from the data you received over the weekend. So as part of the strategic plan, we have established two institutional goals, and the institutional goal is Achieve60 Pima County. Everybody is familiar with Achieve60AZ, but for Pima County, it's by 2030, 60% of Pima residents ages 25 to 64 will hold a postsecondary credential or degree. If we go on to the next slide, we see progress on the institutional target 1, which is increased completer counts by 6,000 by 2024/2025. If we go to the next slide, we see the target 2, double completer counts of Hispanic or Latino, American Indian,  Alaskan Native, and Black and African American learners by 2024/2025. So here we're looking at American Indian and Alaskan Native completers, and you can see there has been a decrease, if you look at the next one, next slide, we have Black or African American completers. You can see the trend there. And I'll explain why we think this is taking place right now. Next slide, we look at Hispanic/Latino completers. Next slide, before I go on to that, we believe that some of this decrease has to do with the pandemic. We had students that had a learning loss and did not come to the institution. We have been seeing an increase recently about that. Another is what we need to do is examine our policies and practices through data analysis and looking at the inequities, examining also our student transfer experience, making sure students are getting on planners and collaborating with the universities. We are looking at culturally responsive curriculum. Holistic support services to students. Increasing dual enrollment, student transition to the college. We're in the process of restructuring PimaOnline and also program review that's data-informed, as I mentioned earlier in Dave's presentation. One example of what we are doing something positive regarding this is through Pima College's Excelencia in Education, and Excelencia in Education accelerates Latino student success, enhancing workforce leadership and the economy. So here are some bullet points. We have the partnership. I also  belong to, as a founding member, of the statewide Arizona his Consortium. I will be co-presenting at the AZ transfer summit regarding his, state-based his consortiums, models for developing communities of practice. It's not only a Pima team but also statewide. We're partnering with the University of Arizona on other his initiatives. For example, we'll be hosting this year the 2024 his Grants Development Institute with the U of A. We are training and having professional development opportunities for faculty for culturally responsive pedagogy. We are also working at the Desert Vista Campus, in April we will be holding a partnership with English and Spanish first-generation parent sessions, because I personally believe that education is a family decision, and the more parents are involved and participating with their children, the more access and the more promotion of their children to complete is evident. We are increasing his grants at the institution, so we have three different grants. Strive Online Title V grant that helps serve our PimaOnline students. East Campus has an his-STEM IT Knowledge in Context project. And Pima and U of A have a STEM Bridge project. We are also intentionally diversifying our job applicant pools. We're also promoting jobs in Excelencia in Education. So this is just one example of what we're doing to help with the institutional targets of the institution. Now I'd like to continue with the actual goals, and I have asked  for the goal owners to join me in giving a brief update on each of their goals and subgoals. There are a couple of people who weren't able to join us today, but we do have, for our first goal, we will continue with Jeff Thies on accreditation, preparing the college for the accreditation assurance argument. We can close the slides. Thank you. >> JEFF THIES: Good evening, Chairperson Riel, board members, Interim Chancellor Duran-Cerda, colleagues and guests. So chancellor goal 1 progress, as you have seen in the past, we're making great progress on this particular goal. There is three main components to this goal. The first was the additional locations work that started last summer and worked through the fall. The second is the creation of what we call our assurance argument. That's the big report, has the different components in it. Then the last is just preparing all of us for the visit that's coming in December of 2024. So with respect to the additional locations, we have completed all of that work, so that segment of it is 100% done. However, there has been additional work that we have recognized and so we created a task force in the fall that's been working through the fall and early in the spring to create an administrative procedure so the challenges we were faced with last spring don't happen again. So we'll have an administrative procedure, standard operating procedure that goes with that, as well. Additionally, we are looking at tying our additional locations to  our branch campuses. We have a branch campus report that's part of this work as well, so making sure that we have a clear process for identifying our additional sites and how they connect to our various branch campuses. So the assurance argument, we are about a little over halfway done with the assurance argument. If you have been to any of our Town Halls or looked on the website, we have the five criterion plus we have the federal compliance. Those six have gone through the whole phase of being reviewed, absorbing the comments, collecting that information, making edits. So we are really close to saying those chapters are very close to being finished. Once we are ready to pull those all together and give it a single voice, we will be doing that here and plan to have that full report done by May of 2024. The other components we are still working through that are part of that larger report are the embedded reports, so we have an embedded report -- we have two embedded reports. One is the additional locations, other one for ODR. Those are due the end of March, the first drafts of those, so they will go through that same cycle of review and updates, as well, moving forward. Then last is just preparation. We had the premock visit back in December. Since then, we have created short, multiple-page kind of Q&A-type documents for different levels of the institution. We have ones for the board. I know you all have had that, and we've started having meetings where we actually review that information, as well.  