Planning, Review and
Budget Council
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Room 405, bld. 400
3:00-4:00 PM
Minutes
Attendees:
Yvonne Wu-Craig, Steve Stevenson, Erienne Rivera, Brandon Chavira, Carla Walter,
Carolyn Arnold, Laura Alarcon, Deonne Kunkel, Jim Matthews and Noell Adams,
President Sperling
Minute Taker:
Christine Herrera
Welcome and Approval of February 3rd Minutes
 Minutes from the February 3rd meeting were approved by consensus
Bond Measure



Dr. Arnold explained what the Score card is for community colleges,
“measures of success” of each college, numbers can be found on our
website, there are many numbers for all the different measures of
success
President Sperling reviewed the key findings of a survey conducted by
consulting firm that was presented to the board of trustees
o Survey Methodology – telephone interviews with voters asking
how likely they would be to cast ballots in June 2016 verses
November 2016. Survey conducted Jan, 25th thru Feb 2nd, 2016
o Key Findings – voters are optimistic, 75% of June, 2016 voters say
they would vote ‘yes’ and 78% of November, 2016 voters say they
would vote ‘yes’, positive nature of results is the highest
consulting firm has ever seen
o Three quarters of June voters support the bond measure
o Several bonds are scheduled to be on the November ballot which
is why the decision to place our bond measure on the June ballot
to have a much better chance to pass
How are we going to most affectively work as a community to assess and
to plan for the best use of these funds







Master Plan revised in 2012, what is still needed from 2006, we want to
talk about how best as a college community to plan around a revision,
what will be our work communities role in the campaign
Another College Forum is scheduled for March for more conversation
Beginning list in the Educational Master Plan as a starting place of needs
What are the limitations and guidelines from Facilities before the plan is
rolled out
The funds should be allocated to meet pressing needs on campuses not
“split” 50/50
What is the timeframe
Identify big ticket items that will be used for the campaign
o Re-tooling the way our campus services the community in
relations to Pathway development, we have industry sectors
across the campus that are beginning to be recognized in our
service area, example Biology building is not just about the
Biology building its about Allied Health pathway which services
our sectors. Technology and math we are working to reduce the
time that it takes students to obtain an education in a reasonable
amount of time by meeting those specific needs, for example the
amount of time to get through math there are some things
related to facilities. We are not able to move students through
any kind of pathway for lack of facilities. This all can be couched
in connecting the college to the high school and to our community
and in order to do that we need infrastructure to do this
o Great way to educate the community as to what we are doing
o Great way of capturing the need of the college
o Suggestions from College Forum:
 Mid-size and large lecture spaces
 Mid-size performance spaces
 Loss of 600 Building – 200 lecture hall
 Planning around cost of ownership, how to maintain
 Parking spaces
 Solar panels, less electric used
 Charging stations
 Virtual Tour of the campus
 Need to be a 21st Century College
 More Computer labs and study areas
o Where does the planning timeline start? Does it begin with the
Facilities committee or maybe an expanded planning process
o
o
o
o
beyond Facilities committee meetings, need to include students.
Do community members get invited to be part of the planning?
Suggestion to have Facilities Committee be the coordinating body
of the planning work to organize the discussion within the
divisions. Facilities should not be the deciding body, they are
more of an implementing and recommending body
Suggestion to have PRBC to come up with outcomes that will drive
the enrollment and completion of our students
To increase enrollment we need more classrooms
Need a vision how we are going to link this to our planning, how
to distribute the funds according to our goals and objectives and
our strategic plan
PRBC Chair?
 What are we going to do this semester with PRBC? Still need to do business
 Ken Grace showed interest in taking on the Program Review/Curricunet portion of
PRBC and Laura Alarcon offered to facilitate meetings
 If PRBC is going to take on an active role in discussions of moving this along within
the framework of our strategic plan this will be a major sharing of responsibilities
 No one volunteered for the more in-depth configuration of preparing the materials
which is more than facilitating meetings
 Review of the minutes from February 3rd meeting needs for this semester:
o Shared Governance Proposal (One Meeting)
o Strategic Plan Goal and Strategic Plan Initiatives (One Meeting –Update and
vote)
o Evaluate and set Institutional Effectiveness Indicators (One Meeting)
o Adding Facilities Planning to a meeting
o Carolyn Arnold will be bringing in all the materials for the Institutional
Effectiveness Indicators and also the materials for the Strategic Plan Goal and
Strategic Plan Initiatives
 Laura Alarcon wanted to clarify her role for PRBC, she feels PRBC is a very important
committee and feels it is very important for PRBC to meet, she reached out and
offered to facilitate some meetings to keep the conversations continuing. Also
offered to represent PRBC at other meetings that PRBC should be a part of
 The role of this committee has expanded
 Suggestion to rotate the tasks, looking at the list of agenda items for the next four to
five meetings there are certain people facilitating the meetings
o Shared Governance Laurie Dockter would be the lead
o Institutional Effectiveness Indicators Carolyn Arnold would be the lead










o Carolyn Arnold volunteered to frame the meeting for Strategic Plan Goal and
Strategic Plan Initiatives, Deonne stated that this would be just a vote
because the initiatives have already been updated and presentations have
already taken place
o PRBC’s facilities role needs to be clarified, if we are giving the suggestions
that these criteria be taken into consideration then it would not be much
difference then what PRBC did for the Educational Master plan and to inform
classified prioritization, PRBC does not make the final decision but we rank as
highest priority to take into consideration based on the strategic plan,
program reviews and educational master plan, we handoff to senior
administration and say this is our strategic plan goal and ask to be mindful.
PRBC is a big part of planning and this is a planning task.
Proposal to accept Ken Grace and Professor Alarcon’s appointment was approved by
consensus.
Facilities plan details do not need be done until after bond passes
What are we going to advertise to the community
Need to determine what needs to be done at the next meeting March 16th:
o Strategic Plan Goal and Strategic Plan Initiatives – Update & Vote
o Institutional Standards Indicators for Accreditation and Standards for the
state, needs to be submitted by March 30th – Jim Matthews will present
Suggestion to draft a statement about facilities to give to President Sperling for
College Council agenda and as the ideas, suggestions and priorities build from the
conversation this will be the guiding framework that will have been adopted by
College Council to move the process forward
Yvonne Wu Craig volunteered to draft statement but asked before sending
statement to College Council would we want to have a dialogue with the Facilities
committee? To remain collegial we should send to VP Kritscher, Nate Moore and
Mark Stephens to place on agenda for Facilities next meeting. Suggestion to have
PRBC representative at the Facilities meeting on Thursday, March 10th at 12:00
Laura Alarcon will send information to the Facilities tri-chairs
Request to have Mark Stephens attend the next PRBC meeting to be part of the
facilities discussion
Suggestion to have the draft statement be also sent to Laurie Dockter
Professor Alarcon clarified the wording for the email she will be sending to PRBC
members, VP Kritscher, Nate Moore, Mark Stephens and Laura Dockter:
o PRBC has been encouraged to draft a statement that could guide the
development of facilities based on the approval of the bond measure. We
have been entrusted with this function and will begin this conversation via
email due to time restraints and as the integrated planning body, to connect

the facilities plan to college-wide integrated planning needs related to
strategic plan goal and educational master plan
Draft facilities statement to be sent out for feedback by March 9th
Meeting Adjourned @ 4:20 p.m.