[1. Certification of Notice Posted for the Meeting]
[00:00:11]
THIS OPEN MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES IS AUTHORIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, 551.001 THROUGH 551.146.
THIS OPEN MEETING OF THE BOARD VERIFICATION OF NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR.
PER TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.1282, THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST OVER THE INTERNET IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, 551.128.
[A. FY2019-2020 Budget Review Presenters: John Robertson, Tiska Thomas]
NOTICE WAS POSTED ON THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019, 1) IN A PLACE BOARD AT THE GEORGE ALLEN, SR.COURTS BUILDING, ALL AS REQUIRED BY THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.054.
>> BUDGET OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
THE TWO PEOPLE WHO WERE HERE ARE JOHN AND TISKA.
>> WE'LL GO THROUGH OUR PRESENTATION FIRST.
BUT YOU HAVE OUR COPY OF THE BUDGET BOOK.
WE CAN GO OVER THAT WITH ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEND THE TIME DOING THAT.
WE DON'T HAVE A TWO-HOUR PRESENTATION.
WE'RE NOT GOING BACK THROUGH THE WORKSHOP.
WE SAT THROUGH TWO DAYS, A DAY AND A HALF BEFORE.
THIS IS AN ABBREVIATIONS VERSION.
>> YOU ADDED A FEW THINGS BOARD MEMBERS REQUESTED TOO.
I WANTED TO ASSISTANT BY DOING A RECAP OF OUR ANTICIPATED REVENUES FOR FY20.
WE HAVE AN 8% INCREASE IN STAY APPROPRIATIONS, ADDICTED TO -- ASTRIBUTED TO US GAINING.
WE HAVE AN INCREASE IN SCHOLARSHIPS HERE.
A NET TUITION IS PRETTY MUCH FLAT.
BUT -- I'M SORRY, GROSS TUITION IS FLAT BUT OUR NET TUITION IS 106 MILLION.
FOR PROPERTY TAXES, THE TAV INCREASE WAS AVERAGING %.
WE HAVE $18 MILLION WORTH OF GAIN.
THE CERTIFIES VALUES CAME IN ON THE 25TH.
WE HAVE $2 BILLION WORTH OF PROPERTIES IN DISPUTED.
WE'RE DIGGED 278 MILLION BUT WE COULD STAND TO SEE 2.5 TO 3.5 DEPENDING ON THE DISPUTES.
BUT OUR TOTAL ESTIMATED OPERATING REVENUE GOES UP BY 20 MILLION AS OPPOSED TO 24.7 MILLION? HOW DO WE GET THOSE LINE-UP?
>> WE DID HAVE A SLIGHT ADDRESS FOR NET TUITION DUE TO THE INCREASE IN SCHOLARSHIPS.
WE HAVE 3.$8 MILLION IN GROSS TUITION.
>> WE ALSO DID NOT, WE HAD OTHER REVENUE GO DOWN.
OUR FORECAST FOR INTEREST RATES IS DECLINING.
OUR INVESTMENT RETURNS OR YIELDS, WHAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN THE LAST YEAR.
THE 10 YEAR RECORD CURVE THIS PAST WEEKS.
THAT'S ONE OF THE BENCHMARKS WE LOOK AT TO SEE WHAT INTEREST REALITIES ARE GOING TO DO.
>> ARE YOU THE HIGH, MIDDLE OF THE DISPUTED VALUES?
>> THEY HAVE 4.6 BILLION IN DISPUTED VALUES.
THAT'S THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT AMOUNT.
THE OWNERS IS $2 BILLION LESS THAN THAT.
DEPENDING ON HOW THOSE SETTLE OUT IT COULD BE AS MUCH AS A BILLION DOLLAR DROP.
HOWEVER, WE'VE TAKEN THAT SOMEWHAT INTO CONSIDERATION, OUR ACTUAL REVENUE.
IF WE LOSE ALL 2 BILLION, WE MIGHT BE IN A OVER BUDGET ON TAX REVENUE.
I WISH I COULD SAY I COULD TELL YOU BY HISTORY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
SOMETIMES IT'S UP, SOMETIMES IT'S DOWN.
>> WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TAXES, HERE'S THE SLIDE ON LOCAL SUPPORT.
THE AVERAGE MARKET VALUE FOR HOMES INCREASED BY 8%.
AND IT'S RELATIVELY STABLE WITH 7.8%.
I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO GO IN OUR NEXT SLIDE IT'S GOING TO TALK ABOUT OUR EXEMPTIONS.
RIGHT NOW OUR PORTION OF THE ANNUAL TAX BILL FOR HOMEOWNERS IS $256.
[00:05:07]
OVER 65 DISABLED PERSONS EXEMPTIONS.A LITTLE HISTORY BEFORE WE GO INTO THE SCENARIOS.
FY18 FROM 50 TO 69,000 AND TAXPAYER SAVINGS OF ROUGHLY 1.9 MILLION.
FY19 THE BOARD INCREASED 75,000 FOR A CUMULATIVE TOTAL OF 2.8 MILLION.
WE ID A COMPARISON WITH OUR LOCAL COLLEGE PEERS AS WELL AS OUR DISTRICTS HERE IN DALLAS.
YOU CAN SEE COLLIN AND TARRANT COUNTY ARE CONSIDERABLY BLOW AS FAR AS EXEMPTIONS.
WE'RE AT 75,000 AND YOU CAN SEE THEY ARE AT 52 AND 62.
DALLAS COUNTY AND PARKLAND AT 69,000 WHILE WE'RE AT 75,000.
THE TARRANT COUNTY EXEMPTION, WE REFLECTED THE MAXIMUM THEY ALLOW AT 62.
BUT THEY ACTUALLY DO TIERS FOR THEIR OVER 65 AND VETERAN DEPENDING ON WHAT LEVEL OF DISABILITY THE VETERANS ARE.
THE MAXIMUM IS 62, IT COULD BE LOWER.
>> OUR LOCAL COMPARISONS WE TRY TO USE THE COUNTY WIDE COMPARISON.
DISD, MESQUITE AND ALL KINDS OF TAXES ENTITIES.
ON THE OVER 65 IT'S IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE EXEMPTION IS ON THE COUNTY WIDE BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO BE FAIR TO COMPARE WHAT OUR RATES ARE.
IF YOU REMEMBER, WE ORIGINALLY AT THE $50,000 TO SHED WHAT STARTED THIS DISCUSSION WAS DALLAS COUNTY, PARKLAND, AND AT THAT TIME, THE SCHOOL BUSES WERE AT 69,000.
SO WE RAISED THE THEN AND THEN WE CAME BACK AND DID A $6,000 EXEMPTION INCREASE.
NOW WE'RE AHEAD OF THE REST OF THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS.
>> IF WE LOOK AT THIS ACCORDING TO WHAT OUR CURRENT TAX RATE IS, IF YOU SEE DALLAS COUNTY IS 24 CENTS.
THEIR CURRENT EXEMPTION, 69 AND OURS BEING 75.
THEY NEED $135,000 EXEMPTION TO EQUAL.
PARKLAND WOULD NEED A TWO AND QUARTER IN ORDER TO EQUAL OUR 75.
>> THIS IS AN IMPORTANT SLIDE.
A FEW YEARS ACK I HAD A TAXPAYER, WHY OUR EXEMPTIONS WERE NOT AS GOOD AS THE COUNTY.
AND THIS CROSSED MY IND AND SO WE DECIDED TO SHOW IT TO YOU ALL.
YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE WHEN COMPARING BECAUSE IN ESSENCE WITH A HIGHER RATE OUR VALUE GIVES THEM MORE BANG FOR THEIR DOLLAR OF REDUCING WHAT THEY ACTUALLY PAY.
THAT'S WHAT THIS SLIDE S REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS ON A BARE-BASIS COMPARISON WHAT IS OUR EXEMPTIONS EQUAL TO TO HE TWO COUNTY WIDE TAXES ENTITIES WE HAVE TO PUT US ON A FAIR COMPARATIVE BASIS.
>> AT OUR LAST MEETING AT THE WORKSHOP WE DISCUSSED HOW WE WOULD POTENTIALLY GIVE ADDITIONAL TAXPAYERS GOING FROM 75 TO 90,000.
YOUR ASKED US TO PROVIDE SCENARIOS.
THESE ARE INCREMENTAL INCREASES IN $5,000 INCREMENTS.
THE BOTTOM LINE THERE CURRENTLY WE SAID EARLIER IN THE SLIDES WE HAD $2.8 MILLION AND CUMULATIVE SAVINGS.
IF WE WENT UP TO 90,000 YOU CAN SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AS WELL AS THE BOTTOM LINE SHOWS THE OPERATING LOSS FOR THE DISTRICT.
>> EACH $5,000 INCREMENT IS ABOUT -- A LITTLE LESS THAN $7,000 IN REDUCTION OF TAX REVENUE.
WHEREAS IT PROVIDES A $5.20 TAXPAYER SAVINGS THEY WOULD HAVE FOR THAT VALUE.
WE DO NOT HAVE ON THE AGENDA TODAY A RECOMMENDATION TO INCREASE HIS.
IT'S MY OPINION, I'LL LEAVE HER OUT OF THIS, BUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME 'M JUST NOT SURE WE WANT TO LOOK AT RAISING THAT EXEMPTION.
MY LEGAL FRIEND, HE'S HERE SOMEWHERE, WHAT WE LOOKED AT IS, AND WHEN YOU CONTINUE TO RAISE IT, THERE ARE THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IF YOU WANTED TO GO BACK AND LOWER IT.
[00:10:02]
BUT THAT IS ALSO PROBABLY NOT A GOOD POLITICAL MOVE TO DO WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT LOWERING THE EXEMPTIONS ON OVER 65 AND DISABLED PERSONS EXEMPTIONS.ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD TO THAT?
>> YOU STATED THE LAW CORRECTLY.
FROM A PURELY LEGAL STANDPOINT, IF YOU RAISE THE EXEMPTION, YOU CAN SUBSEQUENTLY LOWER, BUT NOT BELOW A CERTAIN AMOUNT SET BY STATUTE.
THERE ARE POLITICAL AND OTHER REALITIES TO LOWERING THE EXEMPTION BEYOND THE PROVINCE OF A LAWYER.
>> AS A FYI, ANY EXEMPTION CHANGE WOULD NOT GO AFFECT THE FOLLOWING TAX YEAR.
WE HAVE UNTIL BASICALLY MARCH OF JUST TO BE OPEN AND HONEST ABOUT WHAT THE PROCESS IS, THERE IS NO CRITICALITY THAT SAYS ANYTHING HAS TO BE DONE THIS OR NEXT MONTH.
IF THE BOARD WANTS TO CONTINUE TO THINK ON THIS THEY CAN.
BUT OUR RECOMMENDATION IS E DON'T CHANGE THEM AT THIS POINT.
>> WE WERE ASKED TO PROVIDE A DETAILED LIST OF COST SAVINGS.
WE HAVE $2.5 MILLION TO FIND OUT WHERE WE HAVE COST SAVINGS, ANTICIPATING FOR THE COMING YEAR.
FOR TECHNOLOGY, FACILITIES, CONTRACTED SERVICES, INSTRUCTIONAL CONTRACTS WAS A BIG ONE.
$816,000 BASICALLY WHEN WE CHANGED THE RATE THAT WE PAY FOR THE DUAL CREDIT, THE TEACHERS TEACHING DUAL CREDIT THEY WERE PAID $1,000 PER CLASS, ADJUNCT RATE.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: IF I MIGHT ASK ABOUT THE LED LIGHT CONVERSION, $64,000 OVER AND POSITIVE WHAT IT COSTS TO DO ALL OF THE CONVERSION?
>> $64,000 AVINGS AND MAINLY BASICALLY IN THE UTILITY OST AS WELL AS THE LABOR AS FAR AS DOING IT.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: LOTS OF TIMES IT TAKES A WHILE TO REALIZE THE SAVINGS.
>> THIS IS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A WHILE.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: $64,000 THROUGHOUT ALL THE CAMPUSES?
WHAT EVERYBODY TOLD US TO DATE.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: ON THE INSTRUCTIONAL CONTRACTS, SO IT'S 1,000 PER CLASS FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS OR ADJUNCTS FOR US ALSO?
OUR ADJUNCTS TEACHING A DUAL CREDIT, THEY WOULD GET THE ADJUNCT RATE?
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: THANK YOU.
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE TRANSCRIPTS? HOW WERE WE ABLE TO SAVE THAT MUCH MONEY?
>> M. BRAVO: HOW WE WERE ABLE TO REALIZE SAVINGS BY DOING E-TRIMS.