Leadership prep sessions for the visit. Monthly Town Halls, we have one coming up in March on the 14th, Pi Day, 2:00 to 8:00, at West Campus. I believe that's our last one. Let's see. There was one more piece. Just in general, kudos to Wendy Weeks for leading this effort. She's done an incredible job. If you've been to the Town Halls, there is a lot of people supporting that effort, faculty, staff, administrators, part of the writing teams, part of the Town Hall visits, and part of the preparation for the next visit. That was the last one. So September we have the mock visit, right. We did the premock in December. Friday, September 6, we will have the regular mock visit in preparation for the December visit from HLC. Any questions? >> DR. WADE McLEAN: How are we doing with the HLC concerns regarding dual enrollment? >> JEFF THIES: So that comes through the additional locations. So we have had visits all at the end of last summer and early spring and part of the additional site locations. So dual enrollment is a major part of the additional sites, but we also have, through workforce, other additional sites, so prisons, or for added business, those types of things. We have an AP that's getting created, but in the intermediate, we have also been doing administrative visits, so either myself, Michael Parker, our vice provost for academic affairs, or Morgan Phillips, vice chancellor for academic excellence, are going around  and visiting every high school that we have a dual enrollment partnership with, along with James and his team. We are having the strategic conversation. Not the, hey, I need this for the fall or, hey, I need this to happen real soon. That's kind of James' and his team's work. What we are doing in the provost office is having a strategic view as where do you want to see dual enrollment at your particular site? Does that mean we need to create you as an additional site? Because that's something we have to do through HLC. We are really trying to have that pathways conversation. Today I was out at Santa Rita High School visiting with their principal and CTE director for TUSD, along with their team, to have those conversations about we are going to have this new AGEC, right, in two years, so fall of '26, what they recall is our AGEC, or Arizona Gen Ed Curriculum, is going to be changing. The tweaks that happen there, how does that reflect in what we do with dual enrollment. HLC has shifted the faculty qualifications, so we have an internal group that's working at, led by Kate Schmidt and faculty, to look at our faculty qualifications process, because HLC has tweaked theirs enough where that provides us with the opportunity to take a second look at the processes we follow to see if there is opportunities to increase the value of teachers that are out there that could teach for us, adjunct faculty, full-time faculty, or through dual enrollment.  >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Are you getting cooperation from the sites? >> JEFF THIES: Yes, absolutely. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: So when I attended the first Town Hall last August, I noticed that they had, each of those groups, had quite a few things that they need at the college to fix, address, you know, whatever. When I went to the one last week here, I noticed -- I didn't stay for the whole meeting. I have been to all of them, but I didn't stay for, except for that first day, for the whole thing. But I noticed that the questions, many of the questions that they asked, the items that they needed in August are still information they need now. So my question was why haven't you got those answers yet from the college, from the administration? And what I was told -- that was for the first one, for the federal compliance -- what I was told, well, it is in the process, and some of these answers will be due in April and some will be due in August. So what Wade just asked you -- this is a long thing, right? When HLC comes to us and they say, what do you know about the extra sites, right? If we haven't been told in enough advance so we can sink into our brains, we're all old up here, so it takes more than one -- well, not you. >> JEFF THIES: Sorry, Greg. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: No Greg. But he's got children, so he's the same boat as us, he needs time to absorb all this stuff, right? So my question is if we actually wait until April or May or  August to fix these things and then you're expecting all of us to be, everybody, right, at the college, everybody needs to be able to answer these questions, so my suggestion is, I'm encouraging everybody to maybe up your deadlines. Instead of, you know, finishing it all in April or in August, let's try to finish it a lot sooner than that so we can start understanding what's happening >> JEFF THIES: Absolutely. I'll take that back and we will work with the different groups who oversee the different criteria. I know one of the pieces is we have actually created several new APs, and they are going through our AP process, so that may be where the April dates are coming from. They go through the governance process, and then they get reviewed, legal sends them out for the 21 days and all that, so there is a little bit of time on those. The other evidence pieces we will follow up on, as well. Because you're right. You don't want to be not knowing at the mock visit the things you should already know and have to get all this information flooded at you at once. It should be scaffolded. As soon as we have it, we should be getting it in your hands, and we will work on that. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: There are some APs that were submitted just recently, a whole bunch of them. We are getting caught up. >> JEFF THIES: Any other questions? >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Thank you. >> JEFF THIES: You're welcome. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Thank you, Jeff.  Next we're going to talk about the second goal, which is increasing enrollment, and since Phil Burdick couldn't join us today, Dr. Irene Robles-Lopez will be providing that quick update. >> DR. IRENE ROBLES-LOPEZ: Good evening, everyone. Thank you. So what Phil wanted to share with you all is here is a snapshot of the recruitment goals. So he does have the percentages of what he was looking for for first-day enrollment and head count. 3% increase for '24/'25 fall applications being completed. Fall yield percentage, which would actually be application to registration. And then of course fall dual enrollment student increases, as well. So that's just a snapshot of what his goals are for recruitment. So with that, we see that student applications, if we look back at fall '21, fall '22, and fall '23, fall '21, there was a 1% decrease in student applications, and fall '22 and fall '23 there has been an increase in student applications, which is positive. Over looking at first-day fall enrollment, we do see that over those last five terms, there has been an increase in enrollment. So part of what I wanted to share that's not part of Phil's slides is this really has been, through collaboration through several units across the college working together, to make sure that we are creating the best experience for students when they walk onto the campus, when they go through the enrollment process, and then the registration process, as well. So we do have a first-year experience for our students as they come into the college. That would be their onboarding. It's the  same as their new-student orientation. We make sure that they connect with their program advisor, that they are getting to see a familiar face. So with that, it's several units across the college, along with our Super Saturday events that really focus on making sure we are there for students and able to answer their questions. So that part has to do specifically with enrollment. Another aspect that we are looking at and making sure that we are retaining our students is some of the other work that we are doing. So right now we have two initiatives, two pilot programs that we are working on, so one of them is the first-generation student initiative. Right now with the data that we have, approximately 35%, 30% of our students are first-generation students. We know that oftentimes these students don't have the context for being able to maneuver through college, the expectations, what about if they have questions, what about if they run into any challenges. So we have an initiative where we are specifically focusing on them. That is done through the Garcia grant, which is a grant that we received two years ago. We are going into year 3 through the League of Innovation in collaboration with them. We also have another initiative, which is the male minority initiative. As we saw in the data for Achieve60AZ, that is the population where we know that we are having a bit more challenge in getting them to come to the college and then helping us retain them. So we also have an initiative focused on specifically reaching  out to those students, helping them make a connection, and really helping create a sense of belonging. So with that, it leads into goal 3, which is the one that I oversee. Do you have any questions? >> DR. WADE McLEAN: I'm wondering, we have a big emphasis on minority recruitment. Do we have any information on the impact of dual enrollment as it pertains to those students not enrolling in Pima College as a full-time student in gen ed? The kids that are going to walk out of high school with an associate of arts degree or equivalent aren't going to go to Pima, and we don't get any tuition from those students, and are we shooting ourselves in the foot because we're allowing them to get a degree from the institution without paying for it? Has that had a negative impact on our enrollment? Just a question. >> DR. IRENE ROBLES-LOPEZ: Thank you. That's an excellent question. I don't know if Jeff Thies would like to answer that or our chancellor? >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Jeff, just give us an interim answer. (Laughter.) >> JEFF THIES: Interim, okay. (Laughter.) So one of the greater challenges is actually the University's adjustments to who they go down and grab, right? So they are now looking to capture students they would have not have brought in in  the past to meet that need. So the majority of our dual enrollment students are capturing anywhere from 9 to 12 credits. We have very few that actually complete their full associate's degree with us. So I don't think it's a challenge yet. I think if you expand models like the early college high school, which isn't quite the same, because Vail does have a different