In March, 2018, Pima Community College’s Board majority approved a 2% increase in the primary property tax rate—the maximum allowable by statute. In addition, the Board approved: a $1.00 per credit hour increase in tuition, which follows last year’s $3.00 increase; a 2.75% credit-card transaction fee on students; and a 2.5% salary increase. Approximately 100 full-time positions were eliminated over the past year. And, employees were informed that 50-plus positions will be eliminated in 2019.
I disagree with some of the College administration’s recommendations. As four of PCC’s six campuses are in my District, I have an obligation to transparent governance by informing taxpayers about the use of their tax dollars.
Over the past seven years, PCC lost the equivalent of approximately 8,127 full-time students, a decline of 35.5%. PCC’s policies are in part responsible for the decline in enrollment. Enrollment increased by 1.5% (FTSE) this academic year; at this rate, it will take a very long time to regain lost enrollments.
The 2016 Educational Master Plan recommended eliminating programs and creating Centers of Excellence at a cost of some $137 million (now $156 million). These Centers will require modification and construction of facilities. The Centers presuppose an enrollment of 17,000 full-time student equivalents. Currently, we are 2,300 FTSE short of that projection. As a result, the current campuses are grossly under-utilized.
The Centers are proposed to be financed by a General Revenue Bond rather than a General Obligation Bond. A General Revenue Bond does not assess a secondary property tax, nor does it require taxpayer approval. This appears to benefit taxpayers because the debt service is paid by general revenues raised in part by higher student tuition, fees, and primary property taxes. However, since the College is not required to make its case before the public for approval to spend General Revenue Bond funds, most taxpayers are probably unaware that the debt service on the bonds will be paid by their primary property tax dollars. These revenues typically provide direct instructional support as well as support to students, faculty and staff. Instead, these revenues will now go towards retiring the debt service on bonds ($4.6 million in the first year).
The Board must explore all options to meet their fiduciary responsibilities, including saving jobs. Among them are: delaying the Revenue Bond for at least one year; limiting employee increases to 2%; for staff with annual salaries of $80K or greater, adopting a tiered, percentage-based salary reduction formula. The pain emanating from the loss of enrollment and revenues must be shared equally. The Board should fully explore the possibility of selling or leasing property. The District Offices, sited on valuable commercial property, should close; the buildings should be sold or leased and the staff relocated to campuses. As a last resort, seek taxpayer approval for a budget override.
I ask if it is fair to punish students, employees, and taxpayers for unwise management decisions made over the past seven years. The Chancellor’s justification for staff reductions when he and other senior administrators are not willing to sacrifice is not credible. I cannot support wage increases on one end while at the other end dismissing employees. I cannot justify using General Revenue Bonds for new facilities when enrollments are significantly below projection. Time is needed to ensure that the Board’s fiduciary duty is not at odds with the pursuit of creative educational services.
Luis A. Gonzales is a former State Senator, City Manager, and currently member of the PCC Governing Board representing District 5. Contact Luis at lagonzales6@pima.edu