>> INCREASINGLY THE HIGH SCHOOLS ARE EMPLOYING CREDENTIALED FACULTY SO THEY CAN TEACH DUAL CREDIT CLASSES.
THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING THEIR EMPLOYERS.
WE PAY THE ISD FOR EACH COURSE THAT HAS A MINIMUM OF A CERTAIN NUMBER OF STUDENTS AND THEREFORE THEY ARE ABLE TO GAIN --
I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOU.
>> M. BRAVO: ON THE E-TRANSCRIPTS, HOW ARE WE ABLE TO SAVE $454,000?
>> THAT WAS THE CONTRACT WITH CREDENTIAL SOLUTIONS.
WHERE WE HAD STUDENTS REQUESTING PAPER TRANSCRIPTS DIRECTLY FROM THE COLLEGES.
AND WE WENT TO A VENDOR WHO NOW SENDS THOSE TRANSCRIPTS ELECTRONICALLY TO UNIVERSITIES.
IT'S A VERY MINIMAL COST TO THE STUDENT.
IT'S $5 BUT THEY ARE TRACKING SERVICES, 24-HOUR SERVICE.
SO THEY CAN REQUEST A TRANSCRIPT ANYTIME.
IT'S VERY COMMON AMONG UNIVERSITIES.
THAT INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE PAPER AND THE PRODUCTION, BUT THE LOB LABOR COSTS.
PRODUCING PAPER TRANSCRIPTS TAKE SOMEONE AWAY FROM OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
[00:15:05]
COSTS.THERE WERE -- I CAN GET YOU THE NUMBER OF TRANSCRIPTS THAT HAVE BEEN SENT BY CREDENTIAL SOLUTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: WHAT IS THE COST OF THE SOFTWARE?
>> WE DON'T PAY ANYTHING TO THE VENDOR.
THE VENDOR CHARGES A FLAT AMOUNT TO THE STUDENTS.
WHAT WE NEGOTIATED WITH THEM WAS WE ARE UST -- WE'RE ACTUALLY JUST COVERING THE COST WITH THE FEE TO THE STUDENT.
AND IT'S THE LOWEST COST PER TRANSCRIPT.
MOST CHARGE 7 TO 15 PER TRANSCRIPT, WE'RE CHARGING 5.
>> IN ADDITION TO OUR SAVINGS WE WANTED TO PROVIDE TAXPAYER SAVINGS.
RECENTLY, BOND FUNDINGS AS WELL AS OUR EXEMPTION HAVE TOTAL SAVINGS OF $55.2 MILLION.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: THIS IS REALLY GOOD INFORMATION TO HAVE.
>> WE'LL DO ONE MORE REFUNDING THIS COMING BUDGET YEAR.
IT'S THE LAST OF THE CALLABLES WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO.
WE'LL BE DONE WITH THIS UNTIL WE GO THROUGH ON THE NEXT ROUND OF DOING BOND ISSUES.
WE HAVE ONE MORE AVAILABILITY.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY.
WE'VE GOTTEN HE BIG DOLLARS OUT FIRST.
IT'S A OUPLE OF MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF SAVINGS.
AGGRESSIVELY PUBLICIZED SAVINGS.
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US AS A BOARD AND ALSO FOR TAXPAYERS TO UNDERSTAND EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE A $1.1 BILLION BOND THESE ARE MONIES SAVED THROUGH EFFICIENCIES WITHIN THE OPERATIONS.
WE HEAR ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE'RE HERE.
IS THERE A WAY, IS IT ON THE WEBSITE OR EFFICIENCIES TO HIGHLIGHT WHAT WE'RE DOING OR YOU ARE DOING TO SAVE PEOPLE MONEY?
>> FIRST TIME WHAT YOU ALL ARE DOING.
THESE SAVINGS ARE WHAT THE BOARD HAS TAKEN ACTION ON.
AND I HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
IT IS ALSO ONE OF THE MOST CONFUSING THINGS TO TRY TO EXPLAIN.
THE INTRACASES WE'RE SAVING THIS MUCH, PAYING THIS MUCH PRINCIPLE OFF EARLY, PEOPLE TYPICALLY THINK OF OUR BONDS IKE MORTGAGES.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY WE ISSUE DEBT.
WE PLAY THE SAME INVESTMENT GAME SO WE HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY WITH OUR EXISTING DEBT WE CAN PAY OFF.
JUST LUKE CHANGING YOUR MORTGAGE FROM A -- LIKE -- FROM A 30 TO A 50 YEAR YOU SAVE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.
WHILE WE CAN SAY IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT THING TO TRY TO EXPLAIN ON A WEBSITE.
AND REALLY HAVE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: WHAT IS THE FINAL BALANCE OF OUTSTANDING BONDS BESIDES WHAT WE JUST PASSED? WHAT IS THE TOTAL?
>> AND THIS COMING FEBRUARY AND THIS NEXT BUDGET YEAR THAT DROPS TO 14 --
>> WE HAVE 45 MILLION PAYING FOR NEXT YEAR.
>> WE'RE GOING TO DROP FROM 180 TO 140 SOMETHING.
WE'VE ACCELERATED PAYMENTS ON PURPOSE PLANNING FOR THIS BOND ISSUE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
NOT EVEN KNOWING HOW MUCH IT IS BUT THIS IS WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO PLAN FOR A BOND ISSUE.
START BUILDING THAT CAPACITY SO IT GIVES YOU THE FLEXIBILITY I DON'T HAVE HAVE TO ISSUE 20 OR 30 YEAR MATURITIES.
WE'LL BE ABLE TO ISSUE ALL KINDS OF THINGS, EVEN 10 YEARS AT THE LOWEST THAT ARE CHEAPER THAN ONE YEAR.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: THIS IS A GOOD FIGURE FOR US TO KEEP IN OUR HEADS WHEN MEETING WITH
[00:20:01]
CONSTITUENTS IN TERMS OF HOW WE'RE REALLY KEEPING OUR EYES ON OPPORTUNITIES TO SAVE TAXPAYER DOLLARS BECAUSE WE'RE PAYING DEBT OFF EARLY.WE'RE SAVING THIS MUCH IN INTEREST.
I KNOW THERE IS MOST OF S GET THAT CONCERN STATED TO US.
SO WE HAVE TO KEEP THIS NUMBER IN OUR MINDS AND SAY TRUE BUT ET CETERA, ET CETERA. WE REALLY NEED TO PUSH THIS.
>> THE 55.2 MILLION, AT THIS POINT THAT'S OVER WHAT LENGTH OF TIME?
>> PROBABLY OVER MOST OF IT IS LESS THAN 8 YEARS.
BUT I THINK THERE IS SOME THAT GO 12.
JOHN, DO YOU REMEMBER OFF HAND?
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: YOU ARE SAY 2016, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? 2016, 2017 ND 2018?
>> THE YEARS THE BONDS WERE REFUNDED.
ALL BONDS GET THE YEAR AS THE SERIES.
THAT MEANS WHAT YEAR DID THIS ACTUALLY GO IN, IT'S A CALENDAR YEAR NOT A FISCAL YEAR.
THAT'S HE WAY PEOPLE NAME THE BOND SERIES THAT YOU ARE DOING.
>> WHAT IMPACT DO THESE REFUNDING SAVINGS HAVE ON THE INS?
>> NOTWITHSTANDING THIS, IT WOULD BE FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT NOT TO HAVE DONE THIS.
BUT THE IMPACT ON THE TAXPAYER HAS BEEN ZERO.
THEY ARE PAYING THE SAME AMOUNT.
>> AND SAVING THIS TYPE OF MONEY, ACCELERATING THEIR PAYMENTS ON WHAT WE CAN DO.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: WHICH IS EXCELLENT WE'VE NOT RAISED TAXES, HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN? SINCE WE RAISED TAXES.
I MEAN, WE'RE STILL, THIS BOARD SINCE I'VE BEEN SERVING IS FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE IN BEING GOOD STEWARDS OF THE OLLAR AND NOT RAISING THE TAX RATE.
IN TERMS OF WHERE WE RANK OF THE 15 COLLEGE SYSTEMS IN THE STATE, WE'RE AMONG THE LOWEST IN TAXING.
>> BUT THERE IS ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT THIS TOO.
I MEAN, WE HAVE $20 MILLION ADDITIONAL DOLLARS RESULT OF INCREASES IN TAV AND STATE FUNDING. $2.5 MILLION IN COST SAVINGS AND $13 MILLION OF PROVISIONS, THAT IS $35 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL REVENUE.
THIS BUDGET PROPOSES TO RETURN $900,000 IN ADDITIONAL TAXPAYER SAVINGS.
I WOULD SUPPORT THIS BUDGET 100% AND THE WORK THAT'S GONE INTO IT AND THE INVESTMENTS WE'RE MAKING AND I.T., AND FACILITIES AND PEOPLE AND ESPECIALLY THE STUDENT SCHOLARSHIPS.
WE AVOIDED THE ISSUE THE PAST THREE BUDGET CYCLES BY THE CREASING THE EXEMPTIONS.
THIS BOARD HAS NEVER BEEN WILLING TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO LOWERING THE TAX RATE FOR PROPERTY TAXPAYERS.
OTHER UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT INCLUDING DALLAS COUNTY AND PARKLAND HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: AGAIN, WE HAVE NOT RAISED OUR TAX RATE.
IF WE HAVE REALIZED INCREASES IT'S BECAUSE OF THE VALUE OF THE TAV.
WE'VE HAD TIMES IN THIS DISTRICT WHERE WE HAVE BEEN VERY CHALLENGED TO MEET OUR BUDGET BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T INCREASED TAXES TO THE EXTENT WE HAD TO BUY VERY MODEST AMOUNT TO COVER COST.
YES, WE'RE BLESSED THAT WE'RE REALIZING AN INCREASE BUT WE ALSO DO HAVE MEASURES WHERE IF THOSE HARD TIMES COME AGAIN WE'RE ABLE TO COVER IT.
WE NEED TO ADVANCE, ESPECIALLY WITH YOU NAMED SOME OF THEM.
WITH ALL OF THE INITIATIVES WE HAVE GOING ON NOW, TO INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT STUDENTS ARE GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETING, TRANSITIONING FROM US AND MEETING WORKFORCE NEEDS, YOU CAN'T DO BIG, TRANSFORMATIONAL INITIATIVES WITHOUT THE FUNDING.
WE'RE NOT RAISING THE TAX RATES WE'RE REALIZING INCREASES BECAUSE OF THE TAV.
THERE WILL COME A DAY WE HAVE TO TIGHTEN THE BELT.
WE HAVE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WHAT WE HAVE WHILE WE HAVE IT BECAUSE IT WILL NOT LAST.
AND WHEN IT DOES NOT LAST, THAT'S WHEN MEASURES ARE TAKEN WHERE WE LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS.
I'M TELLING YOU BASED ON THE EXPERIENCE I HAVE HAD 23 YEARS ON THIS BOARD.
THIS BOARD HAS NEVER BEEN FINANCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE WITH THE TAXPAYER DOLLAR, NEVER.
ALSO HAVE TO PUT INTO CONTEXT, THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR THE TAXPAYERS.
ANYTIME YOU HAVE A CITIZENRY THAT IS MORE EDUCATED, THEY ARE ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE AT HIGHER LEVEL.
THAT'S A HUGE RETURN ON INVESTMENT TO THE INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS.
[00:25:03]
ENTITIES IN THIS COUNTY WE'RE AT 12.4 CENTS, AT THAT LEVEL TAX RATE FOR SEVERAL, SEVERAL, SEVERAL YEARS.>> NOT TO OBVIOUSLY IT'S A BOARD DECISION.
BUT WE'RE MAKING SAVINGS THAT AREN'T REFLECTIVE ON HERE BECAUSE WE MADE A CONSCIOUS DECISION IN OUR PRIORITY TO SAY KEEPING TUITION AS LOW AS PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE AND SUPPORTING AS MANY STUDENTS AS WE CAN.
WE'VE GROWN 13.2% OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
ALLOWING THE STUDENTS TO KEEP THIS AFFORDABLE.
WE ARE USING TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO KEEP FROM RAISING TUITION.
WE'RE LESS THAN HALF THE AVERAGE OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
I APPRECIATE THE BOARD'S PRIORITY.
WE PROBABLY NEED TO ARTICULATE THAT EVERY YEAR.
WE GLOSS OVER A LITTLE BIT THE SCHOLARSHIPS AND THE TUITION WHEN MANY OF OUR PEERS THAT'S ALL THEY HAVE TO WORK WITH.
THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE THE BENEFITS WE HAVE A TAX BASE WHERE WE KEEP IT THE SAME BUT AT THE SAME TIME ADD MORE STUDENTS.
WE'RE ADDING 10 MORE SCHOOLS THIS YEAR TO THE MIX.
AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING I THINK PRETTY CLOSE TO 35% INCREASE FROM OUR PARTNER SCHOOLS AGAIN THIS YEAR.
THAT WILL BE TWO YEARS IN A ROW.
WE PACE ALL THAT SAVINGS ONTO THEM AS A RESULT.
>> I THINK ANOTHER VARIABLE TOO IS TAX CAP.
IF WE HAVE TO -- LET'S SAY WE LOWER THE TAX RATE.
EVERYONE IS IN FAVOR OF SAVING MONEY.
THEN WE HAVE TO COME BACK BECAUSE OF AN UNSEEN SERVICE OR VARIABLE AND INCREASE IT, THEN WE HAVE TO HAVE AN ELECTION.
RIGHT NOW, WE'RE FINALLY A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF THE GAME INSTEAD OF ALWAYS COMING FROM BEHIND.
THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT HAS COMPLICATED THE ABILITY TO BE MORE LEXIBLE ON THAT TAX CAP.
>> WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT HEAD WAY TO INCREASE OUR TAX RATE WITHOUT HAVING AN ELECTION.
THERE ARE CAPS BUT IF WE HAD TO RAISE OUR RATE WE COULD.
>> OUR CURRENT STARTING NEXT YEAR, OUR THRESHOLD RATE WILL BE THE SAME 8% WE HAVE NOW BUT THAT 8% NOW WILL TRIGGER AN ELECTION.
BEFORE, IT WAS A PETITION IT WOULD TRIGGER.
NOW IT WILL ACTUALLY -- AN ELECTION IS GOING TO BE A MILLION DOLLARS.
I WILL TELL YOU AS YOUR CFO, I COULD NOT BRING A RECOMMENDATION HERE IN WHICH THE TAX RATE WOULD GO OVER THAT THRESHOLD OF 8% BECAUSE OF THE COST FACTOR.
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SO BIG, WE'RE REALLY MAKING --
AND WHEN YOU THINK, WOW, TECHNICALLY YOU COULD LOWER IT AND THEN RAISE IT.
THE REALITY IS, YOU RESET THE 8% WHEN YOU LOWER IT IT'S NOW 8% OF THAT NUMBER, NOT 8% OF THE HIGHER NUMBER.
WHAT THAT CREATES IS A SITUATION WHERE PRACTICALLY THERE IS ALMOST NO WAY THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO AN ELECTION TO EVEN GET BACK TO WHERE YOU WERE.
THAT WOULD BE SO LITTLE MONEY, A MILLION AND A HALF OR COUNTY WIDE ELECTION --
>> WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD TRIGGER NECESSITY FOR 8% INCREASE?
>> WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LOWER IT YOU BASICALLY ARE CREATING A LOWER BUT THE THRESHOLD, THE NET AFFECT RATE.
NEXT RATE IT WILL BE A WHOLE NEW TERM WE USE.
THAT CHANGES THAT BECAUSE THAT IN ESSENCE IS BASED ON THE REVENUE.
A QUICK AND DIRTY JUST THE OTHER DAY, I TOLD YOU CHAIR RITTER, WAS IF LAST YEAR WE HAD LOWERED THE TAX RATE FROM 10.4 TO 10.155, HUNDREDTHS OF A CENT AND THIS YEAR YOU PROPOSED TO RAISE IT BACK TO THE 10.4, WE WOULD BE OVER THE 8% THRESHOLD.
THAT LITTLE BIT, 2.5, 10THS OF A CENT, WE WOULD BE OVER THE 8% THRESHOLD.
BECAUSE WHAT THE DOES IS RESETS THE RATES.
SO NOW YOU ARE AT A LOWER RATE THAT MEANS YOUR NET AFFECTIVE IS LOWER.
[00:30:01]
THE 8% THRESHOLD IS LOWER.YOU PUT YOURSELF IN JEOPARDY OF GOING OVER THAT.
THE NEW STUFF IS QUITE CONCERNING TO ME.
AND EVEN WHAT MAY HAPPEN IN THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION IN TWO YEARS AS TO WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN AT THAT POINT.
I THINK WE WERE VERY FORTUNATE TO BE AT THAT -- CONTINUE AT THE 8% LEVEL.
I THINK ALLOTS OF IT HAS TO DO WITH WHAT DALLAS IS DOING AND IS IN THE FOREFRONT CITY OF DALLAS TO GIVE THE BENEFIT BACK TO OUR TAXPAYERS.
THE EARLY COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOLS, ALL THE THINGS WE'RE DOING, WE'RE SEEN AS A LEADER AMONGST THE STATE.
I'M PROUD TO BE PART OF THAT QUITE FRANKLY.
THERE WILL COME A TIME, CHAIR RITTER, THAT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SERIOUS DISCUSSIONS.
I'M JUST NOT READY FOR THAT AT THIS TIME PERSONALLY.
>> OUR SNAPSHOT OF OUR BUDGET EXPENSES.
THE COLLEGES ARE REALIZING $6 MILLION INCREASE.
A LOT IS GOING TO OPERATIONAL STIPENDS AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL MONIES TO MAKE THEM WHOLE FOR WAIVERS.
INCREASES FOR COLLEGE SERVICES, CYBERSECURITY.
BOARD SERVICES WE TALKED BEFORE LAST WORKSHOP THAT WE WERE INCREASING HALF OF THAT $6 MILLION YOU SEE IS 3.5 MILLION WE'RE PULLING IN THE LEAST EXPENSE NORTH LAKE AND THE LEASE PROPERTY THAT EL CENTRO HAS.
INSTEAD OF THE COLLEGES PAYING THAT.
>> WE TAKE IT OFF THE TOP INSTEAD OF OUT OF THE OPERATING BUDGET AT THE COLLEGE.
>> SAME THING WE OWN THE PROPERTY --
COULD YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT LOUDER?
>> HISTORICALLY THE COLLEGES HAVE PAID ALL OF THEIR LEASE, THE EXPENSES THEY HAVE FOR LEASED PROPERTY LIKE NORTH LAKE'S WEST CAMPUS THEY HAVE THE CONSTRUCTION TRAITS PROGRAM, AND EL CENTRO THEY HAVE A NAME PLACE AND TEXAS CLUB AND BANK OF AMERICA, THEY PAY THE LEASES, WE'RE ASSUMING THEM AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL.
>> THAT'S NOT FAIR WHEN THE OTHER COLLEGES HAVE ALL THEIR FACILITIES PAID FOR, NO COST TO IT.
AND THEN TO HAVE THOSE THAT ARE NEEDING BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE SPACE TO LEASE PAY THAT OUT OF THEIR BUDGET IS JUST NOT AN EQUAL AND FAIR WAY TO DO BUSINESS.
>> C. COMPTON: WHAT IS THE OTHER 3.5?
>> HE CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT, THE EDUCATIONAL PLAN, AND THEN WE HAVE COMPLIANCE ITEMS FOR TITLE 9 AND INTERNAL AUDIT.
AND THE CAPITAL FUNDS WE'RE INCREASING FROM THE 18 MILLION FOR THE FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND OTHER CAPITAL EXPENSES WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT.
THE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR THE FACULTY, THE FACULTY COUNSELORS.
>> C. COMPTON: WHAT MAKES UP THE 6.5 MILLION?
>> THE FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND THE DATA CENTER THAT WE'RE DOING FOR THE I.T.
SO IT'S 18 MILLION FOR THAT AND THEN THE 5.5 MILLION.
AND THEN WE HAVE 7 MILLION BUILT INTO THE OPERATING BUDGET THAT IS GOING INTO THE CAPITAL BUDGET FOR THE FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
>> THIS IS FOR -- WE USED TO CALL THIS DEFERRED MAINTENANCE.
WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF THE GAME.
WE PUT 16 MILLION IN EVERY YEAR FOR SEVERAL YEARS.
TRYING TO ACCELERATE THIS SO WE CAN HOPEFULLY CATCH UP OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS.
>> BOTH COMPENSATION, THE FACULTY COUNCILS VOTED FOR A FLAT-RATE INCREASE PER FACULTY MEMBER OF $2,080, INCREASE OF 3%.
[00:35:02]
>> IT EQUATES TO 3% AS WELLISM.
>> APPROXIMATELY $76,000 FULL-TIME SALARY.
THOSE BELOW 76 ARE MORE THAN A 3%.
THOSE THAT ARE OVER WILL SEE LESS.
EVERYBODY IS GETTING THE SAME AMOUNT.
WE HAVE THE FACILITATED SESSION WITH AACT.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE WERE TOLD THERE WAS THAT THE BROODER RISKS ACCREDITATION.
WHEN YOU GO NTO THE BUDGET BOOK THERE ARE LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF PERSONNEL DECISIONS THAT WE HAVE TO APPROVE.
WE EE THEM ON A MONTHLY BASIS.
WE TALKED ABOUT, I THINK ONE OF OUR DRIVERS FOR INCLUSION WAS THE FACT THAT THERE IS LEGAL RISK TO THE BOARD.
>> CLARIFY THAT IN THE HIRING DECISION, THERE IS ISSUES.
>> VICE CHAIR W. JAMESON: THIS SLIDE 11 SEEMS LIKE THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO PERSONNEL DECISIONS.
WE DON'T YET HAVE A DETAILED SET OF METRICS OR DASHBOARD FOR THE BOARD TO ASSURE THE DISTRICT IS MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION ON DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION AND HIRING.
I KNOW THERE WERE NEW DOCUMENTS IN THERE THIS MONTH.
I THINK IT'S SOMETHING PERHAPS MADAM CHAIR WE WANT TO CONSIDER ON THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE IN TERMS OF THESE DECISIONS WHAT IS IT THE BOARD SHOULD SEE IN THE ANNUAL BUDGETING PROCESS AND HOW DO WE CREATE APPROPRIATE DASHBOARDS TO ASSURE WE'RE UNDERSTANDING THE DIRECTION IN TERMS OF INCLUSION.
I WANTED TO THROW THAT ISSUE OUT IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS BUDGET.
ONE, CERTAINLY, THE BUDGET ITEMS AND EXPECTATION OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN THIS AS WELL.
SO THE DASHBOARD OR THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION CAN PROVIDE THAT.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: AND WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.
HOWEVER, WE NEED TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT CAK CONSIDERS A POSSIBLE VIOLATION OR NOT.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE AT A LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT THAT WOULD BE A CAK ISSUE.
I THINK IF WE TRIED TO GET INVOLVED IN THE HIRING DECISION THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE A VIOLATION OF CAK'S RULE.
THAT BEING SAID, WE CAN HAVE THAT AS AN AGENDA ITEM WITH DEFINITION BY CAK OF WHAT THEY SEE AS A POTENTIAL IOLATION.
>> THE WORKSHOP WE DESCRIBE WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.
AND SHE RAISED, HER RESPONSE WERE, YES, THAT IS AN ISSUE.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: WE NEED A DEFINITIVE AND HAVE IT IN WRITING.
AND THE REASON THAT'S DONE AND I'M ONE OF THE ONES THAT ASKED FOR THAT IS BECAUSE THIS DISTRICT HAS HAD AN ISSUE WITH BEING EQUITABLE IN OUR HIRING.
AND THAT'S ONE WAY, AS AS A BOAD MEMBER, AM ABLE TO TRACK ARE WE REALLY COMPLYING WITH WHAT WE SAY WE'RE COMMITTED TO.
>> I AGREE IN THAT WE SHOULD HAVE VISIBILITY INTO THE AGGREGATE LEVEL DATA.
THE INDIVIDUAL HIRING DECISIONS, WHICH ARE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS I THINK CREATE THE ISSUE.
I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT IN WHATEVER VENUE IS APPROPRIATE.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: WHAT COMES TO US IS THE CONT CONTRACTS WE D TO APPROVE FOR EMPLOYMENT.
INSTEAD OF SEEING EACH INDIVIDUAL HIRE, SEE A LIST.
AND WE CAN DISCUSS THIS FURTHER WHEN WE PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.
>> C. COMPTON: QUESTION FOR YOU ON THE ADJUNCT AND PART-TIME STAFF, ARE WE NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES TO THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE THE NEW SCHEDULES WITH --
>> BECAUSE WE HAVE THE LOW REVIEW THAT WE'RE UNDERGOING FOR FACULTY, ENCOMPASSES ALL FACULTY, FULL-TIME AND ADJUNCT.
WE BELIEVE THINGS ARE GOING TO COME OUT WE NEED TO CHANGE.
WE CAN LOOK AT THE ENTIRE PLAN AND MAKE WHATEVER DECISIONS WE NEED TO MAKE.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: WE BENCHMARKED THIS ON THE ADJUNCT TO ENSURE WE'RE COMPETITIVE.