partnership because that's co-enrolled instead of dual-enrolled. That may be a challenge, but that is one of the conversations we're having as we visit. If they want the full AGEC course block, which is the general ed curriculum, about 36 credits that automatically transfer to the University of Arizona, that will be one of those pieces we will have to be looking at, are we losing that group. They've got the gen ed block through dual enrollment, and now they go straight into the University and not have to worry about that gen ed piece. We're not getting the numbers there yet where the students have that many credits. A lot of high schools still have a blended AP dual enrollment approach. Going back to the minority piece of it, the increase of our dual enrollment, especially in high schools that are more predominantly minority students, has actually helped support those students to go to college, and so we think the win is more on that end right now at this point, meaning more of them involved in college in high school, and thus they decide that that is something they want to pursue, right, they have said, look, I can be successful at this college  thing, maybe I will go on, that capture right there is the greater amount at this point. But it is a concern long-term. If you ramp it up and do it so well, you're not capturing any tuition from that group. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: I'm going to assume that two of the most popular dual enrollment courses are in English and math. >> JEFF THIES: Yep. Comp I, Comp II, and college algebra. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: And so we automatically lose that tuition when those students would have been first-year Pima College students after they graduated from high school. >> JEFF THIES: Absolutely. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: So an aside is if -- did you call it AGEC -- >> JEFF THIES: Yes. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: -- gets rewritten, and those students are in high school AP classes that are getting dual enrollment credit, what's that curriculum going to look like? Because the AP curriculum is much different than the high school curriculum, it's probably much different than the community college curriculum. >> JEFF THIES: Yeah, so the AP is exactly like you said. So that's the conversation high schools are having internally, right? Do we offer AP in composition or do we offer dual enrollment? If they offer dual enrollment, they're using our curriculum. If they're offering AP, obviously they're using the AP curriculum. The big change is they don't have to pay for dual enrollment, and if they earn a grade, that grade sticks. They take AP, A, they've  got to go pay to take a test, although the district might cover it, I think TUSD does a lot of that, but if they don't pass it, oftentimes to retake it, they're going to pay for it. If they do pass it, the institution they go to may not accept it, if they earn a 3 out of 5 or 4 out of 5. It all depends on the receiving institution, the value they place on it. So we are seeing more high schools are moving away from the AP and towards the dual enrollment. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Nationwide, right? >> JEFF THIES: Yeah. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: So I think it's more of an issue than just celebrating our dual enrollment that we have to really dive down and take a look at what the impact is. >> JEFF THIES: The capture rate, how many of them come to Pima is a big piece, because that's where we are going to recruit, you know, any losses, plus the community good that it does for them to complete. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: So Irene is going to continue with goal 3, enhancing a culture of care, and she is the goal owner for this one. >> DR. IRENE ROBLES-LOPEZ: Thank you. And so with this particular goal, again, looking at enhancing the culture of care for students, for our employees, really for the Pima Community, so with the most recent survey that was sent out which was a community students survey, there were 42,000 e-mails that were sent out. So you can also see the percentage, 13,000, 32% opened the  e-mail. 300, which is approximately 5%, clicked through it, indicating that they interacted with the survey but didn't necessarily complete the survey. Then we did have 200 people that actually completed that survey. So that data will be looked at, it will be analyzed to see what feedback it is that we're getting from folks that would help improve enhancing the culture of care. We also have identified or selected diversity, equity, and an inclusion survey of employees, and so that one will run along with the College Employee Satisfaction Survey, which is usually done every three to four years, so that will be another part of that process. All of the surveys and analysis will be completed by May of this semester. The next phase after the surveys is our listening sessions. So this is something that is really important to us, because we want to hear from folks. We want to know exactly what it is that they are thinking, what it is that they would like for us to know, and so with that, we are offering three different sessions. So these are, we try to differ the times, the days, all of them are identical, all will be virtual, again, trying to be as flexible as possible to have as many people participate. So folks are welcomed to attend any of them, so really the goal for these sessions are for us to listen, to reflect, collaborate, gather, and flourish. With that, again, it's that positive intent, it's welcoming the feedback from individuals, and so we do have the dates there. You all are welcome.  We do have the Zoom links. We didn't include them in here, because it took up a little bit too much space. But if you didn't receive that and would like to join, we'd be more than happy to be able to share that with you. So at this point the completion rate for this goal is at 33%, and so the actual plan for the goal is at 100%, but the implementation part of it is at 33%. So again, we are on track to have this completed and are really looking forward to hearing and seeing the feedback that we get from folks. Does anyone have any questions? >> MS. THERESA RIEL: No, thanks. But I'm just interested, not right now, but I'm looking forward to seeing what you asked, what kind of questions you asked, because what you ask determines what kind of answers you'll get. So that would be -- thank you. >> DR. IRENE ROBLES-LOPEZ: Yes, absolutely. Thank you. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Thank you, Irene. For our final -- and I think you have received a bit of the budget explanation earlier today, but we have the improve effectiveness with Dr. Dave Bea. And I believe Nic Richmond is also joining us online, virtually. >> DR. DAVID BEA: She's certainly available. Good evening again. We have spent a fair amount of time talking about budget development and cost-savings ideas. Some of the things are spelled out a bit more in this report, some of the different cost-savings ideas.  Think about those. Those aren't just for this coming year. Those are for the next few years and identifying different things that we will be talking about exploring and so forth. With that, I will ask if the board has any questions. I know we have already talked ad nauseam about these things for an hour and 40 minutes. And I presented to you last week, so there you go. Thank you. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Thank you, Dave. And I did forget Ian Roark, because Ian was going to present as part of the enrollment goal. >> DR. IAN ROARK: Good evening, board chair, Governing Board members present and virtual, Chancellor Duran-Cerda, colleagues and guests, including those watching virtually. Goal 2B is a subset of the primary goal 2 that Irene talked about on behalf of our colleague, Phil Burdick, and also her role in that. 2B really focuses, is a subset of a strategic plan goal that extends into 2025 under our current strategic plan that also helps better position the institution to meet the needs of adult learners and new majority learners in the community. As people are living longer and working longer and changing jobs more often, we can also be that place where people return to time and time again for the education and training that they want to better improve their family and household lives and have new opportunities for gainful employment in our growing labor market. There is a number that I'm going to talk about that's a macro  number that troubles me every day I see it or think about it or look it up to see if it's changed, and that is the labor force participation rate in Pima County. In the history of our country and the history of the county, back in the '70s, '80s, '90s, labor participation rates were upwards of 80%, 70%. Then we saw drastic decline starting in the mid-'90s, then with the great recession of collapse, and labor force participation rate in the United States of America is at the lowest point that it's ever been. This is not the unemployment rate. These are people who have been out of work for one year or longer who could be working between the ages of 25 and 64. In Pima County, it is now at a historical low of 58%. That means 58% of the people who could be working are chronically long term unemployed. The new models for new majority learners that we talk about in this strategic initiative are targeted to address that population and others. How do we give people real systems and processes through our programming that offers the same high-quality programming that are taught by our faculty in our programs, at our campuses, and in our centers of excellence, but in a way, as Chancellor Duran-Cerda and chancellor likes to say, the institution is orienting around their needs, we are becoming more learner friendly. There are many different models that we can scale and launch, and many of these things have been occurring as add-ones for some years, but the three that were targeted in the strategic plan goal are the IBEST program through Adult Basic Education for College and Career.  That is where individuals who have not earned their high school diploma take both a CTE workforce program and earn their GED at the same time, not one after another. They are co-enrolled and have co-instruction. The second is work-base learning up to and including apprenticeship, and we want to see more what's called related technical instruction coming out of apprenticeship. Not to get too into the weeds, unless questions are asked about it, but in order for something to be a registered apprenticeship at the state or federal level, enrollment in a college program as part of that training regimen is actually required by the federal government, and there are employer benefits related to that. The goal specifically here is that sometimes learners will come to us even with an apprenticeship, but we did not have a way to know if they were coming to us because of the requirement of their apprenticeship or they were just generally enrolling. So that's the second one we have targeted for scaleability. The third, and the one that seems to have the most stickiness, if you will, in terms of the people wanting this type of programming is of course Pima FastTrack. These things are newer, and so in the 55-year history of the institution, and Dave spoke about it very well, we are very large, we have a lots of processes oriented around our fall, spring, summer, repeat regimen we have at the institution, and for these adult learners, that sort of traditional system does not always work well for them.  