AND THE PART-TIME STAFF THAT'S BENCHMARKED TO OUR CURRENT STAFF AS WELL.
[00:40:01]
>> C. COMPTON: BASICALLY, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING MOVING FORWARD ESPECIALLY AS IT PERTAINS TO HE PART-TIME STAFF WHERE IN THE PAST WE DECIDED ON 3% INCREASE GIVE IT TO EVERYBODY, REGARDLESS OF THE CLASSIFICATION.
SO BASICALLY, YOU ARE MOVING AWAY FROM THAT.
ARE YOU ONLY CONSIDERING INCREASES FOR THOSE FOLKS AFTER AN EVALUATION PROCESS?
>> THE WAY THE PART-TIME STAFF GETS CUMBERSOME TO TRACK ECAUSE IT'S PAID AN HOURLY WAGE BASED ON THE ALARY SCHEDULES.
THE PART-TIME STAFF CHANGES, IT'S NOT THE SAME PERSON ALL THE TIME.
IF THE PERSON IS NEW THEY ARE ONLY GOING TO GET WHATEVER THE SCHEDULE SAYS THEY ARE GOING TO EARN.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TALENT CENTRAL CAN KEEP UP WITH THAT.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF OF YEARS, WE FOCUSED ON THE MINIMUM, IF YOU WOULD, WAGE, PIECE OF THAT.
AND SO WE RAISED THAT TWICE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS SO THAT WE CAN BE COMPETITIVE IN THAT AREA.
BUT THAT RATE AFFECTS OUR STUDENT WORK STUDY, PART-TIME STUDENT WORKERS, WHICH MAKES UP A LARGE BULK OF WHO WE HAVE THERE.
WE DO LOOK AT THAT FROM A COMPETITIVE POINT OF VIEW.
BUT ORMALLY, THERE IS NOT THE ABILITY TO BE INCREASED OVER TIME.
AND SO WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE COMPETITIVE ON THAT.
>> C. COMPTON: NO, BUT WHAT I'M ASKING ABOUT IS THAT WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN IN PART-TIME JOBS FOR A WHILE.
WHEN IT CAME TO COMPENSATION IF WE GAVE 3% ACROSS-THE-BOARD THEN WE GAVE EVERYBODY SOMETHING.
AND YOU ARE SAYING AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A POLICY OR --
BUT I THINK WE MAYBE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PEOPLE.
AS WE'VE GOT THAT, I KNOW WE HAVE PART-TIME ON CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS THAT ARE THERE.
THEY GET TREATED DIFFERENTLY, I BELIEVE.
>> THE CONTRACTED PART TIMERS.
REGULAR PART-TIME WORKERS, TO TRUSTEE COMPTON'S POINT, IT'S THE FLAT RATE BASED ON THE SALARIES.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: WE HAVE TAKEN THAT ON AND INCREASED IN THE PAST BUT IT WASN'T AUTOMATIC YEAR AFTER YEAR, SOMETIMES IT WAS MORE HAN WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE GOT.
WE BUMPED T UP WHEN WE REALIZED STUDENTS WERE --
>> THE WORK STUDY MONEY, THOSE -- THE FEDERAL DOLLARS, THAT'S A PART-TIME --
>> C. COMPTON: SO I'M CLEAR, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT IF WE GIVE A 3% INCREASE, OKAY, ACROSS-THE-BOARD THEN THOSE PEOPLE BASED ON THE PAY SCALES AND I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE THE RATES IF YOU ARE A PART-TIME STAFF OR WHATEVER, THEY WON'T GET THAT INCREASE.
>> C. COMPTON: SO THAT WOULD BE A POLICY CHANGE.
I THINK IF MY NDERSTANDING OF THE PRACTICE THAT HAS OCCURRED IN PRIOR YEARS IS THAT ACROSS-THE-BOARD INCREASES HAVE BEEN APPLICABLE TO FULL-TIME STAFF AND ADMINISTRATORS.
WE LOOKED SEPARATELY AT THE PART-TIME RATES AND RAISED THOSE OVER THE YEARS AND I'M LOOKING BACK.
THE PART-TIME RATES HAVE BEEN INCREASED.
THAT'S BEEN AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS.
AND WE BENCHMARK, THE CHANCELLOR EDUCATED ON ADJUNCT AND PART-TIME ATE, AGAINST THE MARKET TO DETERMINE WE'RE COMPETITIVE.
>> C. COMPTON: THAT IS GOING THROUGH THE JOB REVIEW PROCESS.
>> NO NOT NECESSARILY, O, WITH RESPECT TO COMPENSATION.
AM I MISSTATING THAT? WE LOOKED AT PART-TIME COMPENSATION IN PAST YEARS.
>> C. COMPTON: BUT THAT WAS TIED TO -- EXCUSE ME, THAT WAS TIED TO JOB DESCRIPTION.
BUT PART-TIME PEOPLE WE DON'T REALLY MARKET PRICE THEIR JOBS.
WE LOOK AT THE FULL-TIME IN THE PAST WE HAVE DONE COMPENSATION FOR PART-TIME.
IT'S PROBABLY WITHIN THE AST THREE YEARS THAT WE HAVE.
BUT WE -- A DECISION WAS MADE NOT TO DO IT THIS YEAR.
WE HAVEN'T DID IT THREE YEARS BACK.
LAST YEAR WAS THE FIRST YEAR IN THREE YEARS.
>> C. COMPTON: FOR NOT DOING IT THIS YEAR.
[00:45:03]
>> C. COMPTON: THAT CONSTITUTE A CHANGE IN POLICY?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A POLICY THAT WOULD REQUIRE US TO DO THAT AND TREAT ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES BOTH PART-TIME AND FULL-TIME THE SAME.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S IN BOARD POLICY.
>> IT'S A PRACTICE, NOT A POLICY.
>> OUR PRACTICE IS TO LOOK AT IT INDEPENDENTLY AND WE'VE DONE SO WITHIN THE LAST YEAR.
>> C. COMPTON: ARE THESE PEOPLE AWARE OF THIS?
>> ONLY THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION.
>> C. COMPTON: THIS WILL BE THE FIRST TIME THEY HAVE HEARD THAT?
>> YES, AS WELL AS EVERYBODY FOR THE INCREASE, WITH NO OTHER GROUPS WERE DISCUSSED ABOUT COMPENSATION INCREASES EXCEPT FOR FACULTY FOR THEM TO VOTE, WHETHER THEY WANTED A ONE-TIME AMOUNT OR THE --
>> BOARD POLICY ASKED FOR THEIR INPUT REQUIRES.
>> REQUIRE TO CONFER WITH FACULTY.
>> YOU ARE SAYING IT'S NOT A PAST PRACTICE TO ROUTINELY GIVE A PERCENTAGE INCREASE TO T TO T AND PART-TIME.
>> C. COMPTON: YOU DO A 3%, YOU HAVE GOT DIFFERENT THINGS.
AND I UNDERSTAND AND SO FORTH.
WE DIDN'T, BASICALLY, DISCRIMINATE BASED ON WHAT POSITION YOU WERE IN.
THAT'S WHY I ASKED IF THIS IS A CHANGE IN POLICY OR WHAT WE NORMALLY HAVE DONE AND WHAT PEOPLE HAVE COME TO EXPECT.
IF THEY WOULD BE INCLUDED IN SOME WAY IN WHATEVER WE DO AS A BOARD.
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION TOO? WHAT KIND OF PART-TIME JOBS DO WE HAVE AT THE DISTRICT? WHAT DO WE HIRE? HOW MANY EMPLOYEES IN THE PART-TIME STATUS?
>> IT DEPENDS ON WHAT IT IS AND THE DEPARTMENT.
>> WE DON'T HAVE THAT EXACT NUMBER.
THERE ARE A AREIAD OF PART-TIME ROLES THAT ENCOMPASS ALL RESPONSIBILITIES ACROSS THE THE DISTRICT.
THAT'S A VERY BROAD STATEMENT BUT I DON'T HAVE THE PARTICULARS ON HAT.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE JUST THE PARTICULAR SUBSET OF PEOPLE THAT ONLY DO THE PART-TIME WE HAVE PART-TIME EMPLOYEES IN A VARIETY OF ROLES IN THE DISTRICT.
>> C. COMPTON: WHAT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE, SAY A DEPARTMENT DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY.
THEY REALLY WOULD LIKE TO AVE A FULL-TIME PERSON BUT DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY AND HIRED PART-TIME FOR WHATEVER REASON.
THEY DO SERVE DIFFERENT ROLES.
AND IT MIGHT BE A TEMPORARY DURATION.
WE MAY MEAD A PART-TIME EMPLOYEE IN A ROLE.
FOR INSTANCE, WE HAVE RETIRED EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE COME BACK IN A PART-TIME CAPACITY BECAUSE THEY ARE PERMITTED, PROVIDED THEY DON'T WORK BEYOND A DESIGNATED NUMBER OF HOURS IN A GIGIVEN WEEK.
>> WE EMPLOY A LOT OF STUDENTS ON A PART-TIME BASIS.
MAINLY, IN OFFICES AND THAT SORT OF THING.
>> C. COMPTON: THERE'S BEEN INCIDENTS WHERE THEY WANT ADFULL-TIME PERSON, COULDN'T AFFORD IT.
BRING SOMEBODY IN -- MIC] -- UNTIL, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN MAKE THEM FULL-TIME OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BUT LIKE I SAID, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT DEPARTMENT, WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND PURPOSES.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN UNDERSTOOD THAT THE DEPARTMENT HEAD OR COLLEGE PRESIDENT, MAKE A DECISION.
>> AND I WOULD ADD WE'RE SENSITIVE IF TH TH THERE IS A RE THAT SHOULD BE FILLED BY A FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE, WE DON'T HIRE PART-TIME.
WE'LL FILL HAT ROLE WITH A FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE.
WE DON'T NECESSARILY HIRE JUST PART-TIME PEOPLE UNLESS T IS A PROJECT OR SITUATION IN WHICH IT'S APPROPRIATE.
>> C. COMPTON: I JUST WANT TO WHEN IT COMES TO COMPENSATION, I THINK WE EED TO BE CLEAR WITH EVERYBODY ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WHY WE'RE DOING IT.
[00:50:01]
I THINK YOU CUT DOWN ON MISUNDERSTANDINGS.AND IT GIVES ME SOME CONCERN THAT THE FOLKS IN THESE ROLES THAT UNTIL THEY SAW THIS TODAY THEY REALLY DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THEY WERE, WHERE THEY STOOD.
SO LISTEN TO ME AND MY COMMENTS.
IN THE BUDGET BOOK THERE ARE DOZENS OF POSITIONS BROUGHT FORTH IN THE JOB REVIEW.
AND THE SIGNIFICANT SALARY INCREASE IS PART OF AN ONGOING PROCESS.
WILL THEY GET A 3% INCREASE OR TAKEN OUT OF THAT?
>> I THOUGHT IT WAS AS OF JUNE 1?
THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR ACROSS-THE-BOARD INCREASES.
AND THAT'S EEN FACTORED INTO THAT.
>> THE SALARIES WOULD GO UP, 10, 15% AND A 3% ON TOP OF THAT?
AND AGAIN, I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO GET OFF INTO THAT ENTIRE PROCESS.
THE DISTRICT IN 2016 EMBARKED MON THAT REVIEW PROCESS.
>> PART OF THE REASON ON THE TIMING, I SEE WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM BECAUSE IT'S THE AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE DOING THE RAISES, WHEN I CAME HERE WE STARTED THAT.
WE DID IT EVERY MONTH, WE WOULD HAVE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
AND BOARD MEMBERS ASKED AT SOME TIME IF WE COULDN'T DO THIS TWICE A YEAR.
AND SO A LOT OF THESE THINGS MAY HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED.
WE DON'T DO THEM RETROACTIVELY EVEN THOUGH THIS MAYBE HAPPENED SIX MONTHS AGO FOR THE CYCLE REVIEW FOR THE PERSON.
THE BOARD ASKED US TO BRING IT FORWARD TWICE THAT'S WHAT WE DO.
WE COULD BRING IT FORWARD AT ANOTHER TIME BESIDE AUGUST.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE TWO GO HAND IN HAND BUT THIS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS FOR FOLKS.
>> WHEN YOU SEE THE OTHER ONE, THE OTHER TIME WE BRING IT FORWARD DURING THE YEAR, IT'S NOT IN THE SAME CONTEXT OF WHEN WE'RE TALKING SALARY INCREASES.
>> WE DID THE OTHERS IN NOVEMBER AND IT FALLS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR.
AND REALLY THE PURPOSE OF THE PROFILE PROCESS IS TO IDENTIFY THE SALARY SCHEDULE AND BANDING.
IT'S NOT REVIEW NECESSARILY OF COMPENSATION AND COMPENSATION TIME.
IT'S AN ONGOING PROCESS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
IT'S JUST BY HAPPENSTANCE WE DETERMINED TO RING THEM TWICE A YEAR INSTEAD OF PERIODICALLY.
PART OF THE PROCESS WAS TO IDENTIFY THAT.
WE'VE GONE THROUGH, WHEN I SAY WE, THE TOWN CENTRAL SINCE 2016 AN EFFORT TO ADDRESS THOSE THROUGH THE JOB PROFILE.
NOT TO SAY THERE ISN'T AN OOCCASIONAL ISSUE BUT WE ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS THAT AS WELL.
>> JUST BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS SLIDE CAN I GET CLARIFICATION AS TO HOW YOU WOULD LIKE US TO ADDRESS THE PART-TIME STAFF?
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: HHOW DO YOU TYPICALLY?
LAST YEAR WE GAVE INCREASE TO THE PART-TIME.
THIS YEAR WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING THAT.
WE GO LOOK AT EACH FISCAL YEAR SEPARATELY.
>> IS THERE A REASON WHY WE SHOULDN'T DO IT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS? THE 3% INCREASE FOR STAFF AND ADMINISTRATORS AND FLAT NCREASE WHICH WAS NEGOTIATED WITH THE FACULTY, THOSE ARE BOTH INTENDED TO REFLECT COST OF LIVING AND INFLATION, LIKEWISE IMPACT THE PART-TIME STAFF.
IS THERE A REASON WE SHOULDN'T CONSIDER THEM AS PART OF THE SAME CYCLE AND SAME ECONOMIC INTENT, IF YOU WILL, AS OF FULL-TIME AND FACULTY, SAME WITH THE ADJUNCTS.
>> I DON'T HAVE A GOOD ANSWER.
IN SOME CASES WE ARE LOOKING AT WE WANT TO BE COMPETITIVE WITH OTHER OPTIONS PARTICULARLY FOR STUDENT WORKERS WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO FAST FOOD OR SOME OTHER THING THAT IS OUT THERE.
WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THEM HAVE EXPERIENCE ON OUR CAMPUS.
THAT'S A DIFFERENT PROBABLY RATE THAN SOME OF THE OTHER FOLKS THAT ARE THERE BECAUSE WE'RE COMPETING AGAINST SOME OF THE OTHER OPTIONS.
>> TO MONETIZE IT, WE'RE LOOKING AT 4 AND $800,000.
[00:55:01]
3% FOR EVERYONE.>> PART-TIME.NOT ADJUNCTS, JUST- ADJUNCT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER.
>> C. COMPTON: I ALWAYS THINK OF ADJUNCTS AS PART OF THE FACULTY SCALE AND THEY ARE ON A DIFFERENT SCALE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE ALWAYS FELT SET THE COLLEGE DISTRICT APART WAS OUR HUMANITY.
IF WE GAVE ONE EMPLOYEE 3% BASICALLY WE GAVE IT TO EVERYBODY OR WE DIDN'T GIVE IT TO ANYBODY.
BUT THAT'S THE HUMANITY IN ME.
LIKE I SAID, YOU CAN'T ABOLISH ME THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE NOT BEEN TOLD THIS OR EVEN -- I KNOW YOU ARE GETTING READY TO SAY SOMETHING BUT CAN I FINISH FIRST?
>> C. COMPTON: SOME OF THESE PEOPLE WHO BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE, I'M SURE THEY FIGURED THIS IN AND IT NEVER OCCURRED TO THEM WE WOULD CHANGE.
IT'S THERE FACT WE PRIDE OURSELVES ON BEING EVERYBODY AND WHAT WE DO FOR ONE WE DO FOR ALL.
AND I MINE, NEXT YEAR WE MAY NOT GIVE ANYTHING.
BUT IT WOULD BE NOTHING TO ANYBODY.
>> I WILL REMIND YOU NEXT FALL AT THE EARLIEST WE'LL LOOK HEAVILY HOW TO COMPENSATE FACULTY SALARIES.
>> THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT A GOING TO HAPPEN.
THAT IS THE POINT WE HAVE TO START LOOKING AT HOW WE PAY FOR EXTRA SERVICES AND ADJUNCT CONTRACTS AND THERE IS A LOT MORE.
QUITE FRANKLY, HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE A CHRO, WE'LL HAVE A CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCE OFFICER ON BOARD THAT CAN ELP GUIDE US IN THE WHOLE PROCESS.
THIS IS NOT AN APPROVED BUDGET.
THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO TELL US TO CHANGE SOMETHING.
>> C. COMPTON: WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.
IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE DO WE NEED AN OFFICIAL POLICY FROM HE BOARD, AND WE SO STATE THAT AND EVERYBODY KNOWS.
IF WE CAN -- WE'RE NOT PPROVING THE BUDGET TODAY.
>> WE CAN DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT AT ANY TIME.
WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE ISSUE OF ADJUNCT FACULTY AND PART-TIME STAFF AND I WOULD PERSONALLY SUPPORT THE IDEA OF INCLUDING THEM IN THE ANNUAL COMPENSATION REVIEW LIKE WITH FULL-TIME STAFF AND ADMINISTRATORS.
YOU THINK ABOUT IT AND BRING IT BACK IN A MONTH AND WE CAN DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT AND LOOK AT RECOMMENDED POLICY CHANGES.
>> CAN I ADD ONE THING? I APPRECIATE THE HUMANITY COMING FROM A LAWYER, WE WANT TO BE AS HUMANE AND FAIR AS POSSIBLE.
CONCERNS THAT WE WEREN'T COMPETITIVE.
WE DO COMPETE FOR TALENT AT ALL LEVELS IN THE DISTRICT, PARTICULARLY OTHER INSTITUTIONS FOR ADJUNCT FACULTY.
OUR RATE IS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE OTHER INSTITUTIONS WITH WHOM WE COMPETE -- WITH WHICH WE COMPETE FOR TALENTED ADJUNCT AND OUR RATE WAS CONSISTENT TOP TO BOTTOM.
WE DIDN'T SEE A NEED TO ADJUST THE RATE.
IT HAS IMPACTS AS WE TALK ABOUT FACULTY LOAD R COMPENSATION GOING FORWARD.
WE DETERMINED IT WAS APPROPRIATE THIS YEAR NOT TO RECOMMEND AN INCREASE ON THAT.
WITH RESPECT TO PART-TIME STAFF WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
WE TAKE OUR DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD AND WE'LL WITH RESPECT TO WITH RESPECT TOTO ADD JUNKS AS .
WE LOOKED AT RATES PARTICULARLY THIS YEAR BECAUSE OF CONCERNED EXPRESSED.
>> C. COMPTON: I REMEMBER THAT IS GOOD THAT YOU TOLD EVERYBODY BUT I ASKED ABOUT WHAT EMPLOYEE GROUP.
BASICALLY, PEOPLE HAVE A TENDENCY, THEY FORGET THEY ARE PART-TIME BECAUSE THEY SEE THEM EVERY DAY, THEY ARE THERE SERVING A FUNCTION.
I ASKED ABOUT ONE EMPLOYEE GROUP.
THAT WAS THE ONLY THING THAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT.
[01:00:01]
>> C. COMPTON: I DON'T WRAP THEM INTO THE FACULTY.
ALL OF THE ADJUNCT FACULTY AND THIS KIND OF STUFF.
>> I WANTED TO MAKE SURE, I WASN'T DISAGREEING.
I UNDERSTOOD YOUR COMMENTS PARTICULARLY TO THE PART-TIME STAFF.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN TERMS OF THE PART-TIME HOW MANY ARE THE STUDENTS? BECAUSE WE INCREASE THAT THE STARTING OR THE SALARY FOR STUDENTS ACROSS-THE-BOARD, TWO, THREE YEARS AGO, AND THEY ARE WITH US FOR A SEMESTER, MAYBE TWO.
SO HOW MANY OF HE PART TIMERS ARE LONG SERVING PART-TIME? SO THAT WE CAN MAKE A DECISION BASED ON REAL DATA.
>> WE SEPARATE THOSE WHEN WE -- WE'RE TALKING PART-TIME STAFF, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PERFORMING FULL-TIME FUNCTIONS ON A PART-TIME BASIS, NOT INCLUDING STUDENT WORKERS.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: WE NEED MORE INFORMATION BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION IN MY OPINION.
>> S. WILLIAMS: HOW MANY HOURS WITH ART-TIME?
>> C. COMPTON: STUDENTS? I THOUGHT WE HAD EMPLOYEES --
>> PART-TIME EMPLOYEES, NOT STUDENT EMPLOYEES.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PART-TIME.
>> C. COMPTON: HOURS A WEEK OR --
>> CAN'T ANYMORE BECAUSE OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT CREATES BENEFIT ISSUE.
>> THE ERS CHANGED THE RULES ON US AND SEVERAL THINGS.
>> I THINK THERE IS INTEREST IN BRINGING BACK TO THE BOARD A POLICY RECOMMENDATION ON THE INCLUSION OF VARIOUS JOB CATEGORIES IN AN ANNUAL REVIEW.
INCLUDING THE FOUR LISTED HERE.
NOT HEARING REQUESTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ADJUNCT FACULTY BASED ON THE REPRESENTATION FROM ROB THAT A MARKET ANALYSIS WAS DONE AND NO FURTHER ACTION NEEDED IN THAT AREA.
BUT THERE IS THE BOARD TO GET MORE INFORMATION AND DATA ON THE PART-TIME STAFF AND CONSIDERATION AS TO WHETHER FOR EQUITY REASONS AND COST OF LIVING REASON AND ECONOMIC REASONS WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER INCREASES IN THIS BUDGET CYCLE, PERHAPS COMMENSURATE WITH FULL-TIME STAFF ADMINISTRATORS AND FACULTY.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: CAN WE LOOK AT THE DATA FIRST BEFORE DECIDING IF WE NEED POLICY?
>> FOR SIMPLICITY PURPOSES, THEY DO IT ONE TIME.
IT WOULD BE MORE HELPFUL FOR THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE IF WE DECIDE TO INCLUDE THEM IN THE INCREASES OR NOT AT THIS TIME.
OTHERWISE THEY HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO THE SAME THING --
>> $600,000 IS FOR THE COST OF DOING THAT?
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: COULD WE CONSIDER THAT AUGUST 20TH? YOU BRING BACK HE DATA AND WE MAKE A BETTER INFORMED DECISION.
DO YOU HAVE THAT DATA RIGHT NOW? THE PART-TIME WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE ANALYSIS ON THE PART-TIME, DO YOU HAVE THAT NUMBER?
>> TISKA, TO HER POINT, IT'S ABOUT A ONE-MONTH PROCESS.
EVEN USING TECHNOLOGY TO GET ALL OF THE INCREASES PROGRAMMED AND INTO THE SYSTEM.
SO THE SOONER WE CAN MAKE A DECISION, THE MORE TIME IT WILL GIVE FOR THOSE DECISIONS TO BE MADE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER.
>> EVEN AT A ROUGH ESTIMATE ON THE PART-TIME, IT'S ABOUT $800,000 MAX.
AND WE CAN PROBABLY REACH A CONSENSUS WITHOUT --
I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT DATA.
SO I WANT TO BE SURE I UNDERSTAND IT BUT I MAKE A REPRESENT.
WE DO HAVE SOME AUGUST MEETINGS WHERE WE CAN CONSIDER IT.
>> YOU CAN'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.
>> IF POSSIBLE, WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN'T HAVE IT BY THE 4:00 SESSION.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT DATA WE HAVE BUT WE MAY HAVE SOMETHING WE CAN HANDOUT.
[01:05:05]
>> WE'LL GET HEM AS FAST AS WE CAN.
>> IN THE BUDGET BOOK WE HAVE ITEMIZED AND DETAILED INFORMATION ON OUR CAPITAL BUDGET FOR YOU ALL.
IN ADDITION TO THE FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS, DEFERRED MAINTENANCE, WE ALSO HAVE MAINTENANCE OF COURSE OUR PHASE ONE, WHICH YOU HAVE THE LIST IN THE BUDGET, IN THE BOARD BOOK FOR THE PHASE ONE FOR THE G.O.
THE I.T. UPGRADES AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY WERE PART OF JOHN'S UPDATE LAST MONTH OR JUNE HE DID ON THE CAPITAL BUDGET.
AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE HE URBAN PLAN AND INITIATIVE WHICH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING THIS CURRENT YEAR.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: WHAT WAS THAT?
>> WE DID THE GATE WAY CONCEPT AT EASTFIELD.
IN WHICH WE LOOKED AT WHAT THE POTENTIAL AREAS ARE DOING.
WHEN THE MASTER PLAN ARCHITECTURES AS THE COLLEGES DID THEIR MASTER PLANS THEY LOOKED AT THE CLUSTER OF BUILDINGS AND WHERE THEY ARE.
IF WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS BONDS PROGRAM OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS, ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANTED TO DO WAS LOOK AT THE POTENTIALS WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING CEDAR VALLEY AND MOUNTAIN VIEW OF LOOKING HOW DOES THE WHOLE, HOW UTILIZATION OF THE ACREAGE OF THE LAND ITE WE HAVE AT EACH LOCATION PLAY INTO WHERE THESE BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO BE LOCATED.
ONCE THE CEMENT DRIES, WHAT IS GOING THERE.
I DON'T EXPECT ANYTHING TO HAVE ANY MAJOR CHANGES.
BUT PART OF THAT AGAIN, IS THE PLANNING PROCESS THAT WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT HOW WE'RE UTILIZING OUR WHOLE SITE THAT WE HAVE AT EACH OF OUR LOCATIONS AS WE GO OVER TIME.
SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DO THE SAME THING AT EASTFIELD.
WE'LL HAVE EL CENTRO IS NOT INCLUDED BUT OF THE SIX SITES AND THE ACREAGE WE'VE DONE ONE, WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING TWO FINISHED IN SEPTEMBER.
THREE MORE NEXT YEAR, BROOKHAVEN, NORTH LAKE AND RICHLAND.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: THE P3'S AND ALL OF THAT?
>> NO, POTENTIALLY IT COULD BE.
THE GATEWAY CONCEPT OF EASTFIELD, HOW DO YOU LOOK AT THE WHOLE SITE TO DEVELOP MORE OF THE COMMUNITY-TYPE ENVIRONMENT OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH OUR CAMPUSES OF DRAWING COMMUNITY INTO OUR SITES.
>> HOW DOES THAT DIFFER FROM THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS THAT OCCURRED EACH OF THE SEVEN CAMPUSESPROCEEDING THE BOND.
I THINK WE DID SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU DESCRIBED.
>> SOME OF THE THAT PREDATES ME BUT I WILL PUT IT THIS WAY.
WE HAVE -- WE COULD HAVE ASKED THE MASTER PLAN ARCHITECTS TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE AREA.
TYPICALLY, WE'RE SAYING THESE PROGRAMS WE NEED, THESE ARE THE AREAS WE NEED TO SEE IN OUR PLANNING PROCESS.
AND WE ORKED WITHIN THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK OF WHERE THE BUILDINGS ARE LOCATED.
I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US AS WE START THE BOND PROGRAM WHEN WE START TO LOOK AT OTHER THINGS WE START TO EXPAND THE HORIZON AND SAY IT'S NOT THAT WE ONLY HAVE 20 ACRES OF THE 250, WHERE SHOULD THESE THINGS GO? SOME MIGHT BE P3 OPPORTUNITIES, SOME MIGHT BE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
IF WE DON'T START THE LANNING PROCESS, AGAIN, PLANNING, THAT SHOULD TIE IN WITH WHAT THE MASTER PLAN ARCHITECTS.
BUT WE DON'T NEED TO GO BACK AND DO MASTER PLANS AGAIN.
IT'S GOING TO WORK IN CONCERT WITH THOSE MASTER PLANS BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF WHAT WE SUPPLY THE URBAN PLANNER WITH IS SAYING HERE'S OUR MASTER PLAN ALREADY.
WHAT ARE THE OTHER POSSIBILITIES THAT CAN GO INTO THAT.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: HOW ARE YOU HIRING AN URBAN PLANNER?
>> WE USE THE SAME THROUGH COLLIERS, WE HAVE CONTACT WITH THEM.
>> C. COMPTON: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY IN HOUSE PEOPLE THAT CAN DO SOME OF THIS WORK?
>> C. COMPTON: PERSONALLY, TO ME, EVERY TIME SOMETHING COMES UP [INDISCERNIBLE] AND WE NEVER SEEM TO HAVE ANY IN-HOUSE TALENT WHO CAN PERFORM SOME OF THIS WORK WHICH I FIND VERY TROUBLING.
THE SECOND THING AND CORRECT ME
[01:10:01]
IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THOUGHT THIS CONVERSATION — IN TERMS OF THE RESTAURANTS AND HOUSING AND ALL OF THAT ON OUR CAMPUSES IS DO WE WANT TO GET INTO THOSE TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS? OR DO WE NEED TO LOOK AT A POLICY THAT CHANGES OUR STANCE THAT WE'VE ALWAYS TAKEN ABOUT NOT SELLING ANY LAND.LONG STORY SHORT, I DON'T THINK WE ADE A DECISION ABOUT ANY OF THAT.
>> I THINK IF YOU GO BACK TO THE PRESENTATIONS BY THE COLLEGES AND THE BOARD ON THIS, THE ISSUE IS MOUNTAIN VIEW INVISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
CEDAR VALLEY, BROOKHAVEN, YOU CAN'T SEE.
THE FACT IS, WE DON'T INTEGRATE RIGHT NOW WITHIN THE COMMUNITIES.
WE'RE INVISIBLE IN MANY RESPECTS.
THE IDEA IS HOW DO WE BECOME MORE VISIBLE AND WHETHER OR NOT WE DO SOME OF THESE OTHER THINGS IS UP TO THE BOARD.
RIGHT NOW IT IS LOOKING AT HOW WE IMPROVE OUR ENGAGEMENTS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITIES WE'RE LOCATED.
>> IT STILL HAS TO BE DECIDED.
NONE OF THOSE ISSUES ARE VEN WHAT P3'S WE HAVE.
THEY HAVE TO COME TO THIS BOARD BEFORE THEY CAN GO OVER FOR PROPOSAL.
>> IT DOESN'T NEED TO INVOLVE ANY OF THAT.
IT CAN BE MORE ENGAGED WITH OUR COMMUNITIES.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: WE'VE GOT $150,000 WRAPPED IN HERE.
>> TYPICALLY, DO THREE MORE COLLEGES TYPICALLY AT 50,000 A POP.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: I THOUGHT THE EASTFIELD WAS PIE IN THE SKY.
I WAS NOT AT ALL PLEASED WITH THAT ONE.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: I THINK WE'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK IN TERMS OF WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT EACH OF OUR CAMPUSES IS MORE VISIBLY CONNECTED TO THE COMMUNITY.
BECAUSE WE RE INVISIBLE RIGHT NOW.
AND WE EED TO MAKE THE CAMPUSES MORE ATTRACTIVE, NOT ONLY TO STUDENTS BUT TO THE COMMUNITY.
BECAUSE THE MORE FAMILIARITY THEY HAVE WITH THE CAMPUS, THEN POTENTIALLY THE MORE STUDENTS WE'RE GOING TO GET ENROLLING.
>> QUITE RANKLY, WHAT STARTED THIS IS OUR VISION HAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
I'LL GO OFF TRACK HERE FOR A MINUTE.
OF LOOKING AT THE WHOLE DOWNTOWN EDUCATION, INNOVATION PROJECT, TRYING TO WORK WITH SOMEBODY WHO WILL DESIGN A STATE OF THE ART LOCATION THAT HAS PARKS, MULTIUSE, OFFICE BUILDINGS, AS ALL THE SOCIAL SERVICES WE NEED.
IT'S THAT VISION OF SEEING WHAT WE THINK SHOULD BE IN THE DOWNTOWN INNOVATION COMPLEX SHOULD ALSO CARRY FORWARD OVER TO THE CAMPUSES.
THEY SHOULDN'T BE LEFT OUT OF THIS PROCESS.
AND IT'S THAT WHOLE MASTER PLANNING IDEA OF NOT JUST LOOKING AT YOUR BUILDINGS THAT YOU HAVE AND WORKING TO PICK ANOTHER ONE.
BUT HOW SHOULD YOU EFFECTIVELY USE YOUR CAMPUS.
IT WON'T HAPPEN NEXT YEAR OR THREE YEARS FROM NOW.
WE NEED SOMETHING THAT VISUALIZES WHERE WE MIGHT WANT TO GO AS WE START TO PUT THESE PLANS TOGETHER.
>> C. COMPTON: IT MAY NOT HAPPEN THIS YEAR AND SO FORTH.
>> THE PROJECTS THAT SHOW UP ON THE URBAN PLAN SELLING PLANS OR MAKING SENIOR HOUSING.
THOSE ARE JUST QUITE FRANKLY IN SOME CASES O GET US TO START THINKING ABOUT WHERE WE COULD GO WITH THE IDEAS OF OUR CAMPUSES.
AND NOT HOLD ONLY TO THE 50-YEAR VERSION WE BUY 200 ACRES, STICK OUR BUILDINGS IN IT AND HAVE A BUFFER OF 200 ACRES AROUND.
IS THAT REALLY THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO UTILIZE THE REAL ESTATE THAT WE HAVE WHEN WE ARE A COMMUNITY COLLEGE? AND SHOULD BE --
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: ALSO OUT OF THIS COULD COME POLICY WHERE THE BOARD TAKES A STAND ON WHETHER WE SELL LAND, KEEP THE LAND, LEASE THE LAND, ET CETERA.
BECAUSE WE'VE ALWAYS TAKEN THE POSITION, ALTHOUGH NOT OFFICIALLY, IN A POLICY THAT WE DON'T SELL OUR LAND.
>> C. COMPTON: THE ONLY THING I'M SAYING BEFORE WE INVEST $150,000 PAYING A CONSULTANT TO DO THIS, THE BOARD NEEDS TO MAKE
[01:15:03]
A DECISION AS TO WHAT OFFICIAL POSITION THEY WANT TO TAKE N LAND UTI UTILIZATION FOR THE COE DISTRICT.IF THE DECISION IS THAT WE WANT TO DO THIS OR WE WANT TO SELL LAND OR WHATEVER, THEN HIRE A CONSULTANT TO BRING THOSE PLANS TO FRUITION.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT I THINK IT'S PREMATURE TO MAKE THIS.
AND I THOUGHT WHEN WE LEFT T BEFORE IT WAS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE NEEDED A POLICY OR NEEDED TO CHANGE OUR POSITION OR WHAT WE'VE DONE TO DO.
AND SPENDING DOLLARS WHEN YOU SAID YOURSELF MONEY WAS TIGHT.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: I WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION.
>> THIS IS TO DO THE PLANNING.
FRANKLY, THIS IS THE RIGHT ORDER TO DO IT.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: I WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION BEFORE MAKING A DECISION.
BECAUSE THAT IS A BIG DECISION WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO START GIVING UP LAND OR NOT.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: I KNOW, IT WILL BE A PART OF THIS.
I THINK WHAT 'M HEARING IS THAT ALL ARE A LOT OF POLICY CONSEQUENCES FROM THE LAND USE SO THIS B BOARD IS GOING TO MAK.
THE BOND CAMPAIGN IS GOING TO EFFECT EVERY CAMPUS IN A PROFOUND WAY.
I THINK -- YOU KNOW, ONE APPROACH WE CAN TAKE, ARE THERE POLICY CONSEQUENCES AND DESIGN PARAMETERS WE OUGHT TO CONSIDER WITH RESPECT TO DEPARTMENT OF OUR PROPERTIES AS A BOARD.
I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE, THE ANSWER IS YES.
IF YOU NEED TO HIRE PEOPLE, $150,000 IS NOT A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY.
GIVE US A TIMELINE ON THE DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING PROCESS, AND RELATED POLICY ISSUES THAT WE CAN CONSIDER AS WE MOVE FORWARD IN THE YEARS AHEAD.
>> C. COMPTON: I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT WE END UP PAYING FOR SOMETHING THAT GOES IN A FILE DRAWER.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: CAN WE MOVE THE AGENDA?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE CAPITAL?
>> SPEAKING OF TURBO CHARGE, ALL THE THINGS WE HAVE GOING ON.
IN ADDITION O BUSINESS AS USUAL, THESE ARE THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE HELPING US TO DO THE JOB A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
THAT'S THE BUDGET PRESENTATION.
>> ANY QUESTIONS ON THE BUDGET PRESENTATION OR THE BUDGET BOOK?
[A. Amendment to Policy Concerning Investments – CAK (LOCAL)]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.NEXT ITEM IS AMENDMENT TO THE POLICY CONCERN INVESTMENTS.
TISKA? ITEM 3A, THE AMENDED POLICY CONCERNING INVESTMENTS.
>> C. COMPTON: CAN I GET CLARIFICATION ALSO.
THERE WAS FINANCIAL UDITING NUMBER 98-2 AYING HERE WHEN I GOT HERE.
THAT WAS A PAGE THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN YOUR MAJOR --
>> C. COMPTON: THE ONE YOU SENT THE EMAIL ABOUT?
>> YOU HAVE AN EMAIL -- IT ACTUALLY GOES IN YOUR MAIN BOARD.
>> THE NE HANGE MADE TO THE INVESTMENT POLICY IS JUST TO REVISE THE LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS GIBBON OUT IT REMOVES THE SPECIFIC LIST OF DOCUMENTS REQUIRED ROM OUR BROKER DEALERS.
WE ARE NOT CHANGING OUR PRACTICE ON WHAT WE'RE REQUIRING ROM ANY OF THOSE BROKER DEALERS, JUST CHANGING THE LANGUAGE SO IT'S CONSISTENT.
WE REQUIRE THEM TO DISTHE DISCLOSURE ON THE CREDIT RATING AND EXPERIENCE.
WE'RE REQUIRING HAT IN OUR PRACTICE.
IT'S JUST THAT -- THAT WORDING IS BEING REMOVED FROM THE BOARD POLICIES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE POLICIES.
>> BROKER DEALERS HAVE TO CERTIFY COMPLIANCE WITH OUR POLICIES?
[01:20:01]
>> THEY ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DO DISCLOSURES TO US.
OUR POLICY STATES THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE WHATEVER THE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY THE LAW.
>> LAW DOES NOT STOP US FROM REQUESTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
AND ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONS ARE THEY MUST CERTIFY THEY HAVE READ AND ADHERE TO OUR INVESTMENT POLICY GUIDELINES.
>> THIS IS MY UNDERSTANDING, THIS CHANGE WAS MADE TO COMPORT WITH THE CHANGE IN THE STATUTE.
THEY CHANGED THE DEFINITION TO SELLERS OF INVESTMENT INSTEAD OF BROKER DEALER.
THOSE PEOPLE ARE STILL REQUIRED TO -- RECEIVE A COPY OF OUR INVESTMENT POLICY TO CERTIFY THE RECEIPT AND REVIEW OF THAT POLICY AS WELL.
IT'S REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE.
THERE ISN'T A CHANGE AS TISKA AND JOHN SAID IN THE WAY WE'VE DEALT WITH THEM.
>> THIS IS NOT ON OUR AGENDA BUT WE'RE REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE ANY CHANGES THAT ARE MADE FROM THE LEGISLATURE IN REGARDS TO OUR PUBLIC FUNDS INVESTMENT ACT.
AND THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THEM MADE IN HOUSE BILL 2706, THE HANDOUT AND GAVE TO YOU ALL.
EACH ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT ARE MADE WE LISTED A DISTRICT RESPONSE SO YOU KNOW WHERE WE STAND.
ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS HOUSE BILL 2706 ALLOWED US TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMMERCIAL PAPER TO 365 DAYS.
THAT'S PART OF OUR POLICY ALSO.
THE CHANGE INTERESTS THE INVESTMENT POOLS, CREATED UNION FORMITY THAT THE STATE USES.
THEY CLARIFIED THIS CHANGE FOR PFI CLARIFIED THE USE OF BOND PROCEEDS SO THAT ALL BOND PROCEEDS COMPLY WITH TEXAS PFIA, THAT IS PART OF OUR OLICY ALSO.
>> SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE HEAD OF THE CURVE.
WE WERE ACTUALLY DOING THINGS BEFORE.
WE DON'T SEE OURSELVES EXTENDING OUR COMMERCIAL PAPER FURTHER OUT THAN 180 DAYS.
THAT'S WHY YOU GET A BETTER YIELD.
WE DON'T THINK WE'RE TO THAT POINT.
WE'LL MAINTAIN THE STRATEGY AS WHAT WE'VE HAD BEFORE.
OF COURSE, THAT IS UP FOR REVIEW EVERY YEAR.
IF SOMEBODY THINKS MAYBE WE HAVE TO DO IT OR IF WE FEEL WE SEE THE RATES CHANGING WE WANT TO EXTEND COMMERCIAL PAPER AND
[B. Phase 1 of General Obligation (GO) Bond Projects]
INVEST IN INCORPORATE BONDS, WE WOULD BRING THAT BACK TO THE BOARD AS A CHANGE IN STRATEGY.>> WE'RE REQUIRED TO BRING YOU A LIST OF QUALIFIED BROKER DEALERS ANNUALLY.
WE'RE NOT MAKING CHANGES TO THE LIST AT THIS TIME.
WE WANTED TO POINT OUT WE DO 22 TRANSACTIONS FOR FY19.
WE'VE SPREAD OUT THE ONLY VENDOR WE DID NOT DO ANYTHING WITH WAS MBS, THEY DIDN'T PROVIDE ANYTHING THAT WAS COMPETITIVE ENOUGH FOR US TO AKE ADVANTAGE OF.
>> YOU ARE SPEAKING TO ITEM 3D ON THE AGENDA?
>> HE'S GOING TO TAKEOVER THE REST OF IT TIME.
>> YOU WANT TO GET YOUR STUFF IN.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: YOU JUST WANT TO GET OFF THE HOT SEAT.
>> IF THERE IS ANY QUESTIONS, WE HAVE IN THERE THE G.O. BONDS ARE IN THE BUDGET BOOK BUT WE HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM ASKING FOR APPROVAL.
THE LIST IS THE SAME LIST YOU SAW AT THE JUNE WORKSHOP.
IT IS THE FIRST PHASE OF THE BONDS TOTALING JUST LESS THAN $300 MILLION.
WE HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM IN THE REGULAR AGENDA TO APPROVE THOSE AS THE PROJECTS WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH.
WE'LL NOT ISSUE BONDS AT THIS TIME.
WHAT WE WILL DO IS COME BACK, WHEN? SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER.
AND HAVE OUR FINANCIAL ADVISORS GIVE US A PRESENTATION ON INTERIM FINANCING IN WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE USE BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER IN THE LONG RUN TO USE INTERIM FINANCING, IT COULD BE ANYWHERE FROM, I KNOW I COULD GET 150 MILLION, MAYBE 300 MILLION CAPACITY TO COVER THE $297 MILLION WE HAVE.
WE WOULD BASICALLY HAVE A SHORT-TERM LOAN, IF YOU WILL, AND WE WILL EXPLAIN THAT WHOLE PROCESS.
[01:25:01]
THE DISTRICT DID IT BACK IN 2004, EXCUSE E, FOR THE 2004 BOND.WE'LL SCHEDULE THAT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.
THAT IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED FROM YOUR FINANCIA PEOPLE HERE AND FINANCIAL ADVISORS IS THE BEST WAY TO FINANCE IT.
>> IT'S CHEAPER TO USE SHORT-TERM THAN ISSUE THE BONDS?
>> YES, DON'T TAKE YOUR MORTGAGE PAYMENT OUT --
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: IF I MIGHT ASK ABOUT THE RICHLAND CAMPUS, THE 52.9 MILLION, IS THAT ENOUGH SQUARE FEET TO GET RID OF THE TEMPORARY BUILDINGS?
I'LL -- HERE'S MY TRANSPARENCY.
WE'RE UNDER IMMEDIATE SPACE PROBLEMS THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR CAMPUS RIGHT NOW DUE TO THE 13.2% GROWTH THAT DR. MAY WAS TALKING ABOUT, YES IT'S IN THE LONGER TERM PLAN.
WE'RE BUILDING AND REMODELING SWING SPACE WE MAY NEED ADDITIONAL PORTABLE BUILDING TO MEET THIS, HOWEVER, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BUY THEM.
IN ESSENCE, THE DECISION POINT YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THE AFFORDABLE BUILDING, THE IDEA IS GET RID OF IT.
THERE IS A LITTLE BIT CHANGE IN STRATEGY.
IF YOU BUY THEM YOU NEVER GET RID OF THEM.
THERE IS ALWAYS A REASON FOR THEM TO STAY AROUND.
COST WISE, I'M SURE THERE MAY BE A LITTLE BIT OF SAVINGS, BUT NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE IT WORTHWHILE THAT IT GDVANTAGE OF MAKING SURE WE HAVE A DECISION POINT IN THERE OF NOT HANGING ONTO --
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: THIS ALLOWS US TO GET RID OF TWO OR THREE BUILDINGS?
>> IN THE INTERIM, EVENTUALLY, YES.
THE RICHLAND HAS TWO MAJOR BUILDINGS PLANNED ONE AT 500,000 AND ONE AT 100,000 SQUARE FEET.
THOSE ALLOW YOU TO GET RID OF THE PORTABLE BUILDINGS.
RICHLAND WOULD HAVE PREFERRED DOING THE 100,000 SQUARE FEET BUILDING FIRST.
WORKING WITH THE RICHLAND LEADERSHIP TEAM WE DECIDED TO DO THE 500,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FIRST AND THAT WILL GIVE US SOME SPACE.
IT'S REALLY UNTIL WE BUILD THE 100,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING I KNOW WE CAN GET RID OF IT.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: WE'LL STILL BRING TEMPORARY BUILDINGS ONTO THE CAMPUS?
OUR BACKS ARE AGAINST THE WALL TO A CERTAIN DEGREE.
WE HAVE SPACE NEEDS TO START THIS FALL.
>> AND THIS IS REALLY A SIX-YEAR PLAN.
WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BUILD OUT.
WE COMMITTED TO THE ENTIRE RANGE OF PROJECTS THAT ARE THERE. BUT OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE TO PICK A PLACE TO START.
EVERY PLACE WE GO TO MEET THOSE NEEDS.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: ON 3B, STUDENT NEEDS PROJECTS, THE FIRST ONE FOR BROOKHAVEN, WHAT IS EC, EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION.
>> EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION IS A LONG ONE.
>> JOE, WE WERE DISCUSSING THE BOND PROGRAM PROCESS AND IMPLEMENTATION AT THE WORKSHOP.
THERE WERE SEVERAL ISSUES THAT CAME UP RELATING TO OUR INTERNAL CAPACITY TO MANAGE THIS.
FOR EXAMPLE, DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT STRUCTURES IN PLACE AND CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT.
DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT FRAMEWORK FOR MWBE? WHAT IS THE SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM GOING TO BE? I'M DELIGHTED TO SEE WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS STUFF.
WHEN YOU BRING THE INTERIM FINANCE CAN YOU UPDATE THE OTHER ISSUES RELATING TO OUR ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY TO ADVANCE THOSE ELEMENTS OF THE PROGRAM?
>> THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO DO THAT.
>> THE BOARD DID APPROVE US TO USE A PROGRAM MANAGER ON THESE PROJECTS.
WE FINISHED NEGOTIATING THE BUSINESS ASPECTS OF THE CONTRACTS, WHICH INCLUDE A LOT OF THOSE.
WE SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO GET THE CONTRACT EXECUTED.
MY PLAN IS O START PROJECTS IN SEPTEMBER LIKE WE'RE GOING TO DO THE FACILITY MASTER PLAN.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF GROUPS AND WE HAVE PEOPLE CHOMPING AT THE BIT.
WE'VE TO TAKE CARE OF SOME INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS WE HAVE AT OUR CAMPUSES BEFORE WE START DOING A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER THINGS.
AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE A GOOD FOUNDATION, YOU DON'T HAVE A GOOD ROOF, THERE IS NOT MUCH REASON TO DO A LOT OF THINGS ON THE INSIDE.
WE'RE READY TO GET STARTED ON A LOT OF THIS STUFF.
>> ONE THING, PROVIDED US WITH A NUMBER OF, YOU WANT THE NUMBER
[01:30:01]
OF PART-TIME EMPLOYEES WE HAVE? WE HAVE 207 WORK-STUDY EMPLOYEES AND 1,076 PART-TIME AS OF THE JULY PAYROLL.THAT'S HOW MANY PEOPLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> 207 WORK STUDY AND 1,076 PART-TIME.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: YOU SAY THE WORK STUDY ARE NOT CONSIDERED PART-TIME?
>> WE PUT THEM ON A DIFFERENT SCALE TOO BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THIS BOARD DID WHICH REALLY TURNED OUT -- WE WEREN'T SPENDING ALL OUR FEDERAL WORK STUDY DOLLARS.
WE SAID WE WANT TO PEG THEM AT, I'LL BE WRONG HERE, NO1 OR 2, REGULAR FULL-TIME SALARY AT THE HOURLY RATE.
THAT WAS LIKE $11.42 AN HOUR IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
IT INCREASED THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO PARTICIPATED.
WE'RE SPENDING UP TO OUR LIMIT.
AND BASICALLY LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL FEDERAL FUNDS, WHICH DIDN'T COME THROUGH THIS YEAR, BUT TRYING TO SEE IF WE CAN'T HAVE THOSE ADDITIONAL FUNDS.
SO THE PROGRAM YOU PUT IN PLACE WAS WIDELY RECEIVED.
AND WE HAVE A LOT OF -- [INDISCERNIBLE]
>> BEFORE 4:00 YOU COULD WORK A BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT WOULD REALIZE A 3% INCREASE FOR THE PART-TIME EMPLOYEES?
>> THE BOTTOM LINE NUMBER WOULDN'T CHANGE.
I WOULD FIND THE MONEY FROM SOMEPLACE ELSE.
>> THAT WOULD BE THE REQUEST WE FIND THAT IN THE BUDGET AND INFORM THE BOARD.
>> CHANCELLOR HAS THE AUTHORITY IN THE RESOLUTION TO REASSIGN THOSE MONIES TO MEET THE BOARD PRIORITIES.
>> I HAVE NO IDEA TODAY WHERE THAT WILL COME FROM.
>> I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT -- NOR DID I PLAN.
>> HIS CONTRACT IS UP FOR RENEWAL TOO.
ANYTHING ELSE ON ITEM 3B OR --
[C. Amendment to Agreement with Iconic Consulting for Emergency Repairs and Ensure City of Dallas Code Compliance of CVC Standpipe Systems]
OKAY, 3C, WHAT IS GOING ON? ICONIC CONSULTING.>> I BROUGHT TONS OF PEOPLE TO HELP.
SEVERAL MONTHS AGO WE WERE PUT ON FIRE WATCH BY THE CITY FIRE MARSHAL BECAUSE THE SAND PIPE SYSTEM, THE PIPE RECONNECTIONS ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
>> I SHOULD POINT OUT, WE HADN'T BEEN INSPECTED IN 14 YEARS.
IMMEDIATELY, WE STARTED TO WORK ON THAT ABOUT WHAT WE HAD TO DO IN WORKING WITH THE CITY FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE.
WHO QUITE FRANKLY IS PRETTY GOOD TO WORK WITH.
ALTHOUGH, THEY CHANGE REQUIREMENTS CONSTANTLY.
WE GOT OFF OF FIRE WATCH, I THINK IN RECORD TIME.
PART OF THAT WAS THE INVOLVEMENT OF ALL THE PEOPLE TAKING THIS AS AN EMERGENCY AND PRIORITY REPAIR OF WHAT WE HAD TO DO.
WE GOT -- WE GOT THAT AND WE'RE STILL WORKING WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE ON WHAT OTHER THINGS HAVE TO BE DONE IN COUPLE CEDARVALLEY FOR THEM TO SAY WE A PERFECT PLAN THAT THEY WILL SIGN OFF ON.
EVERYTHING FOR RIGHT NOW HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF THAT THEY HAD LISTED AS A DEFICIENCY AND THAT'S WHAT WAS THE $1.4 MILLION.
THIS WAS AN EMERGENCY TO KEEP FROM SHUTTING DOWN THE COLLEGE, WHICH IS WHERE WE RISK ON THIS.
WE UICKLY GOT IN AND WORKED WITH THE FIRE MARSHALS.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE IDEA THAT JULY 6TH OF 2018, WE FIND OUT THERE IS A PROBLEM.
AND THEN THERE IS THIS ADD ON, ADD ON, ADD ON, AND THEN WE AS BOARD MEMBERS JUST FIND OUT ABOUT IT TODAY?
>> ACTUALLY, ART OF THESE PROJECTS WERE ALREADY IMPROVED AND IN THE FACILITY IMPROVEMENT -- OR WAS IN THE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE PLAN.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS WHEN THEY CAME OUT IN JANUARY AND MET WITH US AND THEY FOUND OUT THE PROBLEM WAS THERE.
BUT THAT IS, YES, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET TO THE POINT.
IT'S BEEN A MOVING TARGET TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT WE COULD HAVE TO GET YOU TO APPROVE WHERE WE WERE AT.
SO IT'S BEEN JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS THERE HADN'T BEEN TIME.
[01:35:02]
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: THIS IS A YEAR.
THIS WAS JUST LAST -- THIS WAS JUST LAST JANUARY WHEN THIS -- WHEN WE GOT TO THE POINT OF BEING PUT ON HE --
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: BUT IT STARTED JULY 6, 2018.
THAT IS THE FIRST ENTRY FOR BACKGROUND.
>> THAT IS NOT WHEN -- WE STARTED ON IT.
WE STARTED THE PLANNING OF WHAT WE HAD TO DO.
BUT THE PLANNING FOR THAT, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WAS ALREADY IN THE $86 MILLION DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BUDGET THAT E KNEW WE HAD TO DO SOME, NOT THIS PARTICULAR THING, BUT WE KNEW WE HAD TO DO OME FIRE PREVENTION WORK AT CEDAR VALLEY.
THAT'S WHEN IT ESCALATED AND WE STARTED LOOKING AT THE OTHER THINGS WE HAD TO DO.
>> WE HAVEN'T BEEN INSPECTED IN 14 YEARS BY THE CITY? RIGHT?
>> WHAT IS OUR OWN INTERNAL PROCESS FROM A FACILITIES AND RISK MANAGEMENT --
IT SHOULDN'T BE TOTALLY ON THE CITY TO DO THAT.
THAT PIECE IS ON US FOR NOT HAVING RECOGNIZED THAT, DONE OUR OWN INSPECTIONS AND CHECKED THAT.
>> ACTUALLY, WE HAVE A FIRM THAT DOES THIS.
AND WE'RE REVIEWING WHO WE'RE USING AND WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO CHANGE THE FIRM.
THIS TYPE OF SITUATION IS NOT HAPPENED ELSEWHERE.
BUT IT'S ENOUGH EGG ON OUR FACE, QUITE FRANKLY, WE'RE LOOKING AT WHO ALL DO WE NEED TO DO THIS.
PLUS, WHAT INTERNAL THINGS DO WE NEED TO DO IN HOUSE FOR CHECKING CERTAIN THINGS AND NOT RELY ON EVERYBODY ELSE.
IT'S NOT BEEN MY EXPERIENCE TO LET THE FIRE MARSHAL TO TELL YOU A DEFICIENCY.
>> CAN YOU GIVE AN UPDATE IN THE NEXT MONTH ON OUR APPROACH TO EVERYBODY IN THE DISTRICT WHERE WE HAVE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A SAFE ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'RE DOING THE NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND ENSURING WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: IT FITS IN WITH SAFETY AND ECURITY, DOESN'T IT?
>> RISK MANAGEMENT RESPONDED TO THIS SITUATION AND DEVELOPED A PLAN FOR INSPECTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: WHEN ARE WE GOING TO HIRE THE PROTECTION ENGINEER?
>> ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE DONE IS USED OUTSIDE PEOPLE, CONSULTANTS, LIKE ICONIC TO DO SOME OF THE THINGS, WE'RE STILL WORKING WITH HE CITY TO DETERMINE THE FINAL PLAN FOR THIS.
THIS IS WHERE IT IS AS IT STANDS TODAY.
AND IT IS AN ONGOING PROCESS WITH THE CITY.
>> C. COMPTON: WHAT KIND OF COMPANIES ICONIC CONSULTANT? ENGINEERING?
>> THEY ARE AN ENGINEERING FIRM THAT WE WORKED WITH ROUTINELY.
THEY HAVE MECHANICAL PLUMBING ENGINEERS AND FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERS ON TAFF.
>> C. COMPTON: IN TERMS OF, I WAS LOOKING AT THIS AND THEY ARE GETTING 134 -- 135,000 IN CULTURE FEES.
ICONIC IS HIRED GREAT SOUTHWEST FIRE PROTECTION, WHO IS THE CONTRACTOR.
SO THE CONTRACTOR IS A SUB TO ICONIC.
THESE VALUES YOU ARE LOOKING AT ARE ACTUAL INSTALLATION AND RENOVATION OF THE FIRE SYSTEM.
>> C. COMPTON: GRACE IS A MINORITY ON BUSINESSES.
>> C. COMPTON: DID YOU CONSIDER ANY CONTRACTS TO MINORITY FIRMS? I THINK [INDISCERNIBLE] IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
>> I WAS NOT INVOLVED ON THIS SELECTION, I WILL DOUBLE CHECK.
>> C. COMPTON: PUT IT IN THEIR HANDS AND TELL ME TO DO WHATEVER.
DID WE PUT REQUIREMENTS ON THEM?
>> EMERGENCY, WE CONSIDER THIS AN EMERGENCY SITUATION AND TO RESPOND TO WORK WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL AND THE CITY OF DALLAS.
>> C. COMPTON: IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR A PRETTY GOOD WHILE.
SO MY QUESTION REMAINS: DID WE PUT ANY REQUIREMENTS ON THEM OR ASK THEM TO --
>> WE ONLY RECENTLY STARTED THAT.
THAT'S NOW A PROCEDURE IN PROCUREMENT AND FACILITIES LOOKING AT MINORITY FIRMS. WE HAVE STARTED THAT PROCESS.
>> C. COMPTON: HAS ICONIC HAD ANY MINORITY PARTICIPATION?
[01:40:02]
>> C. COMPTON: YOU SAY WE HAVE AN ONGOING RELATIONSHIP.
>> WE HAVE WORKED WITH THEM IN THE PAST.
>> C. COMPTON: I UNDERSTAND THAT, SHARON.
BUT I'M ASKING, SINCE THIS IS AN ENGINEERING FIRM, WHICH IS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, DO WE EVER ASK THEM ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE EVER WORKED WITH ANY MINORITY CONTRACTORS OR COMPANIES?
>> I CANNOT CONSIDER THAT RIGHT NOW.
>> C. COMPTON: I WOULD LIKE AN ANSWER, THANK YOU.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: ON THE FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER, ARE THEY GOING TO BE CONTRACTED JUST FOR CEDAR VALLEY OR TO DO AN AUDIT OF THE WHOLE DISTRICT?
>> REGARDING THE AST PART OF THE BACKGROUND, HIRED UNDER THE FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
RIGHT NOW OUR SELECTION IS READ FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING, THAT'S ALL THEY DO.
THEY ARE A MINORITY-OWNED IRM.
THEY ARE GOING TO DO A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF CEDAR VALLEY ONLY AT THIS OINT.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: WOULD IT BE BENEFICIAL, IT WOULD BE COSTLY BUT WOULD IT BE BENEFICIAL LIKE WE HAD THE SAFETY AND SECURITY AUDIT TO HAVE THIS TYPE OF AUDIT OF ALL OF OUR BUILDINGS?
ONE, F.M. GLOBAL OUR PROPERTY ENSURING SENDS ENGINEERS TO LOOK FOR POTENTIAL REAS.
WE CONTRACT LIKE WITH ELEVATORRERS, WE HAVE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO FIND THESE ISSUES WHEN SO THAT WE'RE NOT FINDING OUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
THIS WAS PRETTY MUCH A PERFECT STORM THAT JUST WENT WRONG.
AND WE'RE MAKING CHANGE TODAY MAKE SURE THIS KIND OF STUFF DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN AND THINGS ARE IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE BUT IT IS DONE AND ALSO WE HAVE OUR OWN PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING AT IT.
PART OF THE SILVER LINING FROM MY STANDPOINT IS WORKING WITH THE CITY FIRE MARSHAL THAT OUR HYDRANTS WE HAVE ARE CONSIDERED PRIVATE HYDRANTS.
THEY HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT OF THE INSPECTION PROCESS.
CITY WON'T DO THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THEIRS.
WE HAVE TO PUT IN PLACE ON OUR MAINTENANCE SYSTEM THAT WE FLOOD THE STREETS FOR THE KIDS.
AND CHECK TO MAKE SURE THE FIRE HYDRANTS WORK AND THEY ARE AVAILABLE.
THOSE ARE SOME THINGS I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT IN MY LIFE BECAUSE I'VE BEEN USED TO HAVING A CITY WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FIRE HYDRANTSES.
WHEN THEY ARE ON OUR TWO OR 300 ACRES, THEY ARE NOT ANYBODY ELSE'S, THEY ARE OURS.
>> CAN WE PUT OUT A FIRE RIGHT NOW?
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: THAT WE KNOW OF.
>> THE BUILDING CONTINUES -- [CHUCKLING]
>> WE RECENTLY UPGRADED THE FIRE DETECTION SYSTEM.
IT'S MORE UP-TO-DATE AND DETAILED INFORMATION.
AND TYING TYING THOSE TWO TOGET.
[5. Executive Session (if required)]
[INDISCERNIBLE] ENGINEERING FIRM.>> CHANCELLOR MAY: WE HAVE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.