So the processes on which the institution runs are baked in over many decades of evolution. When we try to insert something new, it's usually as an add-on, but in order for these things to scale, we have to change significant systems and processes at the institution, and the details in the document have listed some of those already underway that we have accomplished with respect to Banner changes and changes of working with deans and faculty and how we schedule and integrate scheduling of these types of offerings better. So we are well on our way to more than just planting the seeds for the future enrollment growth we know can come from these initiatives. The numbers for this baseline year will not be monumental compared to the mainstay of the institution. But given the demand that we have seen compared to the numbers of courses and learners that we are actually serving and the disconnect between that, we know that there is future enrollment growth from these models and others moving forward. I know you have had the document. I know you have had the opportunity I hope to review it, and we are late in the evening, so if there are any specific questions about these or others under that banner of the chancellor 's goal, I'd love to report out on it. Currently we are at 66% of the enrollment on the approved KPIs that you have approved form interim chancellor's goals back at the beginning of the academic year. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Thank you. Dr. Roark, I do have a question for you. When I first met you  the very first time you told me that there had been 2,000 people call and they were interested, and we just didn't have the manpower to touch and reach the educational needs of all of those people. Then recently I heard too that the way that the system, and I don't know if it's Banner or if it's college admissions or whatever, my question for you is would it help you, do you guys have, like, a team, a committee to work on these problems so they are being ameliorated sooner than later so we don't run into those kind of situations where students just get frustrated and they don't matriculate because they are frustrated with the -- I don't know if it's the website or the admittance process. So my question I guess is twofold. Are we still in that same situation where we have more interest than we can actually take care of? And if there are problems, do you have a committee to help ameliorate those so they are not problems as far as getting into the door? >> DR. IAN ROARK: I think I need to address that at two levels. The first is at the strategic goal level, and the second is at the tactical or operational level. So there is a strategic plan goal that this is also a part of -- sorry, my mouth is dry. At the strategic plan goal, I don't have the wordy goal memorized, but it's reorienting the institution to focus on the needs of adult learners and adult new majority learners, and to clarify, that's all adults, not just those enrolled in adult basic education.  We have nicknamed that No Wrong Doors, because we don't want there to be, there should be no wrong door at the institution, whether that's through the website or whether that's when somebody interfaces with somebody they are getting services from at one of the campuses or virtually, they should be able to know all of their different opportunities and all of these different offerings. So I could pick any one of the programs, for example, automotive technology. We have an apprenticeship in automotive technology. We have dual enrollment automotive technology, and we have Pima FastTrack in automotive technology, and we have prior learning assessment available in automotive technology. Just insert "program" and that's the case for many programs. But the current system is not maximized so that all learners at all times know about all of those options that are available for them. The reason why we nicknamed it No Wrong Door is that on average, a full 50% of the learners who actually sign up for a Pima FastTrack decline and enroll in the credit-bearing program instead. The reason is when they look at the schedule for a FastTrack, which requires more hours under a shorter period of time and longer days, it doesn't work well for them. So Pima FastTrack typically is oriented to those who are long-term unemployed and don't have necessarily either household or work obligations. So many learners actually opt to enroll in the other. We want to see that expand, and so we're working  cross-functionally with academic affairs, with student affairs, and with that strategic plan goal, and there is a strategic plan team that is working through that particular goal. At the operational level, the issues have been identified and it will take some years to fix every single issue that is causing us not to maximize that potential enrollment. It's going to be more and more critical and more and more people are really embracing this because of the passage of Senate Bill 1400, and that's another thing we are implementing and must implement, but it's not on a chancellor's goal but it's related, right, because it supports it. Senate Bill 1400 now allows for all of those sorts of offerings including what you have seen at Gospel Rescue Mission, which you've seen at the centers and which you've seen with FastTracks at the campuses on the various tours we have taken you on. That now counts for full-time student equivalent and there's a revenue source, although it's not from the state, those are funded large part by public workforce dollars, employer pay, or self-pay on the part of learners, and some scholarshipping. So there is a revenue source for it, and it also increases the FTSE footprint of the institution. We have right now done a 50% -- and I'm going to get back to your other question with some numbers that are stark, and they should challenge us to actually address these systemic issues more holistically, and I believe that we will. I believe we are at a better place. But right now, just on a back-of-the-napkin estimate we had to do  for Senate Bill 1400, this is the first year that that's been law and we are already estimating 150 FTSE at this point in time in the academic year. That's new. It's not monumental, but for the first time out the gate, that just shows the growth potential with respect to FTSE for these sorts of offerings. That's for noncredit workforce training, specifically the new category that we, Pima, helped establish in law for the state of Arizona. Here's the numbers now. Since we launched in October and had to pull up, so I got these accurate, these are as of January 31, 2024, and we launched Pima FastTrack in October of 2021. We have now had 5,339 total requests by real people for information on Pima FastTrack. Then now, 992 information sessions attended by people. 606 one-on-one advising sessions. Those usually occur with a team called the corporate community navigators that were work cross-functionally with student affairs, and then 352 enrolled. 5,539 reachouts for direct information. 352 enrolled. So there is potential there. It's not going to be all 5,000, but that enrollment funnel, I'm being very transparent about it in a public setting, because that is a challenge, that enrollment funnel needs to not be so wide and needs to be a lot cleaner with respect to how many of those initial entrants we can get into these programs, and I'm convinced that working collaboratively and cross-functionally like we have been with these areas and others across the institution, that we will meet that demand.  Again, the numbers and the goals seem small for these initial years, but that's because there are a lot of systems and processes that were never oriented to serving this particular demographic or this particular model, and we now have plans and processes in place to address most if not all of the systemic barriers that we see. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: So are we cooperating with OneStop, Pima County OneStop? >> DR. IAN ROARK: To a large degree this college has been celebrated nationally with respect to how integrated we are, so I would say we are true partners, not just cooperative. Many of these learners, including those in the IBEST program and all in the FastTrack program, are co-enrolled in Arizona@Work Pima County. We actually have two team members from the workforce development team that are co-located in the public workforce systems job center, and we are collaborating right now with Pima County in the Downtown Campus with funding that the county attained from the federal government to establish a job center satellite at the Downtown Campus. What that will allow is the Downtown Campus to operate as a third job center for members of the community, will then be able to be brought on campus but also have access to federal financial aid, the WIOA dollars, and all of the various titles that come with that, as well as SNAP CAN, which is currently being implemented on a pilot basis through workforce development, and ABECC, adult basic education, but will be expanding to the entire institution. That's  another revenue source that will help offset the real expenses that many of our learners have with respect to childcare, transportation, food, clothing, and other needs. Any other questions? All right. Thank you very much. Hope you have a great evening. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Thank you, Ian. So you have heard the interim chancellor's goals. We have a description, all within the progress for reaffirmation of accreditation, increasing enrollment, and I hear you talk about that's a priority, a major priority for this board. So we are going to do our best to continue with focusing on increasing in enrollment and retention, of course, and completion, even postcompletion, after our students graduate or get a job. Enhancing a culture of care. Much of the work is being done, implemented, as Dr. Robles-Lopez said, this semester but it's been a work in progress and talking to folks on the campuses and through this transition, because there has been so much movement, and so healing and valuing the work of our employees at the college and the community. Then of course improving effectiveness that we focused on today. So it's been, it's not only the team, the folks that presented, but it's their teams and trickling on down to the faculty and the staff who work with our students every day. So it's a collective effort. What you see here is progress, and we're going to continue progressing, but if you have any feedback for us, we'd really  appreciate as well. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: If no final comments, I'm going to adjourn the meeting. Thank you all for being here. Meeting adjourned. (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. ********************************************* Sports-betting-marketing@resmedium.com 金沙官网 Crown-Sports-billing@fengxiangbia.com 浙江长征职业技术学院 足球外围平台 网赌平台 湖北大学知行学院 LOL-peripheral-betting-hr@tjakl.com 太阳城 Sports-betting-admin@cailunwang.com 虹桥商务区 Sport-Venetian-contactus@teleromwp.com 澳门皇冠体育 石家庄经济学院华信学院 新葡京 Macau-New-Portuguese-capital-hr@m3csl.net 洛阳社区 口碑营销 Crown-Sports-sales@ethoughts.net 光明家具 重庆商报电子报 吾谷网 丽水广播电视大学 上海易教网 钓友钓鱼网 四川成都中国青年旅行社 乔山健康科技有限公司 玉林赶集网 万方数据论文相似性检测 19楼番外 虾米音乐网 号令天下-手机号码交流网 藁城在线- 冒险岛心动发布网 中光